|
|
By Jeff, on February 2nd, 2011%
For those who don’t know, the GAGOP is locked in a fairly heated campaign for its Chairmanship pitting the 2 term incumbent Sue Everhart against the new Governor’s pick Tricia Pridemore against the recent Chairman of the Fulton County GOP Shawn Hanley in a Triple Threat Match to be decided in Macon in May.
I have no intention of writing about it that much – if at all, beyond this post. Quite frankly, while I have my personal opinion and a different strategic opinion, I choose to keep my mouth shut there, and the topic isn’t THAT interesting to me to begin with.
But I do have some information that I haven’t seen published anywhere yet, so I’ll put it out there so the GOP can do with it as they wish.
For some people, voting records matter. For those people, here are the voting records of the three candidates, as far back in SoS records as I was able to acquire them (1996). Note that I have been told – but have not seen the record – that Sue Everhart voted in the Democratic Primary in 1990. My immediate comment to that source was “In 1990, the current Republican Governor was then the Democratic State Senate President Pro Tempore.” In other words, I personally think that amounts to even less than most of this other stuff. Regardless, without further ado, here are the records:
[See The Records]
By Jeff, on February 2nd, 2011%
Yesterday, I wrote about a situation that occurred Monday where Rep Bobby Franklin accused Speaker Ralston of an unconstitutional action.
Apparently, there is some precedent there.
The time was 2008, the last Session before I began actively tracking things in Jan 2009 (hard to believe this site has existed for two years now, huh?). Governor Perdue had vetoed 12 bills, and the House had just overridden those vetoes. At least one of the 12 was a tax cut, from what I have been told.
When they came to the Senate, Lt Governor Cagle assigned those veto overrides to the Senate Rules Committee – a mirror image move to what Speaker Ralston did Monday. Apparently, this was at least one cause of much of the strife that came to dominate relations inside the Gold Dome in that era. From what I am told, then-Speaker Richardson actually stepped down from the Speaker’s seat, took to the well (where speeches are given), and spent quite a bit of time berating Cagle over this issue. Former State Rep Ron Forrester even went so far as to draft an impeachment resolution against Cagle, that went nowhere.
But the overall point here is that this HAS, in fact, happened before – and fairly recently. For more information, please check these posts from that era from Georgia Legislative Watch:
House overrides vetoes; clashes with Georgia Senate [UPDATED]
From Lawmakers last night
Impeachment?
Impeachment? Part 2
About Those Veto Overrides
Impeachment Resolution
By Jeff, on February 2nd, 2011%
for forgetting their wallet or having it stolen???
Here’s what went down yesterday afternoon beginning at about 5:35pm on live radio in Atlanta:
Yesterday afternoon, LP-Georgia Executive Director did a live interview with Rusty Humphries, the new local talk show host on AM 640 WGST in Atlanta regarding the LP response to HB 87. You can listen to the entire roughly 10 minute interview here.
Couple of points I want to make here:
1) Right off, Rusty says he was “surprised” that the LP-Ga thinks HB 87 will bankrupt Georgia. Clearly, the man hasn’t thought through the entire implications of the bill.
2) Brett makes the case beautifully early on that the problem of illegal immigration is not the illegals – it is the Welfare State. Rusty promptly admits that “we don’t need to grow the size of government”, then proceeds to defend a bill that grows the size of government.
3) Right about the 1:40 mark, Rusty essentially says that he doesn’t mind government officials asking anyone about their immigration status, regardless of whether they have probable cause to even speak to the private citizen. More on that in a few moments.
4) Starting about the 2:00 mark, Brett makes great points about the concrete costs of training for this bill, then comes back to the Welfare State.
5) At 2:30, Rusty begins to show how boneheaded he is.
6) Brett comes out with concrete numbers again, this time about the projected costs of having to train the entire law enforcement apparatus of 159 Sheriffs in Georgia as well as approximately 400 City Police Departments before moving into the costs of actual detention.
7) Rusty asks Brett what we should do, and when Brett responds that the Feds should craft a policy that works for everyone, Rusty interjects with “But they’re not going to!”
 Brett then points out that the politicians have actively worked to divide us so that the issue is either pro-amnesty or pro-deportation, when the reality is that neither of those solutions works for everyone. Again brings up politicians’ unwillingness to do anything about the Welfare State.
9) Rusty seems to think that the Libertarian Party is all about “states’ rights”, even though it was a GOPer who ran on that platform in last year’s Primary. Brett points out that the LP believes in the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. He doesn’t mention that this includes the right of due process and protections against government searching or questioning private citizens without probable cause.
10) Brett then correctly points out that labor is an aspect of the free market, and HB 87 is a massive intervention of government into the market. I should point out here that in that regard, HB 87 is EXACTLY like Obamacare, which the GOP constantly rails against.
11) When Rusty tries to say that Americans would take the jobs illegal immigrants leave behind if booted out, Brett points to an onion processing plant in Vidalia that is operating at only about 40% capacity because it can’t hire enough people.
12) Here’s where it really starts to get good: at the 5:45 mark, Rusty complains about the “good jobs” taken by illegal immigrants. Such as sweeping the lot at a movie theater. Brett responds that he lives in a very diverse community in Cobb, with many hispanics, and he doesn’t see that on the ground. But let’s get back to the “good jobs” comment. Apparently Rusty thinks that a “good job” is a minimum wage job where you can’t even support yourself – much less a family. Yet he’s a talk radio host probably making considerably more than minimum wage. Go figure.
13) At the 6:55 mark, Rusty says “there’s a lot of people” who would take the low skill jobs in manufacturing, poultry, and agriculture. He doesn’t seem to realize that those people would absolutely NOT take the job for the same pay that the immigrant would. I put the question to each of you: Would you really do the back breaking work of picking peanuts all day in the South Georgia summer, where temps can easily hit the high 90s with an equal level of humidity, for MAYBE $4/hr? And with ZERO benefits? In other words, Rusty steps right off the wagon here, and smack dab into looney tune land. But its about to get much worse…
14) At the 8:02 mark, when Brett is explaining that anyone who so much as leaves their wallet at home is subject, under HB 87, to being arrested and detained in prison indefinitely, Rusty interjects with “Yep, yep. Have no problem with that.”
WHAT?????
Rusty Humphries, who days earlier had given a MUCH easier interview to HB 87′s sponsor Matt Ramsey and is CLEARLY a supporter of the bill, just admitted that he believes that American Citizens should be detained by their government indefinitely for the “crime” of forgetting their wallet at home? Or – God forbid – having their wallet STOLEN?
Apparently, supporters of this bill have NO problem shredding the Constitution. No surprise, but to have it so blatantly admitted was admittedly rather shocking.
By Jeff, on February 1st, 2011%
Per this AJC article, yesterday Bobby Franklin made his yearly hara kiri. As he has done at least one other time since I have been watching, in addition to at least once between 2004 and 2008, he made one of the most dangerous and least successful parliamentary moves available – he challenged the ruling of the Chair (Speaker Ralston).
GPB doesn’t have video archives yet this Session, but here’s what went down, so best as I have determined so far:
Last year, both the House and the Senate passed SB 1, Senator David Shafer’s Zero Based Budget Act. After the Session was over, Governor Perdue vetoed this bill.
Last week, in a VERY rare move, the Senate voted to override that veto, and did so unanimously, 52-0-6. They only needed a 2/3 majority, or 38 votes (there are currently 36 GOP Senators).
That same day, upon learning of the Senate’s veto override, Speaker Ralston let it be known that the House would not take the measure up, but would instead push its own ZBB measure, Rep Steven Allison’s HB 33.
Yesterday, the House got the veto override, and apparently th Speaker assigned it to the Rules Committee. I don’t know exactly what transpired next, but it ended with Rep Franklin making an EXTREMELY politically boneheaded move – the aforementioned challenging of the ruling of the Chair.
Here’s the problem:
Per Article III Section V Section XIII(d) of the Ga Constitution (emphases mine):
During sessions of the General Assembly, any vetoed bill or resolution may upon receipt be immediately considered by the house wherein it originated for the purpose of overriding the veto. If two-thirds of the members to which such house is entitled vote to override the veto of the Governor, the same shall be immediately transmitted to the other house where it shall be immediately considered. Upon the vote to override the veto by two-thirds of the members to which such other house is entitled, such bill or resolution shall become law. All bills and resolutions vetoed during the last three days of the session and not considered for the purpose of overriding the veto and all bills and resolutions vetoed after the General Assembly has adjourned sine die may be considered at the next session of the General Assembly for the purpose of overriding the veto in the manner herein provided. If either house shall fail to override the Governor’s veto, neither house shall again consider such bill or resolution for the purpose of overriding such veto.
In other words, per the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Rep Franklin was absolutely technically correct in challenging the rule of the Chair, if a political idiot.
And the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives has apparently violated the Constitution of the State of Georgia.
Like it or not, Bobby Franklin was (technically) absolutely correct.
By Jeff, on January 27th, 2011%
Yesterday, the House Press Office released a press release from State Rep Matt Ramsey about an immigration bill he was about to drop. Before we even saw the bill, based on nothing more than the press release, both Jason Pye and Jim Galloway came out against this thing knowing it would be horrible.
In his update, Jason points to Supreme Court decisions that block one part of HB 87, as it is now officially known, specifically lines 216-229:
16-11-202.
217 (a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘illegal alien’ means a person who has come to,
218 entered, or remains in the United States in violation of federal law.
219 (b) A person who encourages, entices, or induces an illegal alien to enter into this state,
220 where such person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such person being
221 encouraged, enticed, or induced to enter into this state is an illegal alien, shall be guilty of
222 the offense of encouraging an illegal alien to enter into this state.
223 (c) For a first offense, a person convicted of encouraging an illegal alien to enter into this
224 state shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by
225 a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both. For a
226 second or subsequent conviction of encouraging an illegal alien to enter into this state, a
227 person shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine
228 of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $20,000.00 or by imprisonment of not less than one
229 or more than five years, or both.”
But there’s more to this bill – much more. It truly is a Bobby Franklin bill on Steroids, so let’s back up and explain why.
Continue reading UPDATED: A Bobby Franklin Bill On Steroids
By Jeff, on January 26th, 2011%
Last year, State Rep Allen Peake (R-Macon) was one of the primary driving forces in the effort to get the “evil scourge” of texting while driving banned, even though we already had distracted driving laws on the books that applied to the situation.
Roughly 9 months after being passed and more than 6 months after being in effect, cops are reporting that “it’s difficult to enforce the no-texting law” and that in at least some jurisdictions in Middle Georgia – including both Houston and Bibb Counties – few, if any, citations or even warnings have been issued. Note that Bibb County is where part of Allen Peake’s own district lies.
And yet we now have three Democrats – Rahn Mayo of Atlanta, Mickey Stephens and Craig Gordon of Savannah, that have introduced HB 67 because they don’t think fellow (may as well be, due to his NannyStatism) Democrat Allen Peake went far enough. HB 67 is their effort to mandate that hands free devices be used when talking on cell phones in cars.
Here’s Rep Peake’s problem: their logic is simply the next logical step of his own. After all, if Government Our Savior must protect us from the “evil scourge” of texting while driving, should it not also protect us from the “evil scourge” of even holding a cell phone while driving?
Because Rep Peake was so adamant in pushing for the texting ban, he has lost all moral authority in saying that we should not also pass this mandate, as again: this mandate is simply the next logical step.
Oh, and the vast majority of those in the Assembly, both Democrat and Democrat Republican, are no better. Of the four votes on the texting while driving ban last year (the bill that eventually passed), there was not a SINGLE ‘NAY’ vote in the two votes in the Senate, and only 19 consistent ‘Nay’ votes in the two votes in the House. (The second House vote picked up an additional 5 Nay votes.)
Because these 11 current State Reps were consistent in defending this aspect of individual liberty and responsibility, I’d like to publicly commend them and list their names here. Much kudos to each of the following:
Stephen Allison
Tim Bearden
Charlice Byrd
Bobby Franklin
Michael Harden
Mark Hatfield
Billy Horne
Sean Jerguson
Tom McCall
Jay Roberts
Martin Scott
So we already see some of the Hell Alan Peake and his fellow Nanny Statists have wrought – of 236 legislators (the vast majority of whom where in the Assembly this time last year), only 11 (plus the Freshmen) have any moral authority whatsoever to block HB 67. Any of the rest who block this bill or vote against it show their hypocrisy – and honestly, I would MUCH rather have hypocrites here than have this bill see the light of day on Governor Deal’s desk.
But what is one next logical step beyond HB 67? Well, I don’t want to give Rep Peake any ideas, but his colleagues in Arkansas and New York are now trying to ban both texting while walking and having earphones while walking.
See, wouldn’t it simply be so much easier to leave these issues alone and prosecute people who actually harm another person?
By Jeff, on January 18th, 2011%
Well, not exactly nothing, but the AJC article that has been lighting up my twitter and Facebook streams today dances around the issue.
In it, AJC’s James Salzer basically writes what is most accurately called a “hit piece” – and yes, I fully admit I’ve been known to write a few of those as well.
Mr. Salzer builds a slanted story about how “evil” the General Assembly has been for several years now because they don’t use “user fees” that were intended for some “trust fund” or another for the purpose for which they are supposedly collected. In particular, the article mentioned pre paid cell phone fees that were supposed to fund 911 enhancements, as well as trash fees that were apparently supposed to go to used tire clean up.
The article says “Lawmakers say it would take a constitutional amendment to dedicate the money.” – and in that regard, the article (well, actually the Lawmakers in question) actually managed to get something perfectly correct.
You see, while many people in my stream – including State Representative Sistie Hudson (D-Sparta) – have been decrying these fees being used as part of the State’s General Fund, the Georgia Constitution has this to say about the issue, in Article 7, Section 3, Paragraph 2(a) (emphasis mine):
Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all revenue collected from taxes, fees, and assessments for state purposes, as authorized by revenue measures enacted by the General Assembly, shall be paid into the general fund of the state treasury.
Yep – the Legislators were perfectly correct. To actually dedicate the funds from a “user fee” to a particular cause, a Constitutional Amendment proposal has to clear the Assembly (by a 2/3 vote of each chamber), get the Governor’s signature, and then be approved by a majority of the voters every two years.
Now, decrying the legislators’ lack of honesty when spinning these “user fees” is perfectly appropriate, and in fact I encourage it. The article was perfectly correct in calling these “user fees” as what they very accurately are – backdoor tax increases, which is why I have been adamant in my opposition to them and have even taken heat among my Libertarian brethren over it.
But to be upset because the fees aren’t going to their “intended” source simply shows ignorance, whether intentional or not, and which has hopefully been corrected here.
To try to spin these bills as anything other than tax increases is simply arrogance and outright lying.
To write a “news” article about this issue and not know about this clause in the Georgia Constitution is simply ignorance and lazy journalism at its worst, and from the “premier” newspaper of this State.
And to write a “news” article about this issue knowing about this clause in the Georgia Constitution and writing this article in this manner anyway is arrogance run amok, and shoddy journalism to boot.
And to be a sitting member of the General Assembly who apparently does not know this clause and who uses this hit piece in a desperate attempt to hurt the opposition party? Wow. Simply wow.
UPDATE: Re-reading, I do come across stronger than intended against Mr. Salzer. In truth, he is typically a solid journalist who reliably covers the Gold Dome – and that is exactly the reason I felt I at least needed to point out that this particular piece wasn’t up to his normally solid standards.
By Jeff, on January 11th, 2011%
Earlier today, the AJC’s James Salzer came out with a report with the headline “GOP ends year with massive cash advantage”.
The report contained this little nugget:
The party reports followed the trend of much of the past decade: the state GOP raises more money and has more money in the bank most years.
Allow me to explain that little nugget, or at least one component of it, and tie it to the title I chose for this post:
I believe most people would agree with me that the GOP has clearly been running a LOT of candidates over the past decade. Indeed, within the past decade, the GOP has taken over the State Senate, the State House, every Statewide Constitutional Office, and – I believe – a majority of partisan local elected offices. You don’t do that without running at least that many candidates, and the GOP has had candidates that have lost their elections, leaving a Democrat in office (or, in rare circumstances this decade, allowing a Democrat to replace the Republican).
Why is this significant?
Because if you dive into Chapter 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and examine Chapter 2, Article 131, you will find that per subsections (b) and (c) of this code section, at least 50% of a candidate’s qualifying fees to right back to the Party they qualified with. In other words, let’s say the filing fee for Governor is $5,000 – which is fairly close. That means that for every Governor candidate that files to run as a Republican, the Republican Party of Georgia gets a $2,500 kickback. Similarly, if the qualifying fee for County Commissioner is $200 (and I have no idea what the fees are at that level, just throwing out a number), for every single candidate that decides to run for County Commission as a Republican, the local Republican Party gets a $100 kickback.
The remaining 50% goes to the appropriate elections supervisor “to be applied to the cost of holding the election”.
Right now we’re under a MASSIVE budget crunch – $1.2 BILLION, at a low end, at the State level alone. And yet we allow the political parties of this State to treat something so important as an election as nothing more than a fundraiser for themselves, even though it is costing both State and local offices MILLIONS of dollars to run these elections?
My friends, this should not be!
I have written this bill in an attempt to correct this wrong. You’ll notice that ALL this bill does is direct that 100% of the filing fees paid by candidates go to the appropriate elections supervisor to pay for the cost of the election. This means that when this bill passes, two things will happen:
1) Elections supervisors – including the Secretary of State’s office – will have twice as much money coming in from candidate filing fees, which means their budgets can be reduced by a corresponding amount from the general budgets of the appropriate governing body. This will save the State at LEAST $50,000 every four years in Statewide candidate filing fees alone – and that is assuming that only one Party submits a candidate in each of those ten races. A more likely number for Secretary of State’s office savings can be conservatively calculated as follows:
There are 238 members of the General Assembly, each with a 2 year term and a $400 filing fee. This means $800 over 4 years, and even assuming that every single candidate runs unopposed, that is $800 x 238 = $190,400.
A conservative estimate for the average Statewide office filing fee is $2,500. There are the following offices: 5 PSC Commissioners, Governor, Lt Governor, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Schools, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Agriculture Commissioner, Labor Commissioner. 13 x $2500 = $32,500
I’m not sure how US Congress/US Senate races fit in here, so for a conservative estimate I will not include them.
Even without DC-based elected offices, we have a conservative estimate of $222,900 over 4 years, or $55,725 per year – and remember, this is double the current amount.
2) No longer could political parties use the single most important aspect of being an American citizen as a fundraiser to further their own private agendas. No longer would a candidate running on a platform of reforming his Party be forced to pay a kickback to the very Establishment he is seeking to overturn. No longer would a Party be tainted by accepting the money of a candidate it didn’t really like to begin with.
No longer would our elections be sold.
By Jeff, on January 10th, 2011%
via the Americans for Tax Reform:
Today Americans for Tax Reform announced that a vote in favor of the recommendations of the 2010 Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians would violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, as it constitutes a net tax increase. 55 Georgia lawmakers, including Governor Nathan Deal, House Speaker David Ralston, and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers have signed the Pledge, a written promise to constituents to oppose and vote against or veto all tax increases.
While the Council proposes some pro-growth reforms, such as the gradual reduction of personal and corporate income tax rates, they are more than offset with net tax increases. The income tax reductions amount to roughly $750 million in savings for Georgians, but tax increases on groceries, tobacco, communications services, the Internet and other services approach $2 billion. ATR believes that tax reform is a noble goal, but not when it constitutes a net revenue increase for state government.
ATR President Grover Norquist issued the following statement:
“In its current form, last week’s tax reform proposal should be a non-starter for fiscal conservatives in the Georgia Legislature. While tax reform is indeed a laudable goal, it should not be presented in a way that increases the net burden on taxpayers and raises even more money for state government. Unfortunately, this report recommends just that.
“A significant reduction in marginal tax rates is long overdue in Georgia, which is wedged between two states – Tennessee and Florida – that levy no personal income tax at all. But if the goal is to use such reductions to mask bigger tax increases on groceries, tobacco, and a variety of services, it is not even worthy of a conversation.
“This is akin to shards of glass in a delicious crème brûlée. It is a bit of desirable tax reform ruined by an overall tax hike. Thankfully, Taxpayer Protection Pledge signers run state government in Georgia. Because they have taken tax increases definitively off the table, I am confident that we can move past this initial foray into tax reform and begin a serious conversation about reducing the size and scope of state government in Atlanta.”
Signers of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge include:
Governor Nathan Deal
House Speaker David Ralston
House Majority Leader Larry O’Neal
SWGA State Rep Ed Rynders (R-Leesburg)
Senate President Pro-Tem Tommie Williams
Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers
and nearly 60 more members of the Georgia General Assembly. Note that the number of signers alone is not enough to defeat this $1 BILLION tax increase, but the combined influence of at least 4 of the Top 6 positions in the General Assembly is a mighty force indeed, in addition to any support any of the other signers can bring. It should be noted that SWGA State Senator George Hooks openly endorsed “tax reform” from the floor of the Senate shortly after being sworn in today, and as the longest serving State Senator wields a degree of influence in that Chamber. He is NOT a Taxpayer Protection Pledge signer.
Here’s the recommendations from the 2010 Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians.
Here’s the full press release from ATR.
By Jeff, on January 2nd, 2011%
The possibility is the word that even a House Committee Chairman known for being an expert at the “political science” side of politics is now publicly saying.
From the Albany Herald:
As for the elephant in the room that is redistricting, [House Intragovernmental Coordination Chairman State Rep Ed] Rynders [R-Leesburg] said the numbers game does not look good for the southern portion of the state. His latest figures indicate as many as 8,500 people will have to be added to each of the 180 house districts, increasing the population in each from around 45,000 to 53,500.
With an 18 percent population growth in the state, most in and around metro Atlanta, southern influence will decrease in proportion to its rather tepid growth during the past 10 years.
“With the loss of seats, the leadership shift to north Georgia will be significant,” Rynders said. “And while it is human nature to want to ‘take care of your own,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that (north Georgia-based) leadership realizes it can’t survive politically if it takes care only of its own. I know that (House) Speaker (David) Ralston is aware of and committed to the needs of South Georgia.
“I also have no doubts that the redistricting process will be fair, reasonable and meet legal requirements.”
Rynders said that process will most likely include a special called summer session after census data are released in early spring.
Emphasis mine.
|
|
