|
|
By Jeff, on February 5th, 2011
Earlier this week, SB 10, allowing local communities to decide whether or not alcohol can be bought at a store on Sunday, made it through an initial hurdle it had never before been able to get through: It received a vote in Committee, and the Committee voted to favorably recommend the bill. This means it goes to the Rules Committee, where it is expected to be placed on the calendar this week.
The case so far has been somewhat curious all around. The same proposal for at least 2 terms before had been placed in David Shafer’s Regulated Industries Committee, where it was promptly stalled. This Session, Lt Gov Cagle assigned it to the State and Local Government Operations (SLOGO) Committee instead. Another curious aspect is that this particular committee is the only one whose entire leadership – and a majority of its voting members – are Freshmen. Its Chairman, Butch Miller, was sworn in last May – after the 2009-2010 Session was over – after winning a Special Election for the seat when its previous holder left to pursue the vacant 9th Congressional District Seat, which was opened when Nathan Deal resigned from Congress rather than face an ethics investigation in the middle of his run for Governor. Of the 8 Committee members, 5 are Republicans – 4 Freshmen and a Floor Leader for Governor Deal. The other three are (obviously, due to Ga’s draconian ballot access laws) Democrats, including one Freshman.
But the vote for SB 10 in Committee didn’t happen by Party line or even by Experience line. No, the Committee vote for SB 10 was 6-1. I do not know who the holdout was, but I do know who the lone vote AGAINST the bill was: Jim Butterworth (R-Cornelia), Administration Floor Leader for Governor Nathan Deal, who you just saw in the link in the last sentence has said would sign the bill when it reaches his desk.
So this does make a curious case. Why would the Floor Leader for the Governor – as some in the General Assembly have not so nicely put it, the man who agrees to be the “Governor’s bitch” – vote against a bill the Governor has said he would sign?
But the case only gets stranger. On January 28, Mr. Butterworth put the question on his wall asking for feedback: “Tell me what you think: Would you support SB 10, the bill which will allow local governments to decide if they will allow Sunday Alcohol Sales? Please start your response with a Y or N…” (No link, since he put it on his personal page rather than his official page.)
By my calculation, the response was 2-4, 9-3, 7-3, 5-2, 7-2, 7-0 on each of the screen captures below, for a total of 37-14 FOR the measure. (Note that the top response on the last image and the bottom response on the next to last image are the same response, and I counted it on the next to last count.)
So this bill received public feedback nearly 3-1 in favor of SB 10, and he voted against it anyway. A very curious case indeed. Maybe he received much more private response (that I can’t see, obviously) against the bill?
Just as an aside, finishing up this post, I try to friend all of the legislators on FB, as well as follow their official pages. From the response I’ve seen to any who put this question on their pages, it seems that Georgians overwhelmingly support this idea – even in very rural areas such as Mr. Butterworth’s district.
[See the Screen Grabs]
By Jeff, on February 4th, 2011
A couple of days ago, the State Senate Press Office released a press release from new State Senator (and former State Representative) Buddy Carter saying that he was introducing a “Patient Safety Act”. The bill has in deed been introduced, and is known as SB 36. It too, as many other bills of importance to the Big Government Party, has a House clone, HB 184.
For the two years that I have actively watched the Assembly, this idea has been proposed and defeated – so often that I now refer to this proposal as the “Zombie Bill” because it just. won’t. die.
Doing some research on it, I actually went back to last Session and read the bills for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Act, both HB 614 that we Georgia political bloggers had a hand in defeating, as well as HB 273 – which happened to have as its primary cosponsor one State Rep Buddy Carter and which never made it out of Committee. It was also known at the time as SB 248, and even though it had some hefty political backing in the Senate, it never made it out of Committee there. See what I mean about the clone bills and why I refer to this one as the Zombie Bill? We killed this thing three times and it KEEPS coming back!
Couple of points here: In my own reading of each of these five bills, I fail to see any significant difference between them. None. Meaning that the arguments made for the past two years still stand, including this somewhat famous speech by then State Senator Preston Smith on the Floor of the Senate in 2009:
Next, in an email response to some questions about SB 36, Senator Carter says (emphasis mine, as usual):
In response to your questions- yes this is essentially the same bill as the prescription monitoring bill. We are calling it the patient safety act because we feel it better represents the bill and unfortunately, prescription monitoring carries negative connotations for some people.
In other words, Senator Carter openly admits to being deceiving in renaming a bill to ease its passage, claiming “it better represents” a bill nearly exactly identical to the bill previously known as the Prescription Drug Monitoring Act.
For more information about the Prescription Drug Monitoring Act, please see the following links or simply Google the term on your own.
Senators Reintroduce Prescription Drug Monitoring Act
Prescription Drug Database Battle Rages
Georgia Legislature Goes After Your Right to Privacy
Government Database For Cold Remedies Nearer
By Jeff, on February 4th, 2011
Couple of bills I want to draw your attention to this morning, both highlighting in startling clarity that there is ZERO difference, or at least BARE MINIMUM difference, between the “two” major “parties”.
The first is one that I first heard about from this AJC.com piece.
It discusses SB 45, a bill that makes certain property owners (specifically, bars) liable for violent acts that happen on their property. No longer would the individual who perpetrates the violent act be solely responsible for his actions, now Big Brother insists that the bar be the keeper of its patrons.
How does this apply to the Big Government Party? Look at the two sponsors: One Democrat (the Senate Minority Leader), and one Republican (the Majority Whip). Both teaming up to prohibit responsibility for a criminal act from resting solely with the perpetrator of the crime.
Moving on to a case less of teaming up than of proposing only minimally different ideas, let’s look at SB 43 and SB 49.
SB 43 is authored and cosponsored solely by Democrats and expands the minimum schooling age from 6-16 to 5-17. Not wanting to be left very far behind, SB 49 is authored and cosponsored almost completely by Republicans (Jason Carter being the only Democrat among the 6 primary cosponsors) and expands the minimum schooling age from 6-16 to 6-16.5.
As with most other things, these two bills clearly show that “conservatism” as defined by these Republicans is clearly simply a slower version of progressivism as defined by these Democrats.
And yet millions of people in this State somehow think there is any real difference between these “two Parties”?
Give me a break!
If you want REAL differences, and you want to be part of a Party that TRULY supports small government, please join me in the ONLY Party of Principle in this State, the Libertarian Party.
Or is all that talk about “small government” just that – talk?
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 31st, 2011
ATLANTA – Last week, State Representative Matt Ramsey (R-Peachtree City) introduced the “Illegal Immigration Reform Enforcement Act of 2011,” or HB 87. The Libertarian Party of Georgia opposes the bill, citing the huge cost to enforce it even though the General Assembly is tasked with a nearly $2 billion budget crisis. They also say that the bill could have catastrophic effects on the economic well-being of the state, as well as in the lives of its residents if passed.
As proposed, HB 87 would make criminals of many otherwise law abiding Georgians trying to make a living. The bill makes it a criminal offense by merely “encouraging” an illegal immigrant to enter the state. It also allows almost any citizen to bring a lawsuit against any business, local or State government agency or official by just accusing them of violating immigration law. Further, HB 87 burdens every employer doing business in Georgia with using the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system.
“As it is written, this bill will have a tremendous impact on the every day lives of all Georgians and will cost the State quite a bit of money defending it from the several lawsuits already planned,” says Libertarian Party of Georgia Legislative Director Jeff Sexton. “We are calling on Representatives to truly get serious about immigration, and enact genuine reform that respects the rights of all individuals.”
One other aspect troubling the Libertarian Party of Georgia is the provision within that allows law enforcement officers to indefinitely detain anyone unable to provide their driver’s license or other “proof” document. HB 87 allows for anyone forgetting their driver’s license to be jailed even after release would normally be required without probable cause. It also re-introduces the secure and verifiable document issue, something that has landed the state in the courts as a defendant for the way Georgia tried to use it in election law… another action that could cost the state significant legal bills to defend.
“This bill is a reaction to a poor national immigration policy, and it acts to treat a symptom, rather than cure the underlying illness. That illness is the cost of the welfare state, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to address it,” explained Brett Bittner, the Party’s Executive Director. “Instead, they’ve politicized the immigration issue to the point that we can no longer have a discussion about a solution that works for every Georgian.”
“Our main economic engines, agriculture, poultry, and manufacturing, will be hit hardest by the proposed legislation,” Bittner says further. “They will find themselves with an increased cost of labor and compliance, or they will simply close up shop, because the arduous regulations are simply too much.”
Currently, HB 87 has been placed in the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, chaired by HB 87 co-sponsor Rep Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), where it is scheduled to have a hearing this Friday, February 4, at 9:30am. Others listed as co-sponsors include Katie Dempsey (R-Rome), Rick Austin (R-Demorest), Stephen Allison(R-Blairsville), and Edward Lindsey (R-Atlanta).
The Libertarian Party is Georgia’s third largest political party and the only party in Georgia promoting fewer taxes, less government and personal liberty for all Georgians. To learn more, please visit www.LPGeorgia.com
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?
|
|
