The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on March 27, 2011, 10:43:40 AM
-
I woke up this morning to two headlines in our local paper describing a level of corruption that amazed even me. And folks, as a Florida native, that takes some doing.
The first is from our new Governor Rick Scott who took office vowing to "bring business practices to government". Well, he didn't lie, he just didn't mention that he'd be having government help HIS business. :P Our fearless leader has vowed that he will make all state employees and welfare recipients be drug tested across the board. Not for cause or in certain jobs, but everybody. Damn the costs and privacy issues, it's for the children damnit! Or is it? Turns out the Governor founded an urgent care provider named Solantic. Their most lucrative division? Drug testing. He of course divested himef of his majority share when he became governor as required. Of coure, he divested his controlling shares to a trust in his wife's name. :o >:( Give me a break.
Closer to home, in the wake of local corruption scandals, the Director of the South Florida Water Management District announced that she'd hired an inspector general to audit the district's huge budget. Good for her! Oh, wait, it turns out the guy she hired has no auditing experience and is, wait for it.....her freaking boyfriend!
Welcome to life in the iguana lattitudes. :P
FQ13 who needs a drink, Sabbath or no Sabbath
-
Ah yes, the "I'm above it all" entitlement mentality of the public sector employees. Private sector folks have to pee in a cup 17 ways from Sunday, to get a job, "if" they can find one.
Welfare folks have Blackberry's, cable TV, microwaves, gov't subsidized electrical/water/rent paid for by guess who????
And the Judge that ruled in another state, (TN)? can't remember,.... regarding the exclusivity of "public vs. private" was turned over on appeal.
Gov. Scott also wants anyone receiving unemployment benefits to volunteer a few hours a week, doing something. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, a book read at the library for after school programs, help out at a public funded indigent nursing home.
Not just watch TV, and collect taxdollars. Imagine that. He's not doing it for the money,....he's got enough....Sounds like everything else he did with his wife and majority shares IS LEGAL!!!!!
Now for the Water Mgt. :-\ I would be happy if Dade, Broward, and PB counties, recalled EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...and fired the rest.
Where's the reset button when you need it?
-
My thoughts exactly, TW. Hell I think any one on welfare should lose their voter privileges!
-
I can't speak on the details of the Florida situation because it's not my state and I don't know the specifics. However, is there such a thing as an honest politician?
As to the drug tests for welfare recipients, I am all for it. Get caught using illegal drugs and you don't get paid. Tobacco and alcohol should be included on the list of items that will at least get you a warning (get caught again and you start losing money). I've lived and worked in places that would shut down without welfare. They don't work, don't want to work, and still have better cars/toys than I do working seven days a week. Breeding is the best way to get a "raise" because the government will give them more money for each new kid. You get behind them at the grocery store and all they have is a cart full junk food which they pay for with our money. Some how they have a few dollars to also buy some cigarettes.
I also think it would be a good plan to put welfare folks to work doing something. Make them clean up the roads and neighborhoods that they so willingly and unapologetically trash. I know some folks honestly need the help, but for too many it has become a way to get paid for nothing.
Random drug tests are a part of many jobs. Why not government jobs?
-
Um, guys, reread my post. Its not about the piss test. Its about the fact that the Governor, or actually his wife, will make boatloads of tax payer money off of a program he ordered. Haz, TW, step away from the GOP Koolaid and ask yourself if there is a problem with this picture. ::)
FQ13
-
I'm not shocked...
-
Welcome to the rel world FQ.
The only reason your pissed is because some individual benefits.
-
Um, guys, reread my post. Its not about the piss test. Its about the fact that the Governor, or actually his wife, will make boatloads of tax payer money off of a program he ordered. Haz, TW, step away from the GOP Koolaid and ask yourself if there is a problem with this picture. ::)
FQ13
They're pikers, FQ, amateurs. Move to Chicago, this is a daily (or would that be Daley?) occurrence. This is pure bush-league corruption.
-
Welcome to the rel world FQ.
The only reason your pissed is because some individual benefits.
With my money. Hell yes I'm pissed. "Billionaire politician subsidizes wife with taxpayer funds". Does that not piss you off? Would it help if he were a Democrat? This isn't about party, its about straight up theft. If he and or his wife (or anyother hanger on) sell shares in the drug testing firm, then its just a policy dispute and that's fine. As it is, its about tax money and that's not fine. I shouldn't need to tell you this Tom. What happened to get a rope? I figured that in the spirit of all politics is local we should start with the water manageent district, then drive to Tallahassee. You can set up a hot tar stand, I've got dibs on the feathers and rails. ;D
FQ13
-
Call me jaded. Call me wrong. But I am willing to accept the sketchy practices of a governor's wife making money off of drug tests for welfare recipients if they can successfully implement them. Is it wrong that she get the bid: maybe, probably. Is it a step in the right direction: in my opinion, you dang right.
The water district example is nepotism at its finest. That should probably be dealt with.
-
Quit your whining FQ, IIRC you are one of the ones who was demanding piss tests for welfare recipients, (Govt workers have been tested for the last 10 or 20 years ) Deal making is what makes the world go round, You got what you wanted, some one else gets what they wanted, hell, it might even have been the lowest bid.
It will be a long time before any one actually benefits any way, cuz this will be headed for SCOTUS when the first crack whore gets turned down.
-
I think it is a good move.
I understand the concern about Solantic, but at this point I would cry foul. Solantic is one of many companies that offer this service.
Now, IF Solantic were the sole provider of drug testing, got a no-bid contract, or some other preferential treatment, THEN I think there would be a problem.
As far as the South Florida Water MIS-Management District, what do we need them for again? :-X
-
If his company was doing all the testing, yes it's wrong. But did the article say that or are you just assuming it? You know what they say about "assuming".
-
Allright. I will raise my hands in surrender, but I do think the Koolaid has gotten to you a bit. As a test I'll ask the following question. If Rick Scott were BO and Solantic was put under Michelle's name would you, or would you not, be screamining bloody murder? And guess what, you'd be right. I'd like an honest answer to that question from the usual suspects. Path has given one. As a Chicago refugee he calls corruption where he sees it. Good for him. As for the rest of you, substitute BO for Scott and ask whether you'd think this was ok. You can call me many things, but not a hypocrite on ethics. I will nail both parties. Yeah I dislike W and Palin, but I ain't so hot on BO either and the Water Mangement District gal is a Dem. So, is this an issue regardless of party or not? Just askin'.
FQ13
-
You want piss tests for welfare recipients, You got them, (pending court fights ), Would you rather he did it the way most politicians do and just accepted a real cheap housing loan (Cris Dodd/Country wide ) or an envelope stuffed with cash ?
On the corruption scale this is nothing.
I'm not commenting on the Water Dept. thing as I don't know any of the back story on it.
PS I went back and reread your OP.
The Water Dept thing is corruption because the boy friend has no auditing experience . Does he have experience with running Water utilities ?
The earlier medical company seems to have already been doing drug testing.
-
You want piss tests for welfare recipients, You got them, (pending court fights ), Would you rather he did it the way most politicians do and just accepted a real cheap housing loan (Cris Dodd/Country wide ) or an envelope stuffed with cash ?
On the corruption scale this is nothing.
I'm not commenting on the Water Dept. thing as I don't know any of the back story on it.
PS I went back and reread your OP.
The Water Dept thing is corruption because the boy friend has no auditing experience . Does he have experience with running Water utilities ?
The earlier medical company seems to have already been doing drug testing.
Actually, I'm against Piss testing except for cause or job or security reasons (pilots and cops basically). I think it violates the spirit of the 5A whether its public or private employment. But that's not the issue. That's a different debate for a different day. As far as the Water folks, well the guy is a very well respected engineer. He knows his stuff. Down side? He has never been an auditor, is an insider in the department and got a $190,000 job from his girfriend to investigate his girfriend. ::) Look, I'm not about politics here. I'm about taking money out of my wallet and putting it (directly in both cases) into the wallets of politicians. This annoys me.
FQ13
-
On the piss test thing we'll go with "I have to to earn it they should have to for the hand out". On that we will agree.
So on that basis, you wanted it.
You stated that the Water Dept needed to be audited, so you wanted that as well.
First off, you are completely ignoring the fine old tradition of "Patronage" that has been part of politics for about 3000 years.
How do you think Brutus got into the Roman Senate ? He was a 20 something with no accomplishments, But his assumed father was had been in the Senate, and his real Father pulled strings for the ungrateful little backstabber.
In the case of the Gov. I would be willing to bet that every facility that can do the welfare tests has been doing pre employment testing and CDL licenses, Pilots licenses etc. those are all previously state licensed. It is not corruption it is simply continuing to do more of what they have been doing right along.
On the Water thing, the fact of him being a respected engineer offsets his lack of auditing experience, He can hire a CPA, things like Utilities have a lot of technical aspects that a numbers guy would not understand. They could tell him the exact truth, and with out the technical background to understand what they are saying, they could still steal him blind. She probably picked some one she trusted.
On the other hand she should have got someone from outside, who she was not boffing like Barney Frank and the guy from Fannie May.
-
A couple of "if's" need to be answered before I call foul on the drug testing issue. IF, the Governor's wife's company is the ONLY company receiving state payments for doing the testing, and IF there was no bidding process, then yes, I call foul. Otherwise, no.
After all, where is it written that the spouse of a politician isn't allowed to make a living once their spouse is elected to public office?
Does it look good? Not hardly. Is it corruption? Not necessarily.
And before you say anything, FQ, the party affiliation doesn't matter to me. I don't think either party is worth a damn anymore.
-
The point I've been trying to make is "did they say "Company x gets to do all of this testing", (doubtful since it is state wide), or did they say, "All state certified companies can do this testing", (which is much more likely.)
-
The point I've been trying to make is "did they say "Company x gets to do all of this testing", (doubtful since it is state wide), or did they say, "All state certified companies can do this testing", (which is much more likely.)
One more reason you're at the top of the ticket. You state more succinctly in one sentence what it took me 3 paragraphs to write attempt to say..
-
Call me jaded. Call me wrong. But I am willing to accept the sketchy practices of a governor's wife making money off of drug tests for welfare recipients if they can successfully implement them. Is it wrong that she get the bid: maybe, probably. Is it a step in the right direction: in my opinion, you dang right.
The water district example is nepotism at its finest. That should probably be dealt with.
I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.
-
I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.
To collect welfare, State, and Federal employees have been tested since Reagan was in office.
-
I'm all for testing welfare recipients. However, is that what this is? Reading FQ's post I am under the impression this is to get a state job. Not to collect welfare.
From FQ's original post.
Our fearless leader has vowed that he will make all state employees and welfare recipients be drug tested across the board. Not for cause or in certain jobs, but everybody.
I'm not 100% on why FQ is mad, but I think it mostly has to do with the governor's wife making money off the process of testing everybody. I could be wrong with my interpretation of that, but I was mainly working off of the posts since the first one.
For me, I'm pissed off enough with welfare that I don't care who makes money doing drug tests if they can finally cut back on the fraudulent lazy people taking advantage of the system. (There are people who legitimately need welfare and are trying. I just haven't met many.) If they can afford drugs, fancy cars, and nice toys, they don't need welfare.
As far as drug tests for jobs in general, I'm mostly of the opinion that as long as you don't do it at work and it doesn't affect your job; why should I care.
-
From FQ's original post.
I'm not 100% on why FQ is mad, but I think it mostly has to do with the governor's wife making money off the process of testing everybody. I could be wrong with my interpretation of that, but I was mainly working off of the posts since the first one.
Bingo and end of story. I have issues with drug tests in general on 5A grounds. But here I am leaving that aside. Lets conceed that they are totally legit. The question is why start them, when they weren't there before, using my tax money to line your wife's wallet. This isn't about piiss tests, it's about moving money from the pockets of the tax payer to the pocket of the governor and that ain't right. Granted other firms will benefit as well, good for them. But you cannot deny that the Scott household will pocket tax payer money due to this plan. And I defy anyone to tell me that's not wrong. Want to make it right? It's easy. Divest all shares in Solantic (the drug testing firm). Just sell them and you have zero profit motive. Do that and I have zero issues with you on moral grounds. Its just a gentlemanly dispute about policy. That's ok. Stand to make millions, its not ok. Why hasn't he done that?
FQ13
-
Something for FQ to think about.
The Founding Fathers never "divested" themselves. It was common sense that after they left Office they still needed to support themselves.
When George Washington was President the major industry was agriculture, he owned and operated a large plantation.
When he legislated on the "Whiskey tax" his operation was one of the largest distillers in America.
-
Something for FQ to think about.
The Founding Fathers never "divested" themselves. It was common sense that after they left Office they still needed to support themselves.
When George Washington was President the major industry was agriculture, he owned and operated a large plantation.
When he legislated on the "Whiskey tax" his operation was one of the largest distillers in America.
Are even being serious when you ask that question? Should a politician be able to benefit directly from a policy they pass? Yes or no. It's an easy question.
FQ13
-
If it is a pre existing business, and not a monopoly why not ?
Are you against policies that protect jobs in health care ?