If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Journal (Maine))   A Republican Governor who actually practices fiscal responsibility? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS   (sunjournal.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, rabies, governors, Paul LePage, balanced budgets, David Baldacci, exercises  
•       •       •

3162 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2013 at 3:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 10:10:52 PM
We elected that idiot Baldacci and this is his legacy.

LePage is just cleaning up the mess left by Baldacci.
 
2013-03-01 10:15:56 PM
In before this is Sparta joke
 
2013-03-01 10:46:45 PM
That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.
 
2013-03-02 12:35:08 AM
He doesn't sound responsible.
 
2013-03-02 12:37:32 AM

GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.


He is the executive of the state.

He sets the direction that Maine takes. That is his job.

Demanding that the Maine Senate fix one of the states biggest problem is needed. Like Obama did on the fiscal cliff situation, LePage is grabbing his balls and saying "fark this; fix this now or I will go all ArnoldSchwarzenegger on your asses"
 
2013-03-02 12:44:24 AM

cman: We elected that idiot Baldacci and this is his legacy.

LePage is just cleaning up the mess left by Baldacci.


So, Baldacci = Bush and LePage = Obama?

Do a lot of people blame LePage for Baldacci's mess?
 
2013-03-02 12:48:00 AM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: We elected that idiot Baldacci and this is his legacy.

LePage is just cleaning up the mess left by Baldacci.

So, Baldacci = Bush and LePage = Obama?

Do a lot of people blame LePage for Baldacci's mess?


lol, I do see the similarities.

LePage is the Governor. Its his state. He is responsible for fixing this. If he doesn't then it does become his mess. Vietnam was started by Kennedy expanded by LBJ and ended by Nixon. But, guess what? Nixon gets most of the blame for the mess in Vietnam. It is because Nixon didnt fix it. He made it worse by not fixing it. He ran on ending the war and by his second term it still was happening. Sure, the two Democrats got us into Vietnam, but the person we elected to get us out didn't until it was politically impossible to keep them there.
 
2013-03-02 12:49:06 AM
I see "Maine" on the link icon, so I'm guessing no. Also, supporting evidence ITT.
RTFA: vetoing everything, however unrelated, until you get one thing you want. Responsibility defined apparently.
Further, state and municipality run liquor stored are stupid.
 
2013-03-02 01:40:04 AM

GAT_00: That seems like running the state like a dictator.


No. General Augusto Pinochet ran Chile like a "dictatorship." Vetoing non-bill paying legislation in order to fast track bill-paying legislation for a state's poor and indigent Medicaid services does not qualify the Governor of Maine as running a "dictatorship." If the residents of Maine do not favor this, I'm sure they will let the governor know. They don't have to re-elect him and perhaps they can even recall him. But it is difficult to argue that legislation that pays a state's debts on time is less important that about any other legislation since it can in fact affect the future bond rating and interests rate.
 
2013-03-02 03:20:04 AM

GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.


Yeah, drinking at 6 am on St Patricks Day is way more important than solving fiduciary problems.
 
2013-03-02 03:27:28 AM

davidphogan: GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.

Yeah, drinking at 6 am on St Patricks Day is way more important than solving fiduciary problems.


What's he solving?  Preventing any action from being taken until one particular bill is paid?  Good for the hospitals, but doesn't that screw up the rest of the state?
 
2013-03-02 03:28:12 AM

Somacandra: GAT_00: That seems like running the state like a dictator.

No. General Augusto Pinochet ran Chile like a "dictatorship." Vetoing non-bill paying legislation in order to fast track bill-paying legislation for a state's poor and indigent Medicaid services does not qualify the Governor of Maine as running a "dictatorship." If the residents of Maine do not favor this, I'm sure they will let the governor know. They don't have to re-elect him and perhaps they can even recall him. But it is difficult to argue that legislation that pays a state's debts on time is less important that about any other legislation since it can in fact affect the future bond rating and interests rate.


BETTER YET, the legislation can override the vetoes, RIGHT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#U.S._states.2C_veto_powers.2C_and_ ov erride_authority
yup 2/3 elected (appointed replacement members wouldn't vote presumably ...)

why do people get CONFUSED about the tripod of the 3 branches of government?
The executive can legally do this.
The legislative can override it.
The courts, well, they have NOTHING to do with this.
 
2013-03-02 03:30:55 AM

Alphax: What's he solving?  Preventing any action from being taken until one particular bill is paid?  Good for the hospitals, but doesn't that screw up the rest of the state?


making a stand and drawing a line.
bills for silly things like changing the state flower or whatever silly thing states do will be put on hold ...
If they are important enough, the veto will get overridden.

but paying the bills, is a nice one. paying hospitals so they dont have to close or screw over employees is nice.
and technically, he is just doing his job ...
 
2013-03-02 03:57:20 AM

Alphax: davidphogan: GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.

Yeah, drinking at 6 am on St Patricks Day is way more important than solving fiduciary problems.

What's he solving?  Preventing any action from being taken until one particular bill is paid?  Good for the hospitals, but doesn't that screw up the rest of the state?


If they're so important they can override his veto.  What bills have they passed that are that important so far?
 
2013-03-02 03:57:50 AM
If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.
 
2013-03-02 04:05:25 AM

davidphogan: If they're so important they can override his veto.  What bills have they passed that are that important so far?


So, your argument is that if he's being irresponsible, a large group of people can get together and be responsible for him?

That never seems to work out.
 
2013-03-02 04:07:16 AM

cman: GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.

He is the executive of the state.

He sets the direction that Maine takes. That is his job.

Demanding that the Maine Senate fix one of the states biggest problem is needed. Like Obama did on the fiscal cliff situation, LePage is grabbing his balls and saying "fark this; fix this now or I will go all ArnoldSchwarzenegger on your asses"


So...he's gonna fark the maid?
 
2013-03-02 04:07:26 AM

BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.


They can override a veto.
 
2013-03-02 04:15:25 AM

davidphogan: BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.

They can override a veto.


That's not the point. LaPage is saying that he will lay out a little plan that he has and everything else will be vetoed till they pass his plan. According to the article, his plan intends to pay the states portion (186 million) partially by negotiating a new contract with the company that runs the states alcohol business. Sounds okay, but that contract is only worth 8 million. Why is LaPage so interested in that one contract. What's in it for him, or is it a vendetta against someone he has a disagreement with? He is so obsessed with this one contract that he will veto all bills till they agree to his plan.

It doesn't pass the smell test. LaPage seems to be trying his hardest to end up in a prison cell.
 
2013-03-02 04:20:41 AM

BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.


No. Those two had nothing in common besides the veto threat. It was dueling press conferences that evolved into the liquor argument. The liquor distributor is a very hot topic in Augusta.
 
2013-03-02 04:25:39 AM

cman: BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.

No. Those two had nothing in common besides the veto threat. It was dueling press conferences that evolved into the liquor argument. The liquor distributor is a very hot topic in Augusta.


Okay, so what LaPage's "little plan" that must get passed, or everything else gets vetoed? It seems like he is saying he wont even authorize payment unless his plan is passed.
 
2013-03-02 04:30:37 AM

BrotherEarth: It doesn't pass the smell test. LaPage seems to be trying his hardest to end up in a prison cell.


LOLWUT?!!

one of his constitutional powers is vetoing ANY and ALL bills that he chooses fit to veto. PERIOD.
NOT the ones that the legislature think that he should veto.
NOT the ones that the citizens think that he should veto.

HE IS THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
He can be voted out of office.
He could recalled, if Maine is a recall state.
BUT, he is legally doing his job. PERIOD.

The fact that people dont like the job is irrelevant. It's his job. Until he is removed from office.
Vetoing a bill is not illegal.

Find that he is breaking some law, kickbacks, bribes, what not. FINE.
But doing his job??
What part is confusing ??
 
2013-03-02 04:32:35 AM
If the bill is so important the legislation can override the Governors veto. End of stroy.
 
2013-03-02 04:40:57 AM
The article says ...

"The heart of LePage's plan to pay back the $484 million the state and federal government owe Maine's hospitals for care provided to recipients of the state's Medicaid program, known as MaineCare, depends on the state renegotiating its contract with the company that runs the state's liquor business.

I had to go to another site but it looks like LaPage is trying to strong arm the Democrats in borrowing an additional 186 million in debt, and he wishes to redirect the revenue from the alcohol contract to pay the bond off. The other site also points out that LaPage is sitting on almost 300 million that was authorized in 2011 and 2012, and he is refusing to release it unless he is allowed to redirect the revenue of this one alcohol contract.

It still smells funny.
 
2013-03-02 04:55:07 AM
High fives to all the "he's being completely irresponsible" comments.

Maine is not a big state. Half a billion in hospital back pay is a huge, huge deal. This issue is almost ten years old (don't forget the schools are in a similar predicament in being owed money from the state).  This is just one governor saying "Hey, we promised to cover this expense so hospitals don't go bankrupt by accepting our state's medicaid. Maybe we should...what's the phrase...do like we promised."  Imagine, a person elected by  being French the Tea Party actually trying that whole fiscal responsibility thing.

Or Maine could turn into, say, Delaware, where mentioning you're on Medicaid anywhere but the emergency room will inevitably be followed by a door slamming in your face or a *click* when they hang up laughing.
 
2013-03-02 04:55:25 AM

namatad: BrotherEarth: It doesn't pass the smell test. LaPage seems to be trying his hardest to end up in a prison cell.

LOLWUT?!!

one of his constitutional powers is vetoing ANY and ALL bills that he chooses fit to veto. PERIOD.
NOT the ones that the legislature think that he should veto.
NOT the ones that the citizens think that he should veto.

HE IS THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
He can be voted out of office.
He could recalled, if Maine is a recall state.
BUT, he is legally doing his job. PERIOD.

The fact that people dont like the job is irrelevant. It's his job. Until he is removed from office.
Vetoing a bill is not illegal.

Find that he is breaking some law, kickbacks, bribes, what not. FINE.
But doing his job??
What part is confusing ??


I don't know what is confusing you. Why are you thinking that the governing process is an issue? You should be concentrating on what LaPage's goal is. What is so important about that one contract that he is willing to disrupt the entire governing process (which you are obsessing about) in order to achieve that goal. What is LaPage's goal here? Why does he demand an extra 186 million in debt? Why does he demand that this new debt be tied to a single contract? What are the ramification of that policy?

The first and most obvious is this will ensure that alcohol will always be sold by the state, not supermarkets or package stores. It is going to take a long time to pay off 186 million at 8 million per year. The interest on that is going to be enormous, and I'd be curious to know where LaPage's hand is in this cookie jar. Does he have a stake with the finance company who will issue the bonds?

Doesn't that raise even a little bit of curiosity in your mind?
 
2013-03-02 04:59:57 AM
At a time when Republican governors around the country are refusing to expand their Medicaid coverage under Obamacare because they hate poor people and having a black President, this guy is bucking that trend and doing everything possible to ensure that hospitals get reimbursed ASAP by the state and feds for helping the poor. Until the state pays, the feds can't because federal aid is a multiple of what the state shells out, and the delay of payment has consequences down the line.

If you find this dictatorial, you're a goddamned idiot. The legislature can always override any vetos if they can muster the votes, and the people of Maine can always vote him out of office if they don't like his governing style.
 
2013-03-02 05:05:21 AM
And what exactly should State alcohol sales revenue go towards if not funding healthcare for poor people? Booze is definitely doing it's share of the damage, why shouldn't most of the revenue the State makes off it go towards funding the consequences?
 
2013-03-02 05:09:51 AM

Boo Radley: guy is bucking that trend and doing everything possible to ensure that hospitals get reimbursed ASAP


Actually, he's not. He's demanding that the Hospitals be paid from a new 186 million bond that will then be tied to a renegotiated alcohol contract. It isn't about when the hospitals get paid, its about how the payment is made.

Everything else you said was correct.
 
2013-03-02 05:13:33 AM

BrotherEarth: I don't know what is confusing you. Why are you thinking that the governing process is an issue? You should be concentrating on what LaPage's goal is. What is so important about that one contract that he is willing to disrupt the entire governing process (which you are obsessing about) in order to achieve that goal. What is LaPage's goal here? Why does he demand an extra 186 million in debt? Why does he demand that this new debt be tied to a single contract? What are the ramification of that policy?

The first and most obvious is this will ensure that alcohol will always be sold by the state, not supermarkets or package stores. It is going to take a long time to pay off 186 million at 8 million per year. The interest on that is going to be enormous, and I'd be curious to know where LaPage's hand is in this cookie jar. Does he have a stake with the finance company who will issue the bonds?

Doesn't that raise even a little bit of curiosity in your mind?


nope
I dont care
Dumb-asses living in maine have a dumb-ass system to sell alcohol. I dont care.
The voters have trivial ways of fixing both problems and have chosen to accept it.
Whatever.
If he is stealing, fine, prove it and arrest him.
but doing his job? whatever
government has always been full of bullshiat.
maine likes their current bullshiat.
Otherwise they will instruct their representative to override the vetoes and prevent the governor from "stealing"

Sure Illinois has retarded distributor middlemen, increasing our prices with zero value added.
But at least we dont have package stores and state stores.
 
2013-03-02 05:22:34 AM

Boo Radley: And what exactly should State alcohol sales revenue go towards if not funding healthcare for poor people? Booze is definitely doing it's share of the damage, why shouldn't most of the revenue the State makes off it go towards funding the consequences?


Agreed. It is just that my BS detector goes off when all govt must stop until LaPage says so unless the state agrees to borrow 186 million and specifically tie the proceeds of a single contract toward paying hospital debts.

Just pay the Farking hospital bill and renegotiate the contract if the state can get a better deal.

Demanding they be linked makes me ask "why?"
 
2013-03-02 05:23:45 AM

BrotherEarth: The article says ...

"The heart of LePage's plan to pay back the $484 million the state and federal government owe Maine's hospitals for care provided to recipients of the state's Medicaid program, known as MaineCare, depends on the state renegotiating its contract with the company that runs the state's liquor business.

I had to go to another site but it looks like LaPage is trying to strong arm the Democrats in borrowing an additional 186 million in debt, and he wishes to redirect the revenue from the alcohol contract to pay the bond off. The other site also points out that LaPage is sitting on almost 300 million that was authorized in 2011 and 2012, and he is refusing to release it unless he is allowed to redirect the revenue of this one alcohol contract.

It still smells funny.


I stand corrected
 
2013-03-02 05:34:09 AM

namatad: Sure Illinois has retarded distributor middlemen, increasing our prices with zero value added.
But at least we dont have package stores and state stores.


I grew up in Connecticut and they were called "Package Stores" there. Closed at 8:00 pm (now 9:00 pm) - and now I live in the bible belt, beer and wine are sold 24/7 at walmart and they have "Liqueur Stores" for the harder stuff. Alcohol laws are FUBAR, and ripe for kickbacks and crony capitalism. In Maine, where the state has 100% control of all alcohol sales, and can sell that concession to the highest bidder, it seems there needs to be more oversight and negotiation than LaPage is willing to partake in.

¢¢
 
2013-03-02 05:45:34 AM
"Today, the governor told the people of Maine that the hospitals are more important than they are," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, said in a prepared statement. "I disagree."

Who exactly does this idiot think is going to hospitals in Maine?
 
2013-03-02 06:05:04 AM

BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.


...actually, this is exactly what I want a president to be doing, especially this one.  Though I want him to be doing it with budgets and healthcare rather than alcohol contracts.
 
2013-03-02 06:11:07 AM

tallguywithglasseson: I see "Maine" on the link icon, so I'm guessing no. Also, supporting evidence ITT.
RTFA: vetoing everything, however unrelated, until you get one thing you want. Responsibility defined apparently.
Further, state and municipality run liquor stored are stupid.


As a NH resident I can say that state liquor stores are awesome. Our booze is so cheap, it's amazing. Plus it does the state some good every time you drink.
 
2013-03-02 06:11:18 AM

Boo Radley: At a time when Republican governors around the country are refusing to expand their Medicaid coverage under Obamacare because they hate poor people and having a black President, this guy is bucking that trend and doing everything possible to ensure that hospitals get reimbursed ASAP by the state and feds for helping the poor.


No, he's not.  If he were, he'd accept alternatives, which the Democrats have tried to give him.  He's saying "no, alkie contract" to every one.  It will get to the point where one of 3 things happen:

1) The Dems cave and let him have his alkie contract.
2) The Republicans get so sick of the vetoes that they vote to override a few of them, and pay Medicaid that way.
3) The state defaults.

Besides, we're applauding the "fiscal responsibility" of a man who stopped everything until he had a mural dedicated to Maine labor taken down.  He's just as anti-worker as the rest of the Republican party.
 
2013-03-02 07:04:52 AM

BrotherEarth: The article says ...

"The heart of LePage's plan to pay back the $484 million the state and federal government owe Maine's hospitals for care provided to recipients of the state's Medicaid program, known as MaineCare, depends on the state renegotiating its contract with the company that runs the state's liquor business.

I had to go to another site but it looks like LaPage is trying to strong arm the Democrats in borrowing an additional 186 million in debt, and he wishes to redirect the revenue from the alcohol contract to pay the bond off. The other site also points out that LaPage is sitting on almost 300 million that was authorized in 2011 and 2012, and he is refusing to release it unless he is allowed to redirect the revenue of this one alcohol contract.

It still smells funny.


This. This. And this.
 
2013-03-02 07:13:12 AM

BrotherEarth: davidphogan: BrotherEarth: If I am reading this article correctly, LePage is holding the entire state legislature, and it's citizens hostage until they allow him to negotiate a new state alcohol contract under the premise that the state's alcohol contract will pay the hospitals bills?

This stinks like corruption to me.

They can override a veto.

That's not the point. LaPage is saying that he will lay out a little plan that he has and everything else will be vetoed till they pass his plan. According to the article, his plan intends to pay the states portion (186 million) partially by negotiating a new contract with the company that runs the states alcohol business. Sounds okay, but that contract is only worth 8 million. Why is LaPage so interested in that one contract. What's in it for him, or is it a vendetta against someone he has a disagreement with? He is so obsessed with this one contract that he will veto all bills till they agree to his plan.

It doesn't pass the smell test. LaPage seems to be trying his hardest to end up in a prison cell.


You seem to be missing some information. Do you A) withhold opinion B) google for more or C) charge corruption and incarcerate him?
 
2013-03-02 08:01:13 AM
TFA: A state contract with Maine Beverage, the company currently running the state's alcohol business .
 
2013-03-02 08:12:35 AM

BrotherEarth: Boo Radley: And what exactly should State alcohol sales revenue go towards if not funding healthcare for poor people? Booze is definitely doing it's share of the damage, why shouldn't most of the revenue the State makes off it go towards funding the consequences?

Agreed. It is just that my BS detector goes off when all govt must stop until LaPage says so unless the state agrees to borrow 186 million and specifically tie the proceeds of a single contract toward paying hospital debts.

Just pay the Farking hospital bill and renegotiate the contract if the state can get a better deal.

Demanding they be linked makes me ask "why?"


because he doesn't want to take on new debt without a plan to pay it off? I wish the RNC would diaf......but I'm having a hard time getting worked into a froth about this.
 
2013-03-02 08:31:07 AM
Yeah, he's a whackjob, but he's OUR whackjob, damnit!
 
2013-03-02 08:32:26 AM

cman: We elected that idiot Baldacci and this is his legacy.

LePage is just cleaning up the mess left by Baldacci.


I actually voted for John B.

But only the first time.
 
2013-03-02 08:44:22 AM
Fiscal responsibility is a funny thing: when it is open for discussion, we all sit on our hands and eyeball each other suspiciously but as soon as it's out of hands, damned if we don't like to point fingures at whose failure it was that nothing was done.
 
2013-03-02 08:57:29 AM

GAT_00: That doesn't seem like fiscal responsibility.  That seems like running the state like a dictator.


It's called "taking the reins".  It's what one does to get control over what may appear uncontrollable.  When pet projects like opening the bars early on a holiday take precidence over covering past debt between the state and medical community, theres a problem.  Does opening the bars early compromise the state's ability to cover its debt?  Probably not.  But as a symbolic gesture (sort of like a parent reaching for their belt), it speaks volumes.  Sometimes a firm controlling hand is what's needed to biatch-slap the state back into reality.

Running the state like a dictator would probably involve diverting all state assets for his own personal usage and would no  doubt include the presence of a strong local military branch to police the populace for dissention and enforce policy.
 
2013-03-02 09:34:08 AM

BrotherEarth: Actually, he's not. He's demanding that the Hospitals be paid from a new 186 million bond that will then be tied to a renegotiated alcohol contract. It isn't about when the hospitals get paid, its about how the payment is made.

Everything else you said was correct.


I have an immediate and instinctive dislike to any action carried out by LePage, but at first glance this seems reasonable.

We need to pay the hospitals, and the state has to fork over money to get the federal contributions.  I think it is absolutely appropriate for this to happen, and I see no reason to oppose this.

IF this enthusiasm is a result of some sort of corrupt inside deal I would not be supprised, but even from the quotes in the article it looks like the argument is not about the why's and how's, it is about if we should pay or not: ""Today, the governor told the people of Maine that the hospitals are more important than they are," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, said in a prepared statement. "I disagree." "

That is not an objection based on a liquor contract.  There is more to the story here.
 
2013-03-02 10:12:18 AM

The WindowLicker: BrotherEarth: Actually, he's not. He's demanding that the Hospitals be paid from a new 186 million bond that will then be tied to a renegotiated alcohol contract. It isn't about when the hospitals get paid, its about how the payment is made.

Everything else you said was correct.

I have an immediate and instinctive dislike to any action carried out by LePage, but at first glance this seems reasonable.

We need to pay the hospitals, and the state has to fork over money to get the federal contributions.  I think it is absolutely appropriate for this to happen, and I see no reason to oppose this.

IF this enthusiasm is a result of some sort of corrupt inside deal I would not be supprised, but even from the quotes in the article it looks like the argument is not about the why's and how's, it is about if we should pay or not: ""Today, the governor told the people of Maine that the hospitals are more important than they are," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, said in a prepared statement. "I disagree." "

That is not an objection based on a liquor contract.  There is more to the story here.



Found it.  http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/06/politics/dems-say-lepage-should- split-liquor-contract-hospital-debt-plan/?ref=latest">http://bangorda ilynews.com/2013/02/06/politics/dems-say-lepage-should- split-liquor-contract-hospital-debt-plan/?ref=latest

He wants to put three things in one bill: (1) The liquor contract, (2)  which will be committed to pay down the debt (3) of the new bond issue needed to cover the debt.  The dems in the legislature insist on taking up all 3 things separately, but have not put forth a plan to do so.

Also, he says doing so would improve the fiscal health of the state enough (I would imagine having a plan to cover millions in debt does that!) which would allow him to release previous bonds that have been voted on to do things like build a new prison.  And once the hospital debt is paid off, the liquor proceeds would go to state infrastructure. Oh the horror.

Seriously. That's it.  He says "Hey, here's one bill that handily addresses several issues and puts us in a good place.  Pass it."  "No...that's reckless, we need to take our time and consider these three issues separately so that we can pass three totally separate bills that will do two things: Jack and shiat."

It's like what is going on in D.C. with the parties reversed.

I HATE the RNC.  I see absolutely no problem with what the governor is proposing.  The state is drowning.  "Hey, here's a life ring!"  "No thanks, please throw us the ring, the rope, and binding straps separately and we'll see if we can use each by itself."
 
2013-03-02 10:26:51 AM

BrotherEarth: It still smells funny.


Probably some wood alcohol in the booze.
 
2013-03-02 10:39:09 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: A state contract with Maine Beverage, the company currently running the state's alcohol business .



What? You can't run a government monopoly without a private middleman intercepting the profits, now can you? Because that would be more socialistic than Pol Pot working at an abortion clinic.

Why do I get the feeling we're all going to be buying our liquor at Marden's next year?
 
2013-03-02 10:51:06 AM
You mean besides Scott Walker?
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report