Balfour case raises a bigger question of ethics
A common objection to certain ethics reforms, particularly a cap on gifts legislators receive from lobbyists, is that voters can judge for themselves if representatives cross the line.
House Speaker David Ralston used to argue thus against a gift cap. He reversed course and endorsed a total ban on gifts after voters in July’s primaries overwhelmingly rejected the no-limits status quo.
I think Ralston had it half-right before (the transparency of gift reports helps the public know who’s lobbying whom) and has it half-right now (transparency alone is insufficient, and a limit is necessary). I prefer a gift cap to a gift ban.
Once there’s a limit, it should be up to the voters to decide if a frequent gift recipient should serve in the Legislature. But serving in the leadership? That’s for legislators to decide — and to demonstrate their own ethical standards.
If you followed the news last week, you probably know where I’m going with this.
Last Tuesday, the AJC reported a Georgia Bureau of Investigation probe of state Sen. Don Balfour. The Snellville Republican is one gift-laden lawmaker: In May, the AJC reported he received tickets to more than 120 events, valued at more than $22,000, over the past six years. But the gifts are only indirectly related to the case.
The GBI said it is investigating Balfour for filing false expense reports, seeking tax-funded reimbursement of mileage between his home and the Capitol on days he was out of the state. Balfour has already agreed to repay some $1,100 in mileage claims, as well as a $5,000 fine levied by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Here’s where the gift angle comes in: Balfour was known to have been out of town because lobbyists reported paying for his meals and lodging while he was gone. Transparency was crucial in this case.
Now, Balfour is not just any senator. He’s the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. That committee decides which pieces of legislation may go before the whole Senate. That role makes the committee very powerful, and its chairman one of the most powerful people under the Gold Dome.
The ethical question in Balfour’s case is not limited to false reporting. One of his other duties as Rules chair is to form a subcommittee to audit senators’ expense reports, including his own. He never did so.
The value Balfour places on being Rules chairman was evident in a fundraising email last month, as reported by PeachPundit.com (a campaign consultant did not return a phone call to confirm it). Balfour mentioned the role, then asked donors to consider giving at an “investment level” ranging from $250 to $2,500. The dollar figures aren’t as noteworthy as the word “investment,” which of course implies a possible return. I’m just brainstorming here, but maybe that return is knowing legislation you support has a better chance of making it to the Senate floor, while legislation you oppose stands to be stalled.
Gwinnett voters can decide in November whether to send the, ahem, gifted Balfour back to the Senate. But Senate leaders must decide whether to foist him, his “investors” and their priorities on the rest of the state by keeping him as Rules chairman.
They could decide congressional Republicans are right to limit how long one of their members can chair a particular committee. (Balfour has chaired Rules since 2003.) They could be more direct and decide Balfour is unfit to continue as chair. Or they could leave him in place.
Their decision will tell more about them than about Balfour.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
129 comments Add your comment
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
September 17th, 2012
10:29 am
KYLE
I don’t disagree but are campaign funds allowable from corporations or lobbyists? Are they limited by this law?
Logical Dude
September 17th, 2012
10:36 am
“as well as a $5,000 fine levied by the Senate Ethics Committee.”
Wait, There’s a Senate Ethics Committee?
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
10:38 am
Kyle
Good article. Keep up the good work on this issue
Kyle Wingfield
September 17th, 2012
10:38 am
Stevie Ray: Not sure what you mean by “this law.”
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
10:42 am
I have long since given up on the voters or the GOP leadership under the Dome to correct their own errors.
Witness – Murphy, Jack – State Sen. from my own county.
BRW
September 17th, 2012
11:02 am
Why would any “honest” politician (oxymoron?) require or need “gifts”?
Ban them completely. Then ANY gift would be a violation. Case closed.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
11:13 am
BRW, I used to be an elected official. Every Christmas season, the developers and their representatives used to drop off gift baskets or gift cards for hams or meals to each commissioner. Harmless little thank you’s to each of us for our work. Some expected favors for those gifts. Others were just expressing their thanks for doing our jobs honestly and consistently. But I don’t think there was anyone who would be swayed by a fruit basket to change their vote or push for changes in local ordinances because of them.
Me? I just gave mine to the office staff.
Point being, a total ban would be fine, but largely ineffective. The people who think they can influence elected officials will simply find a way to get money to them through campaign donations directly or through PACs.
Pompano
September 17th, 2012
11:14 am
Nice article Kyle. Balfour also presented a rather sleazy bill on behalf of his well-connected Developer buddies near the end of the session that was fortunately defeated. Gwinnett leadership has gone off the rails and has been for-sale to the highest bidder for quite some time.
Georgia, The "New Mississippi"
September 17th, 2012
11:15 am
Georgia voters do not have a lot of intellectual horsepower.. This is what they want.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
September 17th, 2012
11:18 am
KYLE,
Will rephrase…is there a limit on campaign contributions by PACs, corporations or lobbyists currently?
Cutty
September 17th, 2012
11:19 am
If GA state employees cannot accept lunch, cab fare, or any other so-called gift from anyone doing business with the state, then the same rule should apply to legislators. No gifts at all, period.
Kyle Wingfield
September 17th, 2012
11:23 am
BRW @ 11:02: A cup of coffee counts as a gift, as does a meal at Bone’s, complete with $300 bottle of wine. I think the latter example is objectively too much, but I don’t begrudge them the cup of coffee during the short and busy legislative session — and I would rather that get reported, so that the public knows who’s lobbying whom, rather than the gift and the transparency go away. Your mileage may vary.
BRW
September 17th, 2012
11:23 am
pulling tail, I think some of that was my point.
No gifts. And I don’t agree they are always harmless. For the crooked, they turn out to be little post-it notes of who to remember when your voting for legislation. Just the tiniest little tug.
Donate if you want to a campaign but reform the campaign finance laws as well..
Kyle Wingfield
September 17th, 2012
11:24 am
Stevie Ray: I’d have to look up the limits. If I have a free moment, I’ll do so.
retiredds
September 17th, 2012
11:26 am
Kyle, there is another side to the story that doesn’t get a lot of press. Guys like Balfour are cutting the state budget, which they need to because of the GA Constitutional requirement that it balance its budget. But many good and productive state employees have been let go over the last few years. Most current state employees haven’t received a raise of any sort for at least the last four years and are paying more for their benefits.
It seems to me that if the legislators, especially Balfour and other leaders, can brag that they are lowering the cost of government they should at least be honest about their own expenses. It does not appear that many of these guys would willingly sacrifice their perks (benefits) to serve as examples for the many hard working state employees who have a mandated cap of $25 (direct or indirect) from any group or constituent.
I have a suggestion: that all these lobbyist and corporate gifts (monetized value) to our representatives go directly into the general fund similar to many of the so called fees that don’t go to the use or organization stated but into the general fund, i.e. the tire fee (tax), the specialty license plates, etc. (By the way, I submit that any fee that does not go to the intended use is a disguised tax.)
And one other thing, since GA has been in the throes of the economic decline, why on earth is any legislator going to out of state resorts on the tab of a lobbyist organization. Why don’t the legislators require that if a lobbyist wants to “smooze” a legislator, or group of legislators, that it be done in Georgia so the state at least benefits from the money being spent in GA and not Florida or somewhere else? I would love to see you ask our legislators that question and then write an article on your findings. I direct this request to you because GA is ruled by the R’s.
Jefferson
September 17th, 2012
11:34 am
The guy is a lying crook, too bad he is not a “D”, then they could make a example of them.
Kyle Wingfield
September 17th, 2012
11:35 am
retiredds @ 11:26: I’m afraid your general fund idea wouldn’t be very lucrative. No lobbyist is going to donate $300 to the state rather than take a legislator to dinner. Under your scenario, he just won’t spend the money. And while the total sum is large relative to the number of legislators, it wouldn’t be a rounding error in the amount of money being cut from the state budget.
As for your other suggestion: I haven’t looked at this specifically, but based on the examinations I have made of the data, I’d guess the vast, vast majority of this money already is being spent inside the state of Georgia. Concert tickets and meals in Atlanta, golf outings along the coast, etc.
md
September 17th, 2012
11:36 am
I say no gifts period and that would level the playing field for all. If they don’t want to do the job for the pay provided, they can choose to do something else. As for the under the table gifts if all are banned, so be it, give one enough rope and sooner or later they will hang themselves with it…………
MANGLER
September 17th, 2012
11:38 am
In business, we often take clients, or potential clients, out for lunches, dinners, shows, golfing, etc. Why? To keep their business coming our way, that’s why. There is really no other reason for someone to gift a Senator, Congressman, Judge, Commissioner, etc., than to get something thrown back their way, or to thank them for throwing something their way. So I agree with BRW and many others – no gifts period. The job of the legislature is to legislate, not get rich.
md
September 17th, 2012
11:39 am
And the animosity toward developers is a dual edged sword……….those developers provide “developments”, which also happen to become tax paying entities……..you know, that money that everyone wants someone else to pay……………..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
11:43 am
I think if the voters actually paid attention to who is running for office, rather than the “D” or “R” next to their name, this issue would all go away.
If you don’t like the candidate running in your district, step up and run yourself.
Just Saying..
September 17th, 2012
11:44 am
“Every Christmas season, the developers and their representatives used to drop off gift baskets or gift cards”
Christmas is the high water mark, but it’s year-round.
And if you tell them you don’t want/need them, they send them to you anyway; want to see what you actually do with the gifts.
Sending a thank you note documenting the gift’s transmittal to the homeless shelter slows them down some; but it takes a lot more than that to stop them.
And comical, when you leave the position, how you become completely nonexistent to them…
Keep it up the good work from your forum, Kyle. It’s essential if we’re ever to make headway on this critical issue.
JamVet
September 17th, 2012
11:50 am
Government for sale! Government for sale!
True in K-Street run Washington and true in Atlanta.
No gifts at all. None, nada, zero, zilch.
Mr. mooching congressman, buy your own cup of coffee and your own $300 meal at Bones…
Rush
September 17th, 2012
11:51 am
I think there should be a cap (minimal amount of around $200 annually) on gifts. I would also have to agree with the former dentist (retiredds) in regards to why in the world are public officials (it is not just state officials but many local officials) traveling out of state for training, seminars, etc. They will tell you it is to understand the parameters of the job but it is nothing more than a self-prescribed free trip on taxpayers dime. I would hazard to guess that the “seminar” to Hawaii that the APS funded could probably be handled in ATL just as easily….but who wouldn’t rather go to HI vs. ATL…
Good Article, Kyle. Keep shining the sunlight on these types of deals and hopefully a little disinfectant will occur.
Rush
September 17th, 2012
11:55 am
Lucid comment by JamVet that I can agree with in principle….what are we coming to? In all honesty, I think most everyone would agree that the free perks and sense of entitlement (from both sides of the political spectrum) need to end. The interest of those being governed need to come before those creating the laws at all levels of government (local, state, and national).
Rush
September 17th, 2012
11:58 am
Excellent point by Tiberius…..get over the (R) or (D) and vote based upon the position of the individual running. There are good candidates to be had in both parties who actually want to do what is best for the citizens rather than simply lining their pockets or staying in control. That being said…..why in the world would voters in Clayton county vote for Victor Hill for Sheriff?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
12:00 pm
those developers provide “developments”, which also happen to become tax paying entities……..you know, that money that everyone wants someone else to pay…
And of course they always build those developments in the best possible places – where the transportation infrastructure exists or can be built out before hand, the education system can handle the influx of new families, etc, etc. It’s never about the money.
Just Saying..
September 17th, 2012
12:09 pm
“Excellent point by Tiberius…..get over the (R) or (D) and vote based upon the position of the individual running. There are good candidates to be had in both parties who actually want to do what is best for the citizens rather than simply lining their pockets or staying in control.”
Agree 1000% percent.
md
September 17th, 2012
12:11 pm
“And of course they always build those developments in the best possible places – where the transportation infrastructure exists or can be built out before hand, the education system can handle the influx of new families, etc, etc. It’s never about the money.”
Of course it is all about the money, but that money is what makes the world go around………
The option is to limit development and raise taxes on all the existing entities……..that should go over real well when most folks want the 1% to pay for everything…………
Old Timer
September 17th, 2012
12:14 pm
Too bad we don’t have Statesmen rather than politicans. Great article Kyle.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
12:19 pm
These guys get a per diem when they are in session, so why do they need anybody to pay for their meals? It’s my understanding that other state employees aren’t allowed to take gifts, so let them be treated the same as the clerks and secretaries working in state offices.
The whole situation reminds me of something my uncle told me when I was a boy, “Son, don’t ever let anybody give you anything because the price will always be too high”. Most of these people doing the giving, especially at the higher levels, expect something in return for their investment and often times they get it.
those developers provide “developments”, which also happen to become tax paying entities…….
That’s true but when has development ever resulted in anything but higher property taxes? Somebody has to pay for all those roads, schools, planning commissions and other assorted infrastructure that comes with the development. All my life I’ve heard politicians preach that development lowers property taxes. Not once in my lifetime can I remember it doing anything but raising property taxes.
Development brings more jobs they say but mainly it brings more people. The unemployment rate was lower 40 years ago than it is now, in Georgia, so what has all that wide open development brought us? Traffic problems, water problems, etc. Mainly it benefits the developers.
Centrist
September 17th, 2012
12:19 pm
A limit in gifting is open to abuse – multiple gifts can obviously be made (under cover of different issues/ different gifters if need be).
Legislators are paid to buy their own coffee, and are reimbursed for travel and meals. They also make plenty more via insider deals that are rarely ferreted out. There is simply no good reason for them to accept additional gifts from anyone. Of course, we know that money flows like water – when dammed up one place, it flows somewhere else. Family members will probably start receiving generous gifts.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
12:21 pm
“Excellent point by Tiberius…..get over the (R) or (D) and vote based upon the position of the individual running. There are good candidates to be had in both parties who actually want to do what is best for the citizens rather than simply lining their pockets or staying in control.”
That’s basically what George Washington was saying in his Farewell Address. Of course, his protege. Alexander Hamilton, was instrumental in starting the first political party. George, like most politicians, could talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
I still think it’s a good idea, though.
Who You Calling a Lobbyist
September 17th, 2012
12:36 pm
The inherit reality with any rule or system is that smart folks will figure out numerous ways to get around it. As soon as you pass a law or make a new rule there are folks who have already determined where the holes exist and how to use them. The easiest way to get around the proposed cap is have a straw man pick up the check for dinner, or a non-lobbyist friend of the legislator delivers the tickets. Nothing illegal about any of that. There are many other ways. Transparency is the key and that is where the “we want limits” folks have simply stuck their heads in the sand.
Let the hogs feed at the trough. Their constituents, who obviously applaud the suggested caps, are too blind, ignorant or self-interested to get rid of their public “servants”. The reap the government they deserve. As pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered, eventually whether the constituents see it or not, the hog’s day in the sunshine will end. It will end because the greed and arrogance of the hog, which leads him to his own slaughter, and nothing the voters did.
Kyle Wingfield
September 17th, 2012
12:59 pm
Who You Calling: I’d like to think most legislators will follow the laws they pass for themselves. And in the camera-phone/Flip video/YouTube/Twitter age, I would like to think enough of those “work-arounds” will be caught and exposed to make the rest of them think twice before skirting the law.
md
September 17th, 2012
1:00 pm
“That’s true but when has development ever resulted in anything but higher property taxes? Somebody has to pay for all those roads, schools, planning commissions and other assorted infrastructure that comes with the development.”
I’ve had a few millage rate reductions in my days…….but, what also happens when a county gets more tax paying entities is the “wants” increase………typical gov’t, the more money they get the more they want to spend.
As I said, it’s a dual edged sword…….don’t increase the tax base and the only option is to raise taxes.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
1:01 pm
Should be a two year stint maximum. Fewer folks would be willing to risk their integrity if they know in 2 years that possible “under the table” revenue stream will be drying up.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
1:02 pm
Flip video? You kids and your new stuff….
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
1:08 pm
Bro
Melba toast is very dry, so on the opposite end of a soap sandwich.
With that said, he better get some attraction because either one is going to get him the same result.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
1:21 pm
No gifts, a complete ban. There is no way to define what is “harmful” and what is “harmless.” Once both the lobbyists and the politicians knew that no gift were allowed, they would stop the little “thankyous,” the politicians would stop expecting them, and that would be the end of it. As for the argument that the lobbyist would find another way – if those little gifts are so harmless, then they must find another way, mustn’t they?
Also, the idea of transparency, that people would make a judgment about who is lobbying whom – baloney. Talk about “informed public” as much as you want, people have other concerns.
Who You Calling a Lobbyist
September 17th, 2012
1:24 pm
Kyle W: I agree. Most legislators will follow the law. It’s not illegal for me as a private citizen, who is not acting as a lobbyist, to buy my state rep or senator a fabulous dinner at Bones and hand him or her 5 tickets to the next 5 UGA home games and season tickets to the upcoming ASO concert series. If it’s a perfectly legal and accepted mode of operation for me the non-lobbyist citizen to pay for dinner, what is a YouTube video going to do? “I was out with my constituents, my friends, my brother-in-law, etc., who weren’t lobbyists. Go away Mr. Investigative Reporter and quit wasting your time” What is a YouTube video going to do when the fine folks in Gwinnett County had all the WSB and AJC coverage they could handle, but refused to dethrone Mr. Balfour? The sad part is we have to wait until our elected servants get so greedy the FBI or GBI have to step in. But that’s the cost of universal suffrage.
Who You Calling a Lobbyist
September 17th, 2012
1:39 pm
MarkV. You cannot effectively legislate a complete ban. It may be constitutional to forbid all lobbyist from exercising free speech in the manner of gift giving. But even if you accomplish this, you will not stop gifts and influence peddling. It is going to happen. And the only way the citizenry will know is through transparency.
Shaniqua
September 17th, 2012
1:39 pm
The best, first line, of defense against shady operators like Don Balfour is the voters in his/her district. If they’re paying attention, and if there’s a viable opponent, they hopefully will remove the skunk from the system.
That said we are talking about Snellville here. The changes taking place in that part of the county don’t bode well for the “paying attention” department.
sheepdawg
September 17th, 2012
1:49 pm
@MarkV..you are dead on about the georgia electorate being an “informed public”. As a whole, our voters are not even educated, much less informed. Just look at the elected officials for proof – former sports bookies, crooks chased out of DC for unethical dealings, professional liars, federally indicted criminals, and common theives….just to name a few. We’ve been at the bottom of education for decades so this lack of informed public is not shocking. But we do have a good ball team in athens when we can keep them all out of jail and off suspension for drugs.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
1:56 pm
Who You Calling a Lobbyist @1:39 pm
“MarkV. You cannot effectively legislate a complete ban.”
You can. You just pass a law. If giving gifts to politicians is “free speech,” then you cannot put any cap, can you? As for whether it would stop influence peddling – of course not, but that is not the point. It is to stop this form of influence peddling.
As I wrote before, transparency in this particular case is just baloney. Just imagine the citizens pouring over lists of “gifts” for each elected official they vote for to make judgments from that list whether a particular gift was harmful or harmless, whether it was influence peddling or not. It is just plain ridiculous.
Centrist
September 17th, 2012
1:57 pm
All this talk about transparency is next to worthless. Balfour only got caught on his false expense report because he was out of town. Crooks will just be more careful, and offer only as much transparency as they think they can afford
Road Scholar
September 17th, 2012
2:06 pm
Tib: Used to either place foodstuff gifts in the conference room for all to share or took them to a homeless shelter or church.
NO GIFTS! NO PROBLEMS! Violators fined heavily. Money to the ethics committee budget or general fund!
Oh and I always vote for the best candidate, regardless of party, color, creed, college team affiliation, color/religion of their underwear….oh that’s from another blog!
southpaw
September 17th, 2012
2:29 pm
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/activist-files-ethics-complaint-against-balfour/nQTtR/
Since someone with the Tea Party filed the ethics charges against Balfour, the charges can’t possibly be valid. Everybody knows that if the Tea Party takes one position, the opposite position MUST be right.
Be sure your irony detector is on as you read this.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 17th, 2012
2:32 pm
TV Networks Will Be Asked to Boost ObamaCare In Plots of Top Shows…
Tools.
They’ve already done homosexuality, bestiality, lack of bathing, obozo, anti America and now they roll out another lib perversion.
ew
td
September 17th, 2012
3:00 pm
If Balfour is guilty of a crime then by all means throw him in jail. If the voters of his district do not think what he has done rises to the point of removing him from office then that is on them. I would have voted against him.
Skip
September 17th, 2012
4:14 pm
Gifts are people too my friend.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:07 pm
Good afternoon, all. I am just bopping by to make everyone aware of a great set of questions to be asked of both Obama and Romney and developed by Michael Medved:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/15/michael-medved-crafts-tough-questions-for-the-presidential-debates.html
Take a gander and see what you think.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:17 pm
From Politifact regardng the claim that Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8%:
Each time, we rated the claim Mostly False.
Projection vs. promise
First, we have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent. The source for Romney’s and the others’ statements is a Jan. 9, 2009, report called “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president’s top economic adviser.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.
The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:20 pm
Towncrier, you make me laugh. Those softball questions from Medved aren’t going to get asked.
Romney will be asked for specific loopholes he plans to close.
Medved is a silly man – angry but silly.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:24 pm
This is how gullible you Cons are:
“Michael Medved Crafts Tough Questions for the Presidential Debates”
That headline wasn’t written by an editor or a journalist or an objective third party, it was written by the author of said Questions. Here is the full tagline.
Michael Medved Crafts Tough Questions for the Presidential Debates
by Michael Medved
That’s like Finn McCool writing an article called
“The exact truth that most Americans can’t see or admit to.”
by Finn McCool
Oh, dang – that must be some real truth in there!
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:27 pm
“Towncrier, you make me laugh. Those softball questions from Medved aren’t going to get asked…
Medved is a silly man – angry but silly.”
Call me a gambler, but I would bet top dollar YOU did not graduate from Yale at 19. I posted these same questions on Jay’s blog and got a number of favorable responses from regulars there. It seems you are the only one who considers them to be softballs and abdicates any responsibility to think for yourself by dismissively sniffing your nose at their author. Couldn’t a better case be made for calling you a “silly man”?
Bob Loblaw
September 17th, 2012
5:32 pm
Every contribution is an investment. You’re buying into the Candiate’s agenda.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:32 pm
“From Politifact regardng the claim that Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8%: Each time, we rated the claim Mostly False.”
LOL. We get unthinking criticism of Medved from someone who slavishly cites the “fact checking” of Politifact – a service that has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions by both liberals and conservatives and which Maddow (a commentator the poster probably loves) has publicly said should be put out of business. Irony, thy name is Finn.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
5:33 pm
“Couldn’t a better case be made for calling you a “silly man”?”
Wouldn’t get an argument from most of the people on this blog.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:34 pm
Every contribution is an investment. You’re buying into the Candiate’s agenda.
Or you’re buying him for yours………..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
5:38 pm
And once again showing Politifact to the left-leaning hacks they claim NOT to be:
“Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html
Good thing they “have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent.”
I found it in less than 5 minutes.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:41 pm
I read the questions from the link provided by Towncrier. I’d like to see those questions asked but I’d be surprised to get a straight answer to any of them.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:44 pm
“Good thing they “have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent….I found it in less than 5 minutes.”
I think I might start referring to that service as Politifiction from now on. I think it is perhaps more accurate a name.
yuzeyurbrane
September 17th, 2012
5:45 pm
Kyle, it seems like we have views in common when it comes to good govt. issues. My only small exception to your article is that I don’t read so much into Balfour’s use of the term “investment level” donation. As one who receives many fundraising pitches from organizations across the spectrum, I get a chuckle out of some to the terms they use to massage the egos of large contributors. Like “Platinum” or “Gold” level donors, etc., etc. Georgia legislators don’t originate anything, whether it be legislation or flyers. Just as likely he or a staffer saw it in fundraising flyer they received and liked the ring of it.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:46 pm
“I read the questions from the link provided by Towncrier. I’d like to see those questions asked but I’d be surprised to get a straight answer to any of them.”
You are probably (and sadly) right, HD. But the body language (squirming) would be telling, wouldn’t it?
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:51 pm
Towncrier @ 5:46
This is true and as I believe, you can often tell more about a man by what he doesn’t say than by what he does.
Dave
September 17th, 2012
6:05 pm
I don’t understand this “it’s going to happen anyway, why ban gifts” mentality. Murder is going to happen – make it legal?
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
6:18 pm
“We get unthinking criticism of Medved from someone who slavishly cites the “fact checking” of Politifact – a service that has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions by both liberals and conservatives”
Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says? Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.
@@
September 17th, 2012
6:18 pm
Their decision will tell more about them than about Balfour.
If they don’t pull “the chair” out from under him, it’s probably because he knows where the bodies are buried.
Politics are a n-a-s-t-y business.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
6:23 pm
“Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.”
And it all depends on what the meaning of “is”, is. . . .
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
6:26 pm
Anything for the “Take no responsibility – we’re never wrong” bunch currently in the White House, eh, MarkV?
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
6:48 pm
“Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says? Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.”
Of course it always helps to understand the gist of a post or thread before responding in an unrelated fashion.
Streetracer
September 17th, 2012
6:51 pm
I work for a state agency. The policy is that we can’t accept anything from anyone. A strict reading would mean that my son couldn’t give me a birthday or christmas present.
killerj
September 17th, 2012
6:56 pm
Awww come on! you mean that escalade and box of pecans ain,t gonna get my easement done! those pecans were worth their weight in gold! dam.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
6:59 pm
Towncrier @ 6:48 pm
I know, your comment had nothing to do with the subject matter of the original post, only the fact that that post cited Politifact. Tell it to the Marines.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
7:14 pm
“I know, your comment had nothing to do with the subject matter of the original post, only the fact that that post cited Politifact. Tell it to the Marines.”
Plod on then, soldier. Let’s hear your defense of services that call themselves “fact checkers” being named so (instead of a far less presumptuous and misleading name like “claim analyzer” or some such thing). And let’s hear your rationale for why they are legitimately so named when it can only be assumed that not everyone is going to independently evaluate the validity of the simplistic overall rating (even in the form of an icon) by tracking back through the sources and looking at competing arguments? In short, please tell all of us why we should be obligated to fact check a service that calls itself a “fact checker”.
getalife
September 17th, 2012
7:19 pm
Looks like the good ole boy network is alive and well.
When congress gets legal unlimited bribes, you can hang it up on ethics.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
7:24 pm
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
cc
September 17th, 2012
7:41 pm
Here’s a little item I found interesting, and feel it should interest all the veterans reading and posting here. The author of the following is Bill Gertz. If you have further interest, Google the author or the subject. I’m particularly interested in any comments from veterans who support the re-election of Obama?
++++++
“The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their health care, while leaving unionized civilian defense worker’ benefits untouched.”
“Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.”
“The disparity in treatment between civilians and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”
“Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 79 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent – more than three times current levels.”
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
7:45 pm
Towncrier @ 7:14 pm
One more time; perhaps you grasp it this time. I did not defend Politifact, which I have my own disagreements with. But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise, and it incidentally quoted what PolitiFact said about that subject. Instead of arguing the subject, you chose to attack Poltifact. If you want us to believe that you would have similarly attacked a quote from Politifact favorable to Romney, then I say again – tell it to the Marines.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
7:54 pm
“But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise”
Yeah, ’cause we can’t cover this administration’s a$$ if we call it a promise, so we’ll just rename it to a “projection”.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
7:56 pm
When a politician “projects”, it’s an implied promise the way I see it. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:00 pm
Towncrier,
You are among the best lib busters. Give em hell on Bookman and post here often.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:03 pm
cc
I am sure you validated those tricare numbers from a DOD or Tricare site, right?
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:07 pm
cc(td)
Army Times while not the DOD or tricare by any means is not validating your numbers.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-lawmakers-promise-fight-against-tricare-increases-032812w/
Can you assist with numbers to validate what you posted or admit you ran with numbers because you thought it made a great political point?
Thanks
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
8:10 pm
Hillbilly D @ 7:56 pm
“When a politician “projects”, it’s an implied promise the way I see it. “
Actually, it is the other way round. When a politician makes a promise, it is at best a projection. Nobody can absolutely predict future. If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?”
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:15 pm
cc, I’m not retired military, I served 1961-1967. Our military under Obama as CiC has managed to alienate those who wear the uniform with his outlandish announcement of withdrawal timetables from Afghanistan, his disregard for military leaders who cautioned him against complete removal of our forces from Iraq to his embrace of homosexuals in the military by his backdoor repeal of DADT. My contacts tell me re-enlistments are on the decline and more officers are now resigning their commissions. Not good for are all volunteer military. Wrong president at the wrong time for America.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:17 pm
Sorry…Not good for OUR all volunteer military.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
8:22 pm
” If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?””
I’ll consider it about 4 times the number this current Disaster-in-Chief delivered, and I’ll bet it will have been done cheaper, too!
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:22 pm
del
Recruiting slip this year?
FY2011: All branches met their goals
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
8:25 pm
“One more time; perhaps you grasp it this time. I did not defend Politifact, which I have my own disagreements with. But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise, and it incidentally quoted what PolitiFact said about that subject. Instead of arguing the subject, you chose to attack Poltifact.”
And one more time, the gist of my posts was to call into question Finn’s out-of-hand dismissal of Medved as a legitimate source of information while AT THE SAME TIME uncritically citing Politifact without apparently knowing (or acknowledging) that service has had many documented problems with veracity. I made NO mention of the claim Politifact was “fact checking” and ended my post by saying “Irony, thy name is Finn.”
You, on the other hand, despite your denial of wishing to defend such services, used MY post (rather than Finn’s or – better – Tiberius” @ 5:38) as a jumping off point to make a point unrelated (as you have admitted) to mine, beginning with this question: “Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says?”. Who do you think you are kidding? You were defending their conclusion in this one instance and I think the service generally. Why the felt need to do so? There is a cynical side to me that suspects these services are calling themselves “fact checkers” for nefarious purposes (you know, like shaping the beliefs of those who don’t think well for themselves, or to put it another way and you seem fond of saying, telling it to the Marines).
Got it now?
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:26 pm
Del
What a suprise, all branches met 2012 as well. You might need some new sources or they are feeding you bad intel for some reason or another
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Armed-Forces-recruiting-still-meeting-2012-goals-3696901.php
cc
September 17th, 2012
8:31 pm
They BOTH suck@8:03 pm:
I didn’t ‘validate’ anything. From my post, “If you have further interest, Google the author or the subject”.
They BOTH suck@8:07 pm:
For the record, I am not ‘td’ and will not respond to any further posts addressed in that manner.
From the link YOU provided me:
“The Defense Department’s proposed 2013 budget calls for an increase in annual enrollment fees for retirees in Tricare Prime to rise by 30 percent to 78 percent, depending on retirement income. Working-age retirees — those younger than 65 — also would pay annual enrollment fees for Tricare Standard and Extra: $70 for an individual and $140 for a family, and deductibles for those plans would rise by $10 for individuals and $20 for families.”
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
8:31 pm
TBS, you DO realize that Del cited RE-enlistments as being down, and not recruiting goals, don’t you?
For every experienced soldier, sailor, airman or Marine we lose, it costs us a boatload of money to train new recruits, who then might put experienced personnel in harm’s way through inexperience.
If Del’s contacts are correct, this isn’t a good sign for the military.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:34 pm
Tiberius & Del
Thanks for the clarification. That was my oversight
Are the numbers higher than the average historical rates?
If so, then there could be problems. If they are in the norm and within states goals for each branch, then it is what it is
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:35 pm
cc
I do not care who that gentlemen is or isn’t. I salute his service, however he isn’t the DOD or tricare.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:36 pm
TBS, I only know what I’ve heard from people who I respect. I don’t respect stats as much…sorry. The economy and job availability aren’t particularly good and remaining in service is more appealing to those who aren’t that good.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:36 pm
cc
As for the numbers, I will ask my dad to see what his increase was or has he been notified.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
8:41 pm
If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?”
I will. I was always told to not let your mouth overload your ass. A smart man keeps his mouth shut about what he’s going to do, until he does it. They all get caught up in one-upping each other’s promises. It’s a fool’s game, in my opinion.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:42 pm
Del
Friend of mine is getting out at the end of the year. He is a Lt Col with 20 plus years, stationed at Ft Benning. He wants to see his kids finish school without another deployment.
He has been to Korea, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq (2) and Afganistan. He is done.
He really isn’t a political guy in terms of US politics. He bitches about Obama as much as he did Bush. He is more a libertarian. I doubt he even votes each election.
Pizzaman
September 17th, 2012
8:42 pm
Again the Repubs show they’re just as good as the Dems at being crooked, bought and paid for!
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
8:45 pm
Towncrier @8:25 pm
“Got it now?”
Yes, I got it that you did not get it, and apparently never will.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:45 pm
HillBilly D
Good point. Outside of a bubble he can’t promise 12 million jobs. Well he can, but he has no commitment ofrom companies willing to hire that many people, no more than Obama promising shovel ready and green jobs.
Consumer demand makes up 70% of the economy. Yes certain tax breaks might spur investment here and there, but in end if there is no increase in consumer demand, we will be stagnant. And seeing that consumer debt across the board has only risen over the last 30 yrs, I see it being awhile before we are back to 6% or less unemployment.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:47 pm
Del
For the record, the military did met their 2011 retention goals, but to your point, that doesn’t in itself mean they kept everyone they would have liked.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:48 pm
The real problem is with combat experienced military personnel. When we see SOCOM troopers expressing dissatisfaction , leaving the military and writing books critical of command in the upper chain you should know there’s indeed problems. I’ve been there and know how politics drives good people out.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
8:51 pm
I see it being awhile before we are back to 6% or less unemployment.
I think we’re screwed for quite some time, yet. I expect it to be about like it is now, four years from now.
All this stuff is 40 or more years in the making and there’s no telling how long it will last.
cc
September 17th, 2012
8:55 pm
Del@8:15 pm:
I have never understood the announcing of military withdrawals, and Afghanistan is a perfect example of why I think it should NEVER be done. The timetable for the drawing down and eventual withdrawal is known to the enemy. As we now see, as our troop strength there declines, attacks killing and wounding our troops increase. Neither Obama nor Clinton are lovers of the military. Any respect for the military shown by either of them is strictly for the camera. Obama does not listen to the military leaders because their recommendations conflict with his agenda. I am curious to know if the military is experiencing a reduction in force through attrition?
One additional note unrelated to this; there appears to be massive redeployment of Israeli military forces and much movement of military equipment going on in Israel right now. I would not be surprised to learn at any time of major news in regards to this.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:55 pm
” that doesn’t in itself mean they kept everyone they would have liked.”
TBS, that’s my whole point. The only residual positive for all the stupid wars we’ve fought is retaining a combat experienced military. No other country has been able to accomplish it as we’ve done from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and our war against terror. Don’t ever think it doesn’t make the difference.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:57 pm
HillyBilly D
Agreed. I am of the contention that if you take away the tech boom that started in the early to mid 80s, the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, we would have been seeing this trend for longer than we have been seeing it.
Theses “booms” made a lot of people a lot of money and I do not begrudge them one bit. But with debt rising and jobs going overseas “the chickens have come home to roost”.
Easy to blame the right, left, blah blah blah. I am guilty for getting in that mix as well, but it isn’t just union manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. As many or more IT / programming, engineering, customer service jobs have left these shores as well.
The service economy which as been building for years and will continue if current trends persist, along with newer and more efficient technologies does leave some folks behind.
I surely do not have the answer
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
9:05 pm
it isn’t just union manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. As many or more IT / programming, engineering, customer service jobs have left these shores as well.
Most folks didn’t really care when it was blue collar jobs we were bleeding. They only started to care when it started to affect their sector but by then, the die was already cast and it was too late.
At this point, I’m not sure there is an answer. Every empire, for lack of a better word, usually gets 200-300 years. That may be where we are now.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:06 pm
They BOTH suck@8:35 pm:
YOU provided the link to me, and I actually READ and quoted to you what YOUR source article stated. What is your problem? I’m grateful to you for the information YOU furnished that verified MY post! Your statement. “Army Times while not the DOD or tricare by any means is not validating your numbers.” Was incorrect. If you had READ the article you furnished me, you would know that the article did, in fact, verify my original post.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:07 pm
CC, My sense is that it would be an undertaking beyond Israels capability to launch an air attack against Iran’s nuclear development facilities. Having said that, however, Israel has proved the world wrong many times over.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:16 pm
Del@9:07 pmL
If that happens, my prayers will be with them. There was a time when the Iranian people wanted to overthrow their ruling authority, but we did NOT support them. I guess that the reason we didn’t support them was that they (1) were not radical, and (2) didn’t hate us. That seems to be the requirement to gain U. S. support these days. Iran poses a very real threat to us as well as Israel, and we should be working with our ally (soon to be FORMER ally?), Israel.
TruthBe
September 17th, 2012
9:21 pm
Obama the Muslim Traitor we have for a president is going to release the “Blind Sheik Terrorist” to Egypt one of the Muslim Brotherhoods Countries that just killed Americas and attacked our embassies. Remember this man was the mastermind of the first attack of the trade centers in NY leading up to 911. Just like O’s message to Putin, that he would have more “flexibility” after the elections as if O knew/knows that he will be re-elected. A sitting member of Congress blocked the release of funding to the Palestinian Authority, yet Hillary had them released on humanitarian basis and Congress sat on their hands. The DOJ had video evidence of voter intimidation, but the DOJ decided not to prosecute. Our consulates and embassies are attacked, flag burned, soldiers attacked, and personnel killed, yet our government funnels billions of taxpayer dollars in aid to all these countries. Now the oh, so intelligent people in this administration feel that releasing a convicted murderer that it will appease the Muslim world. Really, did none of them see how effective the release of the Lockerbie bomber, on his supposed death bed, was?! When the blind sheik‘s release doesn’t quell the violence, will they then release all the detainees at Gitmo? How much more sovreignty and leadership are they willing to give up in the hope of appeasement?
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:23 pm
cc, Israel needs us but so do we need Israel. The Obama administration dismisses that need and it’s to our peril as well as to Israels.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:31 pm
Del@9:23 pm:
100% agreed, or to put it another way. “effing A”!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
9:34 pm
Line of the night from Hannity: “Valerie Jarrett has more security on her vacation to Martha’s Vineyard than our ambassador to Libya did on the anniversary of 9/11″.
If that isn’t a sad and sorry statement about how screwed up our priorities are, I don’t know what is.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:38 pm
Tib, that is indeed sad.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:42 pm
Okay to CC, Tiberius and my other conservative friends, pleasant evening…Taps
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
10:18 pm
cc
Apologize for the delay. The Army Times articles list increases, but not at the percentages your post cited.
If I am missing something, let me know
Thanks
bluecoat
September 17th, 2012
10:21 pm
Balfour for Governor.Seems he is well qualified.
bluecoat
September 17th, 2012
10:26 pm
Since the state has defanged its watch dog.he may be over qualified by gov.election time.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
10:36 pm
“Yes, I got it that you did not get it, and apparently never will.”
If that is all you can muster in response, I would say let the other readers judge for themselves. At least I provided a detailed rationale for disbelieving your initial defense which you have yet to counter, except with the above.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
11:35 pm
Towncrier 10:36 pm
Against my better judgment, because I do not believe you can get it, I will give it one last try.
Here we had somebody (Finn McCool), addressing a question of whether Obama promised lower than 8% unemployment, or if it was a projection. And he quoted Politifact, who had presented their case for projection. You responded to this post. How? By recalling that the same person who had criticized what Medved had written about another subject, now in a different post has quoted Politifact, and Politifact had been called wrong on various subjects.
So we have a first class inanity right there. According to you, to quote a source, which you call unreliable, somehow says something about what that person wrote about a completely different subject.
When I then pointed out that the other post by Finn McCool, the one regarding the 8%, made sense because it was factual, regardless of what the source quoted there was, what was your response? A rant against Politifact and then accusing me, falsely, of defending Politifact. Again both an inanity and distortion of the truth.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
11:44 pm
“When I then pointed out that the other post by Finn McCool, the one regarding the 8%, made sense because it was factual”
It’s only factual if you ignore the English language.
cc
September 18th, 2012
12:18 am
Tiberius@11:44 pm:
If Clarence Darrow was alive today, he would change his famous quote, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.” Darrow would now say, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I believe it.”
As far as Obama is concerned, if his lips are moving, he’s lying.
cc
September 18th, 2012
1:30 am
Del@9:07 pm:
I can’t see that Israel has much choice in this matter. Iran continues to threaten the very existence of Israel and its citizens. Why would any rational person doubt that Iran will use their soon to be available nukes against Israel? They have made very public their tests of the delivery system, and done it in a way so as to attempt the intimidation of Israel. Apparently Netanyahu and Israel have correctly concluded that Obama will not aid them, and could plausibly support Iran – if only by his refusal to aid Israel.
“(Iranian) Defense official Jalali says destroying Israel is the only way to liberate Palestine; Israeli gov’t official: The fact that Iran makes such comments despite increased int’l pressure shows they really believe it.” With the US sending clear public signals to Israel that it is opposed to military action now against Iran, and a cacophonous debate on the matter in Israel, senior Iranian officials continue to threaten Israel with destruction.”
“Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity,” Iran’s president said on Friday in one of his sharpest attacks yet against the Jewish state, as Israel openly debates whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity,” Ahmadinejad said.”
yuzeyurbrane
September 18th, 2012
10:14 am
Cons, the subject is Republican State Senator Balfour’s deficient ethics.
Del
September 18th, 2012
11:13 am
It’s ball four time to take the next base.