March 8, 2019 6:49 AM
HomePoliticsMorning Reads for Friday, March 8, 2019

Morning Reads for Friday, March 8, 2019

By  Politics  18 Comments

About Author

Ginny

Get off my lawn.

18 Comments
  1. Dave Bearse

    He’s been out of office two months, but Crony-In-Chief Nathan Deal continues to be in the news. Just a week or two ago the news was that the Georgia Lottery had hired Deal’s daughter to a six figure job. It was awarded it to her only three days after the job was created, and only a few weeks before Deal left office. (Wasn’t she the one that was so good at campaign funding raising without any experience that she deserved a 10% cut of all of Deal’s campaign contributions?)

    News this week are the extraordinary long term contracts granted to a number of highly paid state employees shortly before Deal walked out the door. Recall that Deal will be lobbying these very people beginning next year. What better way for Deal to guarantee they’ll take Deal’s call’s in the meantime, as well as lobbying calls for the long haul, than multi-year contracts with six figure golden parachutes?

    https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/deal-gave-georgia-agency-heads-golden-parachute-contracts-last-year/A0C8VDuGAoYRi4ytmsRU3O/

    Deal did such a good job loading state government with his cronies that the GaGOP needs new prominent positions to appoint friends and insiders. State takeover of the ATL airport fits the bill.

    If you think these new rules are dramatic, wait until you see what the GaGOP does on the eve of it losing a statewide office. Remember the GOP’s motto, “If it’s legal, it’s ethical.”

  2. John Vestal

    Yes, cancer very MUCH sucks!

    Which is why I do what I do…for the 12th time tomorrow! Thanks!

  3. Mr1raggedhole

    I’ve seen things… seen things you little people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium… I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments…

    Yet, I’ve not seen a pollen hate crime until today. I am complete.

  4. Benevolus

    I don’t recall seeing it mentioned here, but Atlanta City Council has voted (unanimously) to be 100% “clean energy powered by 2035.
    https://www.ajc.com/news/local/atlanta-oks-plan-have-facilites-run-clean-energy-2035/9wMQvl92BxvfgMvfNzzuvM/

    The plan says :
    “The Clean Energy Resolution defines “clean energy” as “energy derived from wind, solar, existing and low impact hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, and wave technology sources” and directs the City of Atlanta Mayor’s Office of Resilience to develop a plan for the city to transition to 100 percent clean energy by 2035. The legislation states that this transition plan must include “interim milestones, budget estimates, equity metrics (such as, but not limited to, energy burden), estimated financial impacts, financing mechanisms, and the percentage of clean energy that shall be locally and
    distributively generated.

    This should be interesting.

    Here is the full plan fyi (still needs to be signed by the mayor):
    http://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/Search.aspx#SearchText=18-R-3783&Type=All&MediaOnly=False&SortBy=Relevance

  5. Raleigh

    I canceled the recycling program offered by my trash collection company. I watched them put both recycling and regular waste in the same truck after they quadrupled the price.

    Here is why,

    https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/06/recycling-expensive-trash-landfill

  6. chefdavid

    And SB 59 is dead? Please don’t record this.

  7. Ellynn

    Happy International Women’s Day!!!

    https://twitter.com/womensday

  8. Raleigh

    Good Grief…….. This is just wrong period.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/

    • Benevolus

      Have you got any info on what vote they are talking about? I can’t find it.

      • davidmac

        Hi Benevolus and Raleigh,
        Based on the vote positions mentioned in the article, this would appear to be Rep. Crenshaw’s Motion to Recommit With Instructions.
        It’s a slam on California, and after last week’s failure-to-whip against the MtRwI on HR 8 that has ICE called on anyone who’s determined to be an undocumented immigrant in the course of their background check, it’s a casualty of party unity. It’s not unreasonable, but it’s unnecessary.

        Text was extracted from the House’s closed-captioning:

        ADD AT THE END OF THE BILL THE FOLLOWING,
        ACCORDINGLY, DIVISION D, UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA. TITLE 11, UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA.
        SECTION 11001, SHORT TITLE. THIS DIVISION MAY BE CITED AS THE UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA ACT OR THE U.S.A. ACT.
        SECTION 11002, FINDINGS. CONGRESS FINDS AS FOLLOWS —
        1, VOTING IS FUNDAMENTAL TO A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY.
        2, THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AND VOTING BASED ON RACE, SEX, POLL TAXES AND AGE.
        3, IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT THE UNITED STATES MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF ITS ELECTIONS AND PROTECTS THEM FROM INTERFERENCE, INCLUDING INTERFERENCE FROM FOREIGN THREATS AND ILLEGAL VOTING.
        4, THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, IS ALLOWING NONCITIZENS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
        5, FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS NONCITIZENS FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE.
        SECTION 11003, SENSE OF CONGRESS.
        IT IS THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT ALLOWING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THE RIGHT TO VOTE DEVALS AS [devalues] THE FRANCHISE AND DIMINISHES THE VOTING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

    • Benevolus

      There were 7 procedural votes on HR1, one of which was 228-197, so maybe that’s it. That vote was to allow further amendments to the bill, which was denied.

      So basically, with HR1, the feds would choose to not try to intervene with localities that choose to let undocumented residents vote in local elections.

      Interestingly, Lucy McBath voted with the Repubs on that vote.
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll117.xml

      • davidmac

        See above. Strictly speaking, it was a vote for a single amendment (and I included the text), and IMO it’s both an unnecessary addition and a casualty of party discipline.

  9. chefdavid

    Ole Lying Hillary got four Pinocchio’s today on false claims of voter suppression. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/06/hillary-clintons-claims-about-voter-suppression-georgia-wisconsin/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.806e004e92e5

    • Benevolus

      Ya know, that would be like me searching for negative Jeb Bush quotes and re-posting them. Who cares?

      • Mr1raggedhole

        Her comments are six days old. Jeb is not trying to continue a voter suppression fallacy which she is.

        • Benevolus

          Fallacies? We are concerned with fallacies?

  10. Will Durant

    First off I don’t bring this up to stir the pot on the abortion wars. That pot bubbles on its own. I’ve haven’t seen any mention of HB 481 on here and the looming political ramifications that Mr. Bluestein is focusing on in this article:
    https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/georgia-abortion-vote-possible-political-turning-point/A6wWqbyNVjnv6a5snfyPeN/

    Was this a bone thrown to Ralph Reed, et al. for keeping RFRA out this year? Will Republicans in Georgia get hurt in 2020, especially with suburban women if when this bill passes? If you consider yourself a fiscal conservative how can you justify the future legal expense? The bill is effectively banning all but a very small percentage of abortions given the time frame. It will likely go all the way to the Supremes but why subject Georgia’s taxpayers with the legal money burden when other states are already going there?

Add a Comment