2005 MULLET/THINK TANK COMMENTARY ARCHIVES - May Tuesday, May 31 2005
Perry’s folly haunts New Orleans (Posted 05/31/05)
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott
Yesterday, we learned that Former F Troop Commandant Steve Perry’s deal with the New Orleans Saints is going to cause taxes to rise on one of the largest most important industries in LA. See “Watchcat” Robert Scott’s story here.
When the Saints deal was consummated nobody bothered to give it even a second thought. Why? Because all the extra money was going to come from existing revenue sources — read his lips: NO NEW TAXES!
Pie-in-sky numbers
It is important to remember that the Saints deal was not signed until AFTER 9/11/01. Yet we continue to read that the revenues did not materialize because of the unexpected tragedy of 9-11.
Clearly, even without the effects on tourism from 9-11, the hotel/motel tax revenues were inflated to make the numbers work. But they still weren’t enough.
Next, the pie-in-sky figure for selling the naming rights to the SuperDome were thrown in to make up the shortfall. This despite the New Orleans is one of the smallest media markets in the NFL with an out-migration of businesses. Despite numerous searches no takers have been found.
It was deja vu the attendance projections for the World’s Fair of 1984 and the land-based casino.
The entire deal was concocted to allow the Black Mold Administration to leave the problem of actually funding the Saints deal to the next governor’s administration.
Irony
The supreme irony is that the man who put the whole deal together finds himself right in the middle of the mess he created. Deal-maker Perry is now in charge of making sure that the huge tourism and convention business in New Orleans flourishes. Now, because of him, the industry which he oversees is going to be saddled with additional taxes that will make the task exponentially more difficult.
The only question is whether Perry actually believed his own fiction. That question was partially answered by the Baton Rouge newspaper on Saturday. Perry had allowed himself to be considered for a PR at LSU in Baton Rouge. A lower paying, lower profile, less accountable safe job hidden away in academia. Can anyone even name the PR person for LSU? No,it’s not Skip Bertman, he’s the Athletic Director.
If it wasn’t for the danger in which Perry placed this most important economic engine, it would be just desserts. Unfortunately, as usual, ultimately all in LA will pay for his folly.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
New “Watchcat” (Posted 05/27/05)
In his column today, James Gill breaks new ground in informing the public. See the column here.
Not only does he bravely take on his own newspaper/employer to task for misleading the public, but breaks a story that has been ignored by all the other media in the state.
As far as can be confirmed, James is the only person in the media to have actually looked at the latest Revenue Estimating Conference figures and reported the full amount of increase in state revenues of $715 Million.
With the power vested in me as the Chairman, CEO and President of C.B. a Non-profit, Non-partisan, Think Tank, I hereby invest James Gill with our highest award. He shall henceforth hold the title of “Watchcat” with all the Honors, Rights and Privileges to that title appertaining.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Note: For the definition of a “Watchcat” go to the glossary link above.
Existing precedent for terms being shortened (Posted 05/26/05)
A new member of the think tank just reminded me that there is precedent for shortening the terms of elected officials. It was last done by Act 1082 of 1986. See below:
LA Constitution Article IV, Section 3(D):
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution or of law to the contrary, statewide elected officials and members of the legislature elected in 1987 shall hold office from and after the second Monday in March, 1988. These statewide elected officials and any successor elected to the unexpired term of any of them shall serve for terms which shall expire at noon on January 13, 1992. These members of the legislature and any successor elected to the unexpired term of any of them shall serve for terms which shall expire at ten o’clock a.m. on January 13, 1992. Thereafter, statewide elected officials and members of the legislature shall be elected for terms of four years. For purposes of retirement, the statewide elected officials and members of the legislature elected in 1987 shall be deemed to be elected for a four-year term. Emphasis mine.
The terms of those elected in 1987 took office on the second Monday in March, 1988, but their 4-YEAR TERMS ended at Noon, January 13, 1992. Thus the terms were shortened by approximately 2 months.
Therefore, other than political rhetoric there is no legal impediment to shortening the terms of the leges and statewide elected officials via a constitutional amendment in order to “synchronize elections” and save the taxpayers money.
That leaves only one explanation for House Bill 80; to lenghten by one year the terms of the term-limited leges.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Shortened terms prohibited??? (Posted 05/25/05)
I keep hearing the argument that in order to “synchronize” the elections (HB 80) in LA with the federal elections requires that the incumbents’ terms must be lengthen. The argument is that the state constitution prohibits the shortening of a term of any incumbent elected official.
Apparently, what is being argued is the provision that deals strictly with the case of merger of the offices of certain statewide elected officials into other offices.
LA Constitution Article IV, Section 20 states:
Section 20. After the first election of state officials following the effective date of this constitution, the legislature may provide, by law enacted by two-thirds of the elected members of each house, for appointment, in lieu of election, of the commissioner of agriculture, the commissioner of insurance, the superintendent of education, the commissioner of elections, or any of them. In that event, the legislature shall prescribe qualifications and method of appointment and by similar vote, may provide by law for the merger or consolidation of any such office, its department, and functions with any other office or department in the executive branch. No action of the legislature pursuant hereto shall reduce the term or compensation of any incumbent elected official. By law enacted by two-thirds of the elected members of each house, the legislature may reestablish any such office as elective and, in that event, shall prescribe qualifications. (emphasis mine)
The limitation deals on with legislative action (not amendments to our constitution) in this limited case of the merger of a handful of offices.
To argue that the constitution prohibits reducing the terms of office is to argue that a constitutional amendment cannot change the constitution.
Finally, conceding all arguments to the contrary, if one really wants to shorten the terms, simply add this language to the proposed amendment: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution to the contrary.”
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
The Rest of the Story….(Posted 05/24/05)
We’ve been informed by the media that at the recent meeting of the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) the state got a windfall of $360 Million spread over two fiscal years.
That’s a huge amount of money, but that is only half of it. Now, here’s what you haven’t been told:
Counting the money going into the State General Fund AND the money that is dedicated, the state picked up $342 million in additional revenues for 2004-05 and $373 million for 2005-06.
Bottom-line, state revenues have increased by a whopping $715 MILLION!
Yes, an increase of almost THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS. See report here.
C.B.
A Non-profit, Non-Partisan, Think Tank
More of Big Daddy’s legacy (Posted 05/23/05)
We just learned about the latest of Big Daddy’s deals coming back to haunt/cost us taxpayers.
Now Steve Perry’s Hornets’ basketball team deal is costing us. First, the taxpayers were paying for golf rounds not played, thanks to the former F Troop Commandant. Now, we are paying for seats not sat in. See story here.
What will be unearthed next from the “Black Mold Administration”?
Also, how about the headline on the story: “Cash strapped LA….”! We just found $360 Million! What will it take for the politicians to have some real money?
LA isn’t “cash-strapped” it is “deal-strapped.”
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Fearless Republicans (Posted 05/20/05)
Without Repubs in the lege voting for tax increases in LA, there won’t be any. The Repubs make up more than a third of the leges in each lege body. It takes two-thirds of each body to pass a tax increase.
To see which Repubs in the House have no fear of voting for higher taxes on us mullets, one need only look at the vote on HB 219. The bill allows local governments to impose up to a $4 tax on our driver’s licenses WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. To see the actual vote go here.
Repubs for higher taxes are Reps Crane, Dove, Downs, Hutter, Johns, Kennard, Lancaster, Martiny, McVea, Tank Powell, Smiley, Jane Smith, Toomy, Tucker and Waddell.
NOTE: Rep. Tucker is the co-chairman of the Heh, Heh, Heh, Repub Caucus.
In case you are wondering where they will get 70 votes in the House to increase the cigarette tax, one should start with the 71 who voted to allow this tax on us. Only two Repubs are needed to pass the tax. Fifteen voted for HB 219.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
How about a “Bayou Tea Party” (Posted 05/19/05)
The leges have a novel plan to increase taxes. This time they want to increase our taxes WITHOUT ANY VOTE of the leges (or any other elected officials).
HB 619 by Rep. Joe Salter and SB 277 by Sen. Francis Heitmeier would give the power to raise taxes on the college students (and their parents) to the management boards of the colleges and universities.
Questionable constitutionality
Article VII, Section 1(A) of the LA Constitution states: Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, the power of taxation shall be vested in the legislature, shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away, and shall be exercised for public purposes only.
Article II, Section 2 of the LA Constitution states: Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, no one of these branches, nor any person holding office in one of them, shall exercise power belonging to either of the others.
A literal reading of these two provisions indicates that both are violated by delegating the authority to the management boards. Now that for purposes of the lege process, fees are treated the same as taxes seems to indicate that when “taxation” is used it means fees as well. Even if “taxes” and “fees” are held to be different it seems to be an unconstitutional action by a part of the Executive Branch.
Taxation without representation
Not one member of these boards are elected by the people. They are only accountable to the person who appoints them — the governor.
As I recall a big war was fought over what is being done to these students (and their parents). They are being subjected to taxation without representation. It’s time for a “Bayou Tea Party.”
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
The “Black Mold Administration” (Posted 05/18/05)
The recent revelation about the black mold being found in the Governor’s Mansion in Baton Rouge is a metaphor for how Big Daddy and F Troop handled all problems during his 8 year reign.
Here’s how Big Daddy handled the black mold problem while he was residing in the mansion:
Blanco’s predecessor, Gov. Mike Foster, resisted recommendations to have the work done when he lived at the mansion. Instead, he put filters over the vents when they started spewing black soot. (emphasis mine)
That says it all. As we’re reminded by the Saints deal, the state being on the hook for unplayed golf rounds, unfunded accrued liability in the retirement systems, unfunded group benefits program, charity hospitals meltdown, etc.; just cover it up. It’ll soon be someone else’s problem.
As part of Big Daddy’s legacy we should begin referring to those 8 years as the “Black Mold Administration.”
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Lt. Gov. has the solution w/o tax increases (Posted 05/17/05)
In a story in the Times Picayune, Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu says:
“We make a 15-to-1 return on the investment the state gives us,” …. “The more money given to us, the greater the return on the investment we can give the state.”
Based on the Lt. Gov’s numbers, the state should put $100 Million of its new-found revenues from Monday’s Revenue Estimating Conference (”REC”) meeting into the Lt. Governor’s budget. A $100 Million investment will would get a $1.5 BILLION return if invested in the Lt. Gov’s office.
Then the REC can recognize the net $1.3 BILLION extra that will come in during the 2005-06 fiscal year. That solves all the state’s current fiscal problems without resorting to higher taxes.
During the 2006-07 fiscal year the state investment $200 Million in the Lt. Gov’s budget. That would produce $3 BILLION or $2.8 BILLION net.
At this rate of return on the investment in the Lt. Gov’s budget in a few years we could repeal all the state taxes except those paid by tourists.
All the money to fund state government will come from tourists. I wish I’d thought of this years ago.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Teachers and children are merely bait! (Posted 05/16/05)
Despite all the poor-mouthing we hear and all these folks on the radio talking about a “fiscal crisis”, without any new taxes or tax increases, THE STATE CAN SPEND MORE this year than last!
A story in the Times Picayune reports:
[Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc] said he expects the state’s official revenue forecasters meeting Monday to conclude that, even without a new cigarette tax, that the state has a “pretty substantial” amount of revenue coming in for this and the next fiscal year than the state had previously anticipated. That will give the state the leeway to spend more, but the amount will not be enough to pay for Blanco’s proposed teacher raises and health-care needs also, LeBlanc said.
Translation: LA will have much more money coming in this fiscal year than last year (probably a $100 Million plus), but those monies are going to be spent on much more important things than teacher pay raises and healthcare for the poor and elderly. Only money from higher taxes can be used to used to pay for those less important things.
When it comes to spending in LA education is the top priority — RIGHT AFTER EVERYTHING ELSE.
It’s been going on for decades. When the leges want to raise a tax, they throw out the teachers and “the children” as bait.
It has been said that doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different result is the definition of insanity.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Taxpayers win one!! (Posted 05/13/05)
Yesterday the LA Supremes just ruled that it will take a majority or two-thirds of 39 senators to pass a law or tax. (See yesterday’s commentary in the archives for details.)
Interestingly, Sen. Art Lentini, a Republican, argued in favor of making it easier to pass taxes. The people were represented by House Clerk Butch Speer. See story here.
Again, kudos to the House of Representatives for arguing the case on behalf of the taxpayers. Who knows what the decision might have been in this “friendly lawsuit” but for the unfriendly intervention of the House.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Senator Responds (Posted 05/13/05)
Below is a note that I just received from Sen. Rob Marionneaux. Despite what the senator implies, I could care less about party affiliation, conservative, liberal or whatever. I don’t deal in personalties or philosophies, but issues and votes.
If anyone wishes to give a pat on the back to Senator Marionneaux for doing the job for which we pay him to do, please feel free to send him an email at the address below.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:30:26 -0400
From: robmarionneaux@aol.com
Subject: Supreme Court
To: cb@forgotston.com
CB
I must have missed something. No, you missed something. Your column indicates that the people were represented by House Clerk BUtch Speer. WRONG! To read your column I must have not been the person to institute the suit, I must not have been the person who argued for the taxpayers, I must not have been in New ORleans yesterday.
Yes, I was there; I was the one who instituted the suit on behalf of the taxpayers, and I was the LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL, as is deliniated in the pleadings.
Maybe it just that you have a hard time recognizing the GOOD efforts of a conservative democrat!
Sen. Robert M. Marionneaux.
Robert M. Marionneaux, Jr
Unglesby & Marionneaux
246 Napoleon Street
Baton Rouge, La 70802
tele. (225) 387-0120
fax (225) 336-4355
A “Friendly Lawsuit†(Posted 05/12/05)
In what is described as a “friendly lawsuit,” two state senators sued some other state senators to find out if fewer than 20 senators can pass a state law and fewer than 26 senators can increase our taxes. (Presumably the litigation will also result in determining if fewer than 53 representatives can pass a state law and fewer than 70 representatives can increase our taxes.)
It gets friendlier.
We then learned that LA Supremes, in a gesture of friendship, have agreed to hear oral arguments today in the “friendly lawsuit” without the necessity of a friendly trial in the 19th JDC wherein the “friendly lawsuit” was initially filed. Coincidentally the Supremes have their budget and pay raises pending before the friendly leges.
All this friendliness caused me to ponder whether in this “friendly lawsuit” the people of LA, are being represented. After all, we have to pay the bills if the result of this “friendly lawsuit” makes it easier for the leges to pass taxes.
Unfortunately, we didn’t learn from the media that the LA House of Representatives has intervened in the lawsuit on, what I consider, the side of the people. See the brief here.
The excellent brief was prepared by House Clerk Butch Speer and Mary Quaid of the House Staff and filed on behalf of the LA House of Representatives. In a nutshell, the House brief argues that a major or two-thirds vote is based on the total number of persons who can be elected (39 in Senate and 105 in House) to each body.
What the Supremes decide in this “friendly lawsuit” will be a crapshoot. At least there is some comfort in knowing that even in this “friendly lawsuit” the people of LA, whose constitution it is, has presented their argument.
Kudos to the LA House of Representatives for giving the people a voice in this “friendly lawsuit.”
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Circular taxation logic (Posted 05/11/05)
For the last few weeks I’ve been listening carefully to the arguments for higher taxes on cigarettes to provide a pay raise for the public school teachers, support workers, college professors and instructors.
A secondary argument for the tax increase is that it will reduce the number of smokers. That will reduce the number of incidents of smoking related illnesses thus saving the taxpayers money by reducing the number of uninsured and indigents that need state-funded medical care.
Apparently, the tax money saved from not having to provide medical care to uninsured and indigent smokers will be used to make up for the shortfall in the money to provide the pay raises as a result of fewer people smoking.
Also being proposed is a “sick tax” on people (smokers and others) who use private hospitals as opposed to public hospitals. By the same logic as the cigarette tax, the “sick tax” will encourage the insured and the non-indigent to stay well by not smoking and thus not paying the “sick tax.”
A portion of the money from the “sick tax” will also be used to match Federal Funds to pay for the healthcare of the indigent and uninsured who continue to smoke.
Therefore, with the passage of these two taxes the teachers get a raise and uninsured and indigents who wish to help the teachers by smoking will get better healthcare when they become ill from smoking.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
P.S. In the future, I will address how to bring about world peace by taxing poor people in Third World Countries.
Lawmaker shows contempt for law (Posted 05/10/05)
In a story in the Baton Rouge newspaper, House Speaker Pro Tem Rep. Yvonne Dorsey, D-Baton Rouge in response to having an unlicensed lawyer representing her says the following:
“I don’t think it’s a problem. I could have done it in proper person (without a lawyer).”
While she is correct that she can represent herself; she didn’t. She used an unlicensed lawyer. It IS a problem because the law (that she writes) says such persons cannot represent her.
Aristotle said: “Good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.”
Rep. Dorsey contempt for the laws which she makes serves as a poor example for the citizens of LA.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
P.S. Rep. Dorsey may want to get a LICENSED lawyer to determine whether she is actually divorced.
Pimple on Bee’s ass pops! (Posted 05/09/05)
By now you have probably heard that Insurance Commish Robert Wooley has turned in his luxury pickup truck and SUV.
Apparently, there was a malfunction in the heated seat in the Harley truck and it burned Wooley’s ass.
Wooley issued a muddled “apology.” I’m not sure whether he realizes that purchasing the luxury truck was wrong in the first place or simply that he shouldn’t have denigrated the outrage of people of LA after he got caught.
Rumors are swirling around the Capitol that Agriculture Commish Bob Odom has asked that the vehicles be assigned to his department to be used at the construction site of his syrup mill in Lacassine.
Kudos to all the mullets who publicly expressed your outrage over the entire matter.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Pimple on a Bee’s Ass Tax killed!! (Posted 05/06/05)
Wednesday, a majority of the House Insurance Committee wisely killed a tax/fee increase proposed by Insurance Commish Robert Wooley. HB163 by Rep. Karen Carter, D-New Orleans, would have imposed a tax hike on certain insurance companies (Make that us policy holders.).
Now, here’s the best part. Guess how much the tax would raise? You guessed it — $44,500 a year! Yep, not enough money to amount to a pimple on a bee’s ass, but exactly what he paid with our money for his luxury pickup truck . If the bill had passeed, it would allow the Commish to buy a new luxury vehicle every year.
Folks you can’t make this stuff up. It’s right there in the fiscal note.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Leges putting fuel on the fire (Posted 05/05/05)
The story about a rice mill in Crowley closing on Sunday is about another in the continuing saga of lost jobs in LA. Thirty-one souls have lost their jobs.
One can only wonder if the leges will ever waken:
1) To the fact that they need to stop increasing existing taxes and fees and stop imposing new ones. Such efforts only serves to draw more money from the private sector economy.
2) That they need to lower all business taxes on existing businesses in order to save those we already have.
I don’t have much hope for either because the State Senate has gone to court to get a ruling to make it easier for them to pass more taxes. See story here.
The leges are not satisfied with watching as our state burns. They are pumping more fuel on the fire to make it burn faster.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
How to catch the culprit in “Fliergate” (05/04/05)
According to the Baton Rouge newspaper Attorney General Charlie Foti is calling “on anyone who may know who is behind the [anonymous] flier [mailed to the leges re their votes on a tax on sick people in private hospitals] to contact him. He said he’s curious about their motivation.”
I’m not sure why he needs to know their motivation since no law was violated, but I’m not here to criticize, but offer assistance.
In solving crimes, law enforcement looks for Means, Motive and Opportunity to narrow the suspects. Lets deal with them in reverse order.
OPPORTUNITY:
Anyone with access to the United States Postal Service. That narrows it to approximately 200 million American, give or take a few.
MOTIVE:
That would narrow it to approximately 4 million taxpayers in LA, excluding state employees.
MEANS:
According to a report in TheDeadPelican.com the mailings would cost (including postage) approximately $260.00. That would narrow the suspects to approximately 2 million taxpayers in LA, excluding state employees.
My suggestion to General Foti: Take a DNA sample from the glue on each envelope. Then match that against the DNA of the approximately 2 million non-state employee taxpayers and VOILA!! — you have your suspect.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
Leges hoist by own petard (Posted 05/03/05)
The story in the Alexandria paper was headlined: SENATORS WORRIED ABOUT NEW SESSION FORMAT
IMAGINE THAT!
How they voted
When the amendment was before the lege ( SB 4 by Sen. Don Hines, D-Bunkie and current Prez of Senate) during the 2001 R.S., the House voted 102 to ) FOR the proposal. The Senate voted 32 to 3 in favor. The only incumbent lege to vote against the measure is Senator Chris Ullo, D-Marrero.
Look who’s complaining
(All from the Town Talk, April 30, 2005):
“I feel rushed,†Sen. James David Cain, R-Dry Creek, said of the new session format. “I feel like if I don’t get my bills heard by next week, I could possibly lose them. And I’ve got some bills that are kind of controversial.†Cain voted FOR the changes.
“The first week could best be characterized as confusing,†said Sen. Don Cravins, D-Opelousas. “Even people who are supposed to be on ‘the team’ are as confused as outsiders.†Cravins voted FOR the changes.
Sen. Butch Gautreaux, D-Morgan City, agrees with Cain “some legislation is just not going to make it through the process in 45 days. I don’t know whether that’s good or bad.†Gautreaux voted FOR the changes.
Sen. Robert Adley, D-Benton, said the session “is fast and it’s furious. It’s long on issues and short on time. If you don’t move things soon, they’ll be in trouble. There will be a lot of confusion and, in my view, it’s not a good way to do business.†Adley was not a lege at the time.
Sen. Max Malone, R-Shreveport, said “it’s good in the first few weeks to go home and see what constituents think about the bills. This is what I call the ‘trial-and-error’ session because it’s the first time we’ve gone through it. Malone voted FOR the changes.
Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, said if this were a typical fiscal session, in mid-week “I’d be going down the river to look at a plantation or going to Barnes and Noble for a good book to read†because the Senate had nothing to do. Barham voted FOR the changes.
Sen. Charles Jones, D-Monroe, said he views the session change as an improvement over past fiscal sessions but “it was a mistake to limit us to five bills. Because of the number of problems we have in this state, we ought to have more flexibility†to introduce more legislation. Jones voted FOR the changes.
Guinea pigs’ revenge
Hey boys, now you understand how us mullets feel about all the laws that you pass without knowing what they actually will do to us. In this case it’s known as being hoist by one’s own petard!
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
LA’s Mad Hatter’s Tea Party (Posted 05/02/05)
The more I read about the current goings on at LA’s Capitol the more it seems like LA’s version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
How many votes does it take?
First, we learn that the Senate suddenly no longer knows how many votes it takes to pass a law. The LA Constitution says:
“No bill shall become law without the favorable vote of at least a majority of the members elected to each house.” (emphasis mine)
There were 39 members elected to the Senate and 105 members elected to the House. Because one resigns, dies or is absent, it doesn’t change the fact that 39 and 105 “were elected.”
It is interesting to note that the Senate is preparing to take the matter to court. The only question is whether the approximately 220,000 citizens of LA who live in the two senate districts are to become disenfranchised.
Therefore, the outcome is in great question.
Fliergate
The leges are up in arms over someone exercising their right under the First Amendment to U.S. Constitution by sending a flier to the leges telling them that their vote on whether to tax sick people using private hospitals might come back to haunt them at election time.
The Attorney General has requested anyone with knowledge of who may have sent the fliers to come forth. Not because they have violated any law that he knows of, but because he wants to know their motive. Most likely their motive was to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” per the First Amendment.
This investigation by the AG reminds one of Captain Qeeg’s (played by Humphrey Bogart) investigation into the theft of his strawberries in the 1954 movie “The Caine Mutiny.”
Nothing better to do?
Don’t our leges and Attorney General have anything better to do considering that LA ranks last is just about every category? The Senators are already complaining that they don’t have enough time this session to handle the people’s business. How much of the taxpayers money will be wasted on all this foolishness?
The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party was fiction. This stuff isn’t.
C.B.
Mullet Scribe
P.S. The above is an exercise of and motivated by rights under the First Amendment to U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. For more in depth commentary on the matter see the Piney Woods Oracle.
Copyright Policy
While I would like to have my efforts attributed to me; if you want to take them as your own, feel free. The purpose of this website is strictly to provide information.
Uncategorized 3:26 pm
