The Politically Correct Way To Gerrymander Congressional Districts

           This week the Arkansas Democrat Gazette paper reported that at least one of Arkansas’s State Congressional Representatives was promoting the idea that in the redistricting of the four Arkansas U.S. Congressional Districts, one should be so Gerrymandered to ensure that there was a Black Majority. (It might surprise you to know that the person so espousing this was himself Black. And this makes sense if you think about it. Why not have a District where a Black can win without having to worry about anything but being Black)?

          But I submit that it doesn’t go far enough!

          Arkansas should Gerrymander its four U.S. Congressional Districts to ensure equality to all. One should be for Blacks, one for Hispanics, one for Asians, and one for Whites and all others. This would be the Politically Correct solution to ensure fairness to all minorities.

          Wait, we should even go further. There should be a District for those living on Welfare. There should be a second for those working, but below the Federal Poverty Income Level. There should be a third for those who work but receive no Government assistance, and the fourth District for those folks that are retired, regardless of their income level.

          Further we should have a District for those that didn’t graduate from High School, one for High School only graduates, one for College Graduates, and the fourth District for those who received advanced degrees.

          And finally we should have a District for illegal aliens, one for legal aliens, one for aliens who are now citizens, and the fourth for folks who are here by virtue of ancestral births and all others not elsewhere classified.

          If we really put our heads to this, we can address the needs of every single possible constituency.

          What’s that Shirley? “Why not just divide up about four equally populated areas with the common goals of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?"

         What a novel idea.

Governor Beebe, Man Up and Make a Difference in Arkansas's Spending!

             Arkansas's Governor Beebe insists that the 3 proposed tax cuts currently being debated by the Arkansas House of Representatives would cripple funding for education, prisons, law enforcement; you know all the usual sacrificial offerings threatened to be thrown under the bus to scare the taxpayer into fiscal servitude and higher taxes.

Governor Beebe here’s an idea.

            The State of Arkansas has over 8,000 vehicles. [Yes, Shirley I know that the State of Arkansas doesn’t have a clue as to where they all are, or who is driving them, and for what they are used. But be optimistic, we have our best man (Director Weiss) working on those very issues]. Assume an average cost of $30,000.00 and an average life cycle of four years per vehicle. (After all the head of a Commission wouldn’t dream of driving a five year old car or one that costs less than $30,000.00). That totals over $240 MILLION in car purchases every four years or about $60 Million annually.

            Governor Beebe do this: Cut out all state cars not required by police, public safety officers, and Game Wardens. If the employee has a job that requires a public vehicle on 24/7 EMERGENCY call out basis and the facts support at least 25 such occurrences a year, they can keep it too. Leave all the dump trucks, graders, police cars, etc. exempt from this reduction. Also there may be a small number required to actually conduct some State business.

            If you achieve a reduction of 25% of State vehicles you save $15 Million annually. A reduction of 50% would eliminate over 4,000 vehicles for an ANNUAL SAVINGS of $30 MILLION; that’s year after year after year. Pretty soon it adds up to real money and covers a lot of tax reductions.

            Of course it would require Arkansas's Governor Beebe to assume a role of real leadership to ask his cronies and constituents to give up a taxpayer funded perk. Or better yet, lead the Legislature to enact a law that forces this rather than just asking your friends to voluntarily turn in their State purchased "Escalade".

            Governor Beebe, MAN UP for the TAXPAYER!

Where Have All The Young Cars Gone, Long Time Missing?

We can’t track Items Costing $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 very well, State of Arkansas Confesses.

On 1/27/11 Richard Weiss, the Director of Arkansas’s Finance and Administration Department told lawmakers “that any total his agency lists as the number of state vehicles may not mean much”. He admitted, “the total could vary by a few hundred day to day.”

            Mr. Weiss further stated that “he’s asked agencies to get his department more information (on State vehicles) by Monday (the 24th) and it will probably take his staff at least a month of work after that.”

            It will take his department a month of work to tally the whereabouts of 8,000+ vehicles? What are they doing, “detailing” each one?

            It blows one’s mind to learn that a State government treats such expensive assets so cavalierly. Most of us taxpayers can tell you within about twenty feet where our vehicle is at almost any moment. But the State of Arkansas will need a month to compile a list that is already confessed to be of little accuracy upon its compilation. One wonders what educational and mathematical qualifications are demanded of high-level State Directors and their Staff.

Carry that one step further. Want to make a wager about the ability of Director Weiss and the State of Arkansas to exercises control over and accounting for such minor cost items as Personal Computers, Cell Phones, not to mention State issued Credit Cards.

            Well, the “at least a month” is about up for the counting of vehicles.

            So, Mr. Weiss how many vehicles, that have been paid for by the abused Arkansas Taxpayer, can you locate? How many are being used solely to ferry elected State officials, departments heads and employees to and from their home to work? For what else are they being used that necessitates their purchase? How many can be eliminated without any impact on State business? How will you control their purchase and use in the future?

            HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU SAVE THE STATE BY ELIMINATING THIS ABUSED PERK? Oh, wait, that would require some real tough leadership by the elected officials, like say Governor Beebe for starters. Sorry folks, won’t happen.

Arkansas Women Beware, You May Attain an Unwanted Profession

Vice Discovered to be Alive and Active In Little Rock

            On Saturday February 5^th the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported the police have arrested six women, four for prostitution and two for sexual indecency charges. It seems that these women were all at a business establishment known as the “Paper Moon” where the Vice Squad officers raided and arrested the women.

            Police spokesman said the “investigation is ongoing” but “wouldn’t comment on how the Vice Squad conducted the investigation, but confirmed that officers did not receive any private dances.”  There was no report as to just how the officers viewed this undercover work. But the Police Spokesman did comment “(the Officers) in position to see … and proposition”.

            The horror of reading that such activities actually transpired in a business enterprise in the community was heightened upon reading the actual words of the Criminal Code allegedly broken by these women. Arkansas Code 5-70-102 describes “prostitution as when a person engages in or agrees or offers to engage in sexual activity in return of a fee or expectation”. (Emphasis mine).

            This could have chilling effects upon the romantic activities of women across the state. After all, some may actually be in violation of this statute and be completely innocent, well if not innocent at least unaware, of their new status as a prostitute.

            To explain, let’s look at a woman who may have the profession of, well, as a “Tinker, Baker or Candlestick Maker”. Or to update the professional opportunities for more modern times, let’s speculate that the woman in question is employed as say a banker, or lawyer, or such. She takes six or more trips with the same “boyfriend” to undisclosed, but fully paid for, locations over a short time frame, say 6 months. During that same time frame she also receives other “gifts” in excess of $50,000.00 from this same “boyfriend”. Of course you might argue that the “boyfriend”, unlike Elliot Spitzer, is pursuing this relationship for purely platonic reasons. I.E., there is no “hanky-panky”. But should the Devil have caught them both by the ‘pants’ so to speak has this “professional” women violated code 5-70-102 by “engaging in or agreeing to or offering to engage in sexual activity in return of a fee or expectation”? It’s the “expectation” word that might trip up most of them. After all, what is “expected” might be as innocent as, well, another all expense paid tryst/trip to an undisclosed location.

            I guess that she could always plead that the “gifts” were a complete surprise and in no way payment for favors. Or perhaps ‘poverty’ prevented her from paying her share of the expenses. But surely you can see the problem that women in Arkansas now face. Romantic trysts paid for by the ‘boyfriend’ followed up by ‘gifts’ from the “boyfriend” just might place them into a new unwanted Professional Class, based on Code 5-70-102.

Does Character Matter for an Arkansas Supreme Court Justice?

            Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Courtney Henry has reported, as required by law, that she received $99,539.00 worth of “gifts” from her “boyfriend”, allegedly all between June and December 2010. That’s an average of $14,000.00 per month. One wonders just what, if anything, the “boyfriend” was receiving in return for his generosity.

            Justice Henry was elected to her current position in May 2010. Her then husband filed for divorce in June 2010 per the local paper. From June through December 2010 Justice Henry reports that she went on nine trips to unlisted destinations, valued by her statement at $46,853, with her “boyfriend”. She also listed that all of the other “gifts” totaling almost $53,000.00 were given to her no earlier than June 2010 by this same “boyfriend”. To ensure her judicial behavior to be at the highest ethical standard, she has announced that she will “recuse” herself from all cases involving her “boyfriend” or his legal firm. WOW! What exemplary character we have in our Supreme Court.

We don’t have any facts as to what “suddenly” broke up her marriage in June, but it is obvious that she wasted no time in finding a “boyfriend” and going on nine fully paid for trips to undisclosed destinations valued at $46,853.00. Now if an attractive blonde woman in the “entertainment industry” took 9 trips at an average cost of $5,000.00 each over a seven month period with a brand new “boyfriend”, we would probably not refer to her as “Your Honor”. Oh, you’re correct, that’s a title, not a character descriptor. One wonders how she was able to find time to perform her job as a Justice on the State Court of Appeals with so much traveling. Not to be suspicious or anything, but how many trips did Elliot Spitzer take to Washington while he was Governor of NY? But if memory serves each of those trips cost him $10,000.00. Justice Henry’s “boyfriend” is operating on the cheap.

Now if you assume that there was no “involvement” with her “boyfriend” prior to her divorce, which according to her was final “months ago”, then it has certainly been a whirlwind romance. If you think that the nine trips were just platonic and post divorce, then under old-fashioned value standards Justice Henry, as a single woman, was only guilty of poor judgment, sullying her own character, and of being a terrible role model for a person in her position. If you think the trips entailed more than “platonic” relations, then, well more personal relations were involved. If this were true, then Justice Henry is guilty of not only poor judgment, and of sullying her own character by lewd, lustful, and lascivious conduct, but is probably guilty of conduct unbecoming to a Supreme Court Justice; under old fashion standards of conduct of course. In either case, Poor Judgment is not the best credential or qualification for a Supreme Court Justice.

            Oh, her “boyfriend” not only donated $2,000.00 to her campaign in March 2010, he also “loaned” her at least $5,000.00. Apparently the total amount of the loan isn’t required to be disclosed, just that the loan exceeded $5,000.00. Seems sort of “chinchy” the “boyfriend” wouldn’t just give her the funds outright. After all, what’s another $5,000.00 or so when you’re already into the game for almost a $100,000.00. Oh, wait, he’s already in the game for over a $100,000.00 if you add it all up. Per the local paper Justice Henry’s response to this whole mess is “she declined to give details about why she listed (boyfriend) as a creditor. She said she would only disclose what was legally required. She said she wouldn’t disclose where she went on the trips funded by (boyfriend)”.

            Her “boyfriend”, also a lawyer if you can believe that, purchased a house in the Capitol City in September 2010. However being an astute lawyer and all, he closed on the property in a county other than Pulaski County where the house is located. (Might have been due to the fact that the seller was listed as “of Texarkana”). The result of that is the property shows up on the Pulaski County Assessor’s website as having been sold for “zero”, despite its appraised value of $723,000.00. Does that mean that the “boyfriend” does not have to pay any Real Estate Taxes on the house since it has a sale price of “zero”? If true, you have to salute his creativity. The “boyfriend” lives in Texarkana, over a 100 miles distance from this house. Justice Henry works in the Capitol City. What is the plan for this house: an investment, a weekend get-a-way, a love nest? Or perhaps just none of our business is the politically correct answer.

            Were I trying a case before the Arkansas Supreme Court and the opposing Attorney or client had any relationship or acquaintance with the “boyfriend”, his law firm, his partner(s), their relatives, acquaintances, other law firms or businesses that had ever been involved with the “boyfriend”, etc. WOW! “What a tangled web we weave when at first we”, … well get intertwined and tangled up.

            For the sake of the reputation of the Arkansas Supreme Court and her good legal standing, too bad that Justice Henry didn’t “recuse” herself from even running for the position, but all that was before her divorce and all those gifts. So what to do now? I for one would have a great deal more confidence, respect, and assurance of valid legal treatment in front of the Arkansas Supreme Court if Justice Henry would just resign from the Supreme Court. After all, we will never know what, if any, conflicting relationships may exist in the cases that come before her.

            Yes, Character is important and does matter!

State of Arkansas Unable to Track State Owned Vehicles With Accuracy

We can’t track items costing $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 each very well, the State of Arkansas's top fiscal officer confesses.

            The State of Arkansas, unlike about 46 of its sister states, is so flush with funds that it doesn't even track the where-a-bouts of its approximately 8,500 State owned vehicles. Most of which appear to be driven to/from home by various political appointees, elected officials, and department’s heads.

It was reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that the Head of the Game and Fish Commission actually had two State owned vehicles for his personal use. Since he was only able to drive one to and from work, he just left the other on his farm to be used there, as he deemed necessary, for State business we assume. He didn't admit to the inconvenience of having to make a special trip to the gas pump to refill this second vehicle at State expense, but we can well appreciate his exasperation with that inconvenience.

The above mentioned paper reported that on January 27, 2011 Mr. Richard Weiss, the Director of Arkansas’s Finance and Administration Department, told top lawmakers “that any total his agency lists as the number of state vehicles may not mean much”. He admitted, “the total could vary by a few hundred day to day.”

            Mr. Weiss further stated “he’s asked agencies to get his department more information (on State vehicles) by Monday and it will probably take his staff at least a month of work after that.”

            It will take his department a month of work to tally the where-a-bouts of about 8,500 vehicles? What are they doing, “detailing” each one for future use by the elected and appointed potentates?

            It blows one’s mind to learn that the Arkansas State government treats such expensive assets so cavalierly. Most of us taxpayers can tell you within about twenty feet where our vehicle is at almost any moment. But Arkansas's Department of Finance and Administration will need a month to compile a list that it has already confessed to be of little accuracy. Do you think that Mr. Weiss also drives a State supplied vehicle to/from home and work?

            I suggest a solution for the State of Arkansas, so flush with tax payer funds during this time of financial stress on so many of her taxpayers. Eliminate ALL State owned vehicles from being driven to and from work. The exceptions are vehicles assigned to police, game wardens, and public safety officers. Pay mileage reimbursement for use of private vehicles used on State business, and that doesn’t include to/from home.

            8,500 vehicles at an average cost of $30,000.00 (potentates don’t drive cheap cars) totals about $255 million. That’s tax payer money, not theirs. Quit spending it on “perks”!

On Fixing Congress, a Proposal

            The following email was sent to me by Grace. She was obviously forwarding it from someone else and the first one listed was “Carrie” so “Carrie” receives credit or blame, depending on your viewpoint. It is obvious from Carrie’s appeal “to arms” or at least “to forwarding” that she is probably a red-eyed, foaming at the mouth, arm flapping “Conservative”. Probably one of those types that have worked for a living, paid taxes, tithed, forced her kids to study and do chores, and loves her country. Please try to overlook these assumed personal traits and read her message. It has no chance of every being implemented, since it would be the very persons she wishes to reign in who would need to enact the legislation. Still, every now and then one should read another chapter of Don Quixote tilting at a windmill or two. The italics are her thoughts, the bold print are my emphasis.

From: "Carrie" <sandestinfryes@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:37 PM
Subject: Congressional Reform Act of 2011

Carrie’s personal appeal for the following “Reform Act”.
”This is a great idea! Lets try this. I usually don't send political messages, but I think this one deserves our attention. I think we (citizens of the US) have been betrayed by many of those in whom we have placed our trust. This has no reference to political parties or preferences. I hope you will take a few minutes to read this, and then act in the way you deem correct. Thanks, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!”

Carrie’s supplied, (unverified by me), facts.
1.  “The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.”
2.  “Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.”

Carrie’s appeal for your action.

“I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.”

Carrie’s suggested Reform of Congress.
”Congressional Reform Act of 2011:
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below:
 A. Two Six-year Senate terms or

 B. Six Two-year House terms, or

 C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms.
2.  No Tenure / No Pension: Congressmen collect a salary while in office and receive no pay when they are out of office.
3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
 A. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. 

 B. All future funds flow into the Social Security System, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
  A. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

 B. Congressmen made all these contracts for (with) themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.”

Carrie’s repeats her plea for your action.
”If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message.  Maybe it is time. THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on.   If not, just delete.”

There are some obvious omissions with Carrie’s plan, such as:

1.      Limit Congressmen from becoming “Lobbyist” until out of office 2 years.

2.      Must be out of office two years before can run for another Federal office of any type.

3.      Must be out of office two years before eligible for appointment to a paid Federal job.

Still her plan certainly seems like a good start.
”If you agree with the above, pass it on.   If not,” just live with what we have.