Gov. Rick Scott: voter purge lawful, feds are wrong and breaking the law

[wayneflorida 0]

from the article:
"If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2835732/feds-erred-in-demanding-florida.html

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

from the article:
"If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2835732/feds-erred-in-demanding-florida.html

And on 2 May 12...

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying no to Tampa’s request to ban the carrying of concealed weapons outside the Republican National Convention, according to a letter from Scott to Mayor Bob Buckhorn.

Buckhorn wrote to Scott on Tuesday requesting that the governor issue an executive order prohibiting the transportation of firearms in downtown Tampa during the convention."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75850.html#ixzz1x6z2F5Tl

I really like this guy.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

from the article:
"If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2835732/feds-erred-in-demanding-florida.html

And on 2 May 12...

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying no to Tampa’s request to ban the carrying of concealed weapons outside the Republican National Convention, according to a letter from Scott to Mayor Bob Buckhorn.

Buckhorn wrote to Scott on Tuesday requesting that the governor issue an executive order prohibiting the transportation of firearms in downtown Tampa during the convention."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75850.html#ixzz1x6z2F5Tl

I really like this guy.

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

from the article:
"If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2835732/feds-erred-in-demanding-florida.html

And on 2 May 12...

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying no to Tampa’s request to ban the carrying of concealed weapons outside the Republican National Convention, according to a letter from Scott to Mayor Bob Buckhorn.

Buckhorn wrote to Scott on Tuesday requesting that the governor issue an executive order prohibiting the transportation of firearms in downtown Tampa during the convention."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75850.html#ixzz1x6z2F5Tl

I really like this guy.

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

But would the "request" be in violation of Individual Rights, which come before all City, County, Paris,, State and Federal Rights?

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Obviously there are arguments on both sides. But I think Scott's decision was more about personal politics and asserting his own authority than the facade of other considerations.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

Think political re-election strategy. I have talked to a few 2nd Amendment champions, like me, that are already saying he's got my vote.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

We're fucked if that moron stays in office.
That, and he'll get deeper pockets.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

Think political re-election strategy. I have talked to a few 2nd Amendment champions, like me, that are already saying he's got my vote.

Political re-election strategy is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my last post. 2nd Amendment advocates in Florida were, ideologically, in Scott's pocket anyway. In other words, he can't really gain any more of them, so he can only lose some of them. And if Scott's political opponent's are smart, they will try to peel-off some of his support in the more urbanized areas of the state by painting him as pissing on local rights. Thus, it really only has the potential for being a net loss to Scott, not a net gain.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We're fucked if that moron stays in office.

Your opinion. I think he was a much better choice than Sink. He is at least trying to balance the budget.

[normiss 622]

His $4 BILLION in tax cuts was GENIUS.
The permitting of commercial sign advertising in STATE PARKS is just an insult.
$3 BILLION in cuts to Medicaid in the state....from the guy with the biggest healthcare fraud?????
Privatization of Veteran's homes.....hmmm....wonder how vested he is in that....
His dislike and dismissal of Sunshine Law as he sees fit is borderline criminal. It's EXACTLY why we have those laws here.
Yea, he's a keeper.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Political re-election strategy is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my last post. 2nd Amendment advocates in Florida were, ideologically, in Scott's pocket anyway. In other words, he can't really gain any more of them, so he can only lose some of them. And if Scott's political opponent's are smart, they will try to peel-off some of his support in the more urbanized areas of the state by painting him as pissing on local rights. Thus, it really only has the potential for being a net loss to Scott, not a net gain.

You may very well be right on target. I can't argue. I can only reflect my small world.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

Those two stances may seem contradictory from the perspective from which you have chosen to view them. But I see both decisions as correct when viewed independently. Is it proper to allow suspension of a constitutional right during a political convention? No. We don't want to let that camel get his nose in the tent. Scott is correct. Is it proper to allow unqualified citizens to vote? No. Scott is correct again. The common denominator here is that he's doing the right thing in both cases. And that's the best perspective of all by which to judge his actions. I applaud his courage for standing up for what's right, instead of taking an easy political way out.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Think political re-election strategy. I have talked to a few 2nd Amendment champions, like me, that are already saying he's got my vote.

Just goes to show how malleable your ethics and morals are. You don't care at all that Scott made his money by committing Medicare fraud, as in STOLE MONEY from the government.
I can't say that I am surprised that a false christian would support a person like Rick Scott. It is totally shameful, but to be expected from you and your kind.

Begin FACTUAL INFORMATION!!! >>>

FORT MYERS (2010-6-18) - Two whistleblowers say the new front-runner in the Republican race for governor is lying when he says he did not know about fraud in his former company, the Columbia/HCA hospital chain.

In July 1997, FBI agents raided Columbia/HCA accounting offices in seven states, including Florida. Within days, Columbia’s board of directors ousted Scott, but gave him a nearly $10 million severance package, including stock shares worth $300 million and a $1 million a year consulting contract.

The company wound up paying more than $1.7 billion for defrauding the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Scott says he didn’t know about his company’s fraudulent billing practices and if he had, he’d have fired those responsible.

But company whistleblower John Schilling of Naples says Scott must be lying.

“He’s pulling the wool over your eyes if he says that he wasn’t aware of this and he would have fired anybody if he would have been aware of it. I think it’s a bunch of malarkey,” Schilling said.

Schilling worked for Columbia as a Medicare reimbursement supervisor in Fort Myers. His whistleblower case, along with others, helped put an end to the fraud and hold the company accountable.

Schilling first discovered the company’s fraudulent billing practices in 1993 after a call from a Medicare auditor about a cost reporting issue with Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte.

Schilling describes a meeting he had with Columbia administrators, during which he was instructed to “throw federal auditors off the track.” That included offering one of the auditors a job.

“They didn’t use the word conspire, but it was basically a conspiracy of, let’s think of some ideas and have John do this,” he said.

“Well, at the end of that to-do list, Jay Jarrell, the CFO said, ‘Well, if all else fails, let’s just offer the Medicare auditor a job with the company.’ And it was at that point, that I really started to feel sick to my stomach that, this is not right.

“You don’t want to offer a Medicare auditor a job. If this was a mistake, why are we trying to hide this?” he said.

Schilling left the company and filed a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. Then Columbia began courting Schilling to come back. At this time, the FBI was already on the case – and Schilling says his life began to resemble a John Grisham novel.

“The FBI saw that it was a good opportunity for me to get back into the organization and kind of be their eyes and ears,” Schilling said.

He said the FBI wanted help with their search warrants and “just to kind of be that fly on the wall or spy within the organization,” he said.

“I worked my way back into the company. They had no idea I was a government informant,” he said.

Schilling’s case was merged with that of another whistleblower in Montana: former HCA hospital CFO Jim Alderson.

Alderson says he believes he was fired because of his refusal to abide by accounting practices that maintained two separate sets of books: one showing reimbursements submitted to Medicare, and another secret book documenting fraudulent claims that would be rejected if found by Medicare auditors.

The company maintained large reserve funds in case auditors ever discovered the false claims and had to pay up. Alderson says the practice was so widespread, that Scott had to know about it.

“These reserves represented anywhere from 25 to 35 percent of the bottom line of the company in its heyday,” Alderson said.

“It’s just totally unfeasible that a CEO making the kind of money he was making, that you wouldn’t know where 30 percent of your bottom line came from. How could you sit in a board room and say, ‘Gee, I wonder; we had record profits this year. I wonder where they came from?’”

Alderson says fraud also helped Scott grow the company at such a rapid rate.

“It’s a house of cards. From what we found in our case was Medicare defrauding paid for the acquisitions,” he said.

“They charged the Medicare program interest when they’d buy these other hospitals and that, in many cases, was not legal and that was a major part of our case,” Alderson said.

One of four Columbia/HCA executives convicted in the case was Bob Whiteside. He was later acquitted on appeal and says he still stands by Scott, his former boss.

Whiteside wouldn’t consent to a recorded interview. He says the billing practices didn’t start with Scott, but were adopted from one of the other companies acquired by Columbia.

Whiteside says the illegal activity was widespread within the healthcare industry, but since Columbia/HCA was the largest, the government made an example of it.

Schilling agrees that the fraud didn’t start with Columbia, but says Scott’s profit driven and cut-throat corporate culture encouraged the practice to grow. Schilling says administrators who met profit goals were rewarded with bonuses of 50 percent or more of their base salary.

“They took shortcuts, they did whatever it took to get to it because they were motivated by the money,” Schilling said.

“They had to meet certain profit margins and if they didn’t meet them, I tell you what, I saw several CEOs of hospitals or CFOs that got fired because they didn’t cut it,” he said.

Scott was never charged and says he was never questioned in the case. After leaving Columbia, he invested in a television network which became Discovery Health. He also co-founded Solantic Corporation; a chain of urgent care centers in Northeast Florida.

At an event in Tampa Friday, Scott characterized his former company's actions as a mistake.

"Sometimes, people make mistakes. And when you're CEO, you take responsibility - which I do - but you talk about the things you do well, which I do, and the things you've got to work on," Scott said.

"We drove down the cost of health care, we improved outcomes, we improved patient satisfaction. Could we have hired more internal auditors? You'd better believe it.

"But that's the difference. In business, if something goes wrong, you're held accountable. In government - think about all the things that've gone wrong. Have you seen politicians take responsibility? They don't. So what you want in a leader is you want someone who learns, and take those learnings, and applies it to any issue and takes responsibility," Scott said.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

His $4 BILLION in tax cuts was GENIUS.

Several economists think that giving people more money will cause them to spend it.... Clinton thought Bush's tax cuts should continue. You may not agree, but that does not make you automatically correct.

Quote

The permitting of commercial sign advertising in STATE PARKS is just an insult.

It is capitalism in practice. You may consider it an insult, but I fail to see why you would be emotionally hurt by a company taking steps to both advertise and protect a public park.

Quote

$3 BILLION in cuts to Medicaid in the state....from the guy with the biggest healthcare fraud?????

Cutting expenses is a tried and true method to fix a budget deficit. Also, you seem to forget that he was not found guilty of anything.

Quote

Privatization of Veteran's homes

Privatization has been shown to reduce expenses AND raise standards.... Again Capitalism in action.

Maybe you like the idea of a budget running in the red and big govt... Not everyone agrees.

[RonD1120 58]

BFD. I worked in the business as a substance use disorder counselor. It was the name of the game. Psst, it still goes on.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Just goes to show how malleable your ethics and morals are. You don't care at all that Scott made his money by committing Medicare fraud, as in STOLE MONEY from the government.
I can't say that I am surprised that a false christian would support a person like Rick Scott. It is totally shameful, but to be expected from you and your kind.

Give us all a break. You're deliberately trying to get "bad attention" from the moderators. How childish is that?

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

BFD. I worked in the business as a substance use disorder counselor. It was the name of the game. Psst, it still goes on.

In other words, you don't have a problem with thieves as governors, and willingly support one. This from a supposedly moral and righteous christian.

Keep up with the false christian bullshit. I am sure God has a special place in hell for you and your kind.

[matthewcline 0]

The article you copied actually gave opinions of individuals, intermixed with the GOV's facts.

SO, it is possible the Florida Governor didn't know. He got a nice , "be quiet" package though.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[RonD1120 58]

It was and is business. The government establishes the funds and the rules to obtain it. The object is to stay within the scrutiny of the watchdogs and charge as much you can. Once in awhile you drift outside the guidelines and get caught. You shrug your shoulders and plan to do better the next time. It is just the way it is. Morality has nothing to do with it. The liberal democratic government throws money at a problem and you try to catch as much as you can.

One of the main reasons I oppose Obamacare. The focus of the game is never on the care part.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

from the article:
"If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2835732/feds-erred-in-demanding-florida.html

wow - this thread quickly degenerated into a debate over the governor's qualities, not the voter question.

As I wrote elsewhere, this type of purge is unjustifiable, and highly suspicious, when done in between the primary and main election, particularly during a Presidential cycle. This should have been done in the Fall before the primary, allowing falsely purged people an opportunity to get it fixed before the main election. They would still lose their primary vote, which is problematic, but the damage is much less than depriving them of their vote in November.

[normiss 622]

"Morality has nothing to do with it."

Yes, it does.
Otherwise it's stealing from taxpayers.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

This is not necessarily contradictory according to what I was taught in basic civics. The Federal Government is a government of few and enumerated rights. I was taught that local governments (and this may vary by state) only had the inherent powers that the state legislature granted them in their charter.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

"Morality has nothing to do with it."

Yes, it does.
Otherwise it's stealing from taxpayers.

I don't think you read my entire post. It is the way the business works. Dubious use of taxpayer funding for sure. Immoral, not so much, it is just the way it is.

That is why I am not a big fan of government supported social/medical services. Abuse of power and of funds is built into the system.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

I do understand your perspective when you express that way....I think.

I still say just because a government program or policy makes it easy to take advantage of \or steal from tax payers does not make it ok. "Just the way it is" is not a valid excuse IMO.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

We've all heard & understand the meaning & history of the term "states' rights." Well, just as states feel strongly about their rights being given deference by the federal government, so, too, do municipalities tend to feel strongly about their state's central government deferring to local/municipal prerogatives. Same shoe, different foot, in other words.

Thus, I find it ironic (but not surprising) that Scott is hoisting himself on his own petard, and leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy: using one standard to "stand up" to the federal government, but quite the opposite standard to brush off the locally-considered, locally-made request of one of his state's largest cities. Just as states sometimes know best what is right for them, so, too, do individual cities often know best what is right for them.

This is not necessarily contradictory according to what I was taught in basic civics. The Federal Government is a government of few and enumerated rights. I was taught that local governments (and this may vary by state) only had the inherent powers that the state legislature granted them in their charter.

You're missing my point. I'm not referring to the legal realm, I'm referring to the political realm. In a court of law, your point would prevail. But politics operates mainly in the court of public opinion, and that's all about feelings and perceptions. It's all marketing, like laundry detergent. And in that realm of sound bytes and slogans, a 20-second commercial that says "Scott has his head in the sand playing hypocrite in the lofty towers of the Capitol, while he has no respect for our towns and cities" resonates with a lot more jingle than one that says "Municipalities are governed by their charters and are subordinate to the prerogatives of the state government."