Day Three of the Earl Jaques numbers watch

Earl, you may recall, challenged me to disprove the numbers he never provided to validate the funding mechanism behind HB 392.

So I did the analysis--with significant help from Jesse McVay--and, guess what?

Either his funding mechanism can't raise the money, or he truly believes he can provide health care for nothing.

So, I'm still waiting for Earl Jaques and John Kowalko to publish the funding numbers they claim they had run by the Secretary of Finance and the Controller General.

Comments

Anonymous said…

You have created the worst mistake a citizen can make. You have questioned the great and all mighty politician.

Please say youre sorry and you wont do it again and they can continue to conjure their mumbo jumbo behind the great silk curtain.

You asked for actual numbers! we are dealing with people who find money under seat cushions at the last minute to fund things. We are dealing with people whose first reaction to over spending is to make ridiculous statments like 'we'll have to cut teachers and police and firefighters.' Never once have they considered looking at redundant areas like State Department of Libraries; State International Trade and Development; Office of Supplier Diversity. Or all the money spent on installing tele-conferencing in various state office buildings but then requiring employees to show up in person at trainings and meetings to actually 'log in.'

June 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM

NCSDad said…

Keep the pressure on Steve. I am waiting fir the good government folks over at DeLiberal to join your campaign for transparency.

June 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Steven H. Newton said…

@NCSDad don't hold your breath

June 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM

NCSDad said…

Using the similarity of parts of the gop and Lib agendas to smear the whole of libertarianism is pure sophistry.

June 20, 2012 at 6:33 PM

NCSDad said…

Sorry Steve, commenting on phone I posted to wrong thread.

June 20, 2012 at 6:35 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog