Thanks for Commenting
The proposed ethic reforms border on the ridiculous. The problem in this state is not the lobbyist or the amount of campaign contributions. Shoot one is happy just getting a $100 donation to a campaign. The problem we have is the lack of good sound definitions of Conflicts of Interest for our politicians and strong enforcement for violating Conflicts of Interest. For example Manny Aragon is not in trouble because he got lots of dough from a lobbyist but for participating in a scam over the building of the new courthouse and county jail. Both things he supported with capital outlay that found its way into his pockets. Staying with good old Manny, back in the Johnson Administration Manny was first against privatizing prisons then when he got a good contract with Wackenhut he was for privatizing prisons. These are two good examples of Conflicts of Interest, which the recommend ethic reforms do not address. I also not in favor of a separate commission to over see ethics that can be used as a political weapon. The legislature has an ethics committee where any citizen can bring an ethics allegation against a member of the legislature. Having served on that committee, they take their work very seriously and have the ability to punish one of their members. Punishment can range from a public reprimand to impeachment.
Maybe those crazies will mandate that everyone be required to have car insurance coverage... oh wait.
Certain mandates are good for us all especially as taxpayers and consumers. Uninsured people who don't pay ER bills cost us more in the end- through higher insurance premiums for the insured, subsidies to UNMH, etc. Either way healthcare is not free but insured people have a preverse incentive to use the most costly medical services at everyone else's expense.
I meant "uninsured" people at the end of my post...
Commenting by HaloScan
