Monday, February 14, 2011

Who is Appalling, Outragious, Abusive, Shameful and Monarchical?

As many of you know, this happened on Day 1 of this year's new session of the PA House of Representatives...



This video was circulated widely on the social media tip by House Democrats. One nice summary of the events can be found at Capitol Ideas by John L. Micek.

Democrats were offering 42 amendments to a reform package that had passed the chamber previously in 2010, when there were ironically even more Democrats. In apparent reaction, Republicans changed internal House rules to winnow minority-party representation on committees and change the way amendments are adopted. Rep. Mike Turzai (R-here) took a beating. Rep. Dan Frankel (D-here) guaranteed that "not one of these amendments was to be destructive" or "hostile," and challenged the media to delve into the contents of the amendments (a smart play). The Democrats seemed conspicuously well-prepared to holler about tyrrany. This is basically how our House of Representatives felt it best to kick off the new year. Morning Call reporter John L. Micek seemed to be of the expressed sardonic opinion that the reforms in question weren't all that necessary or important. What is the latest on this, and will it affect how Turzai & Company get, shall we say, state store privatization done? It seems like the Democrats may have had better stage presence, or have been hungrier to start off the year.

6 comments:

  1. I glanced through the liquor union's thing from your sidebar. It was full of sentences like "In states where wine was privatized, wine sales and consumption increased significantly." They presented this as a argument against privatizing wine sales so I'm going to ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The government-run monopoly doesn't like the fact that private business (almost) always beats them. We wouldn't want to have increased sales and, therefore, increased tax revenues with less hassle would we?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to be a union arbitrator. Apparently, they don't even need to look at evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that is a bit harsh about arbitrators. They looked at evidence in the snow storm paramedic firing case. Call it as you see it. An emergency would demand immediate response and direction fron the Emergency Management Director...or someone who had any experience in that arena...Much blame, only one paramedic punished. That does not add up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's the beauty of government employment. If somebody did worse than you, you are golden. Arbitrators use their brain less than tollbooth guys, get paid more, and don't have to breath exhaust unless they want to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well ... maybe somebody has to be disciplined and/or reprimanded first? You can't expect simultaneity.

    ReplyDelete