Are you distinguishing between the temptation and the act? We are all tempted toward various types of sin, even the Savior was, but it only becomes sin when we give in to the temptation and act on it. Are you saying we should exclude those boys who admit they struggle with homosexual feelings, but do not act on them? How is that different from boys who are tempted to engage in premarital sex but practice abstinence?
As much as this is apparently needed, I'm glad they're taking the time to get it right. I wish the people who forced obamacare on us would have been so thoughtful.
I looked up HB 351 from 2009 - it has nothing to do with this debate. If I'm ever on trial for something I didn't do, I sure hope you're not on the jury, because you're clearly willing to convict, regardless of the evidence or the law. Did you read 32.090? It requires the DoR to keep copies of everything, and there is no evidence that any of that information was shared. Schaefer's continual screaming that DoR has broken the law does not constitute evidence of wrong doings. Leutkemeyer and even the court in the lawsuit said there was no evidence of anything illegal happening.
This is nothing more than a politically-motivated baseless allegation of wrongdoing.
With the current Obama administration scandals, we at least have evidence and whistleblowers testifying. Here, Schaefer has nothing but allegations. Since when did a Senator with political motivation to fabricate a scandal become more believable than our State workers?
Your last statement is also baseless. How does this in any way make it clear that DoR has more staff than necessary? I suppose we'll see the next time we need to register a vehicle how long the wait can be. Then we can decide if DoR had too many people. Unfortunately, in the mean time, several people are about to lose their jobs over Schaefer's little political tirade.
You're repeating Schaefer's unfounded talking points. There is no evidence that the state has done anything illegal, nor is there any basis to believe that Revenue has given anything to the feds. There's plenty of evidence that there were good reasons behind the procedural changes - to combat the use of fraudulent documents used to obtain fraudulent ID's. Whether you agree with the changes can be fairly debated, but to charge someone with mismanagement and criminal conduct is unwarranted (and bordering on dishonest) unless you can point to actual evidence of misconduct.
Furthermore, the law, Section 32.090, RSMo, supports Revenue's scanning procedures. Since you and Schaefer both keep using the word "illegal," please tell us what law you think Revenue has broken and what evidence supports your charge.
Oftentimes a three year old will scream and cry when he doesn't get what he wants. He's unwilling to accept "I don't have it, so I can't give it to you." In those moments, there's not much a caregiver can do but wait out the temper tantrum.
I'm not sure what more we expect Nixon to do with Schaefer's tantrum. What legislative request has Revenue "defied"? They've testified at hearings and provided boxes and boxes of documents for review. Unfortunately, there's no way to satisfy this spoiled kid's tantrum.
Nixon now has to make cuts. It would be irresponsible to keep spending at current levels hoping that Schaefer will become reasonable enough to fully fund Revenue by January. This time Nixon is right - Clearly, Schaefer's maturity is not a safe bet.
Rb - you're exactly right. The agency still needs managers, so the lower level employees, who had nothing to do with these decisions, will be the ones who suffer and lose their jobs. To the negative effects you've listed, add increased unemployment in our local economy. Apparently Senator Schaefer doesn't care who he steps on to climb the political ladder.
Our legislators, many of whom claim to be lawyers, are overlooking Missouri law - 32.090 - that requires the Department to keep copies of documents. If they don't like it, they can change the law, but this move proves they are just lazy - looking for the easy way out by cutting the budget, rather than studying the issue, and drafting laws to make workable changes.
If you're talking about Schaefer's salary and all the time he's wasted, I agree. If not, what crimes are you talking about? You're suggesting we ruin someone's livelihood without evidence of a crime? Is that fair?
After weeks of reviewing the boxes Revenue sent him, Schaefer still has no evidence of any crime. He called for whistleblowers a couple of weeks ago. Have any come forward? As loudly as he's been shouting, if he had anything, I'm confident we'd have heard about it by now. Shouldn't that tell us something about the real source of this "scandal"?
I'm a republican, but I would rather be represented by a democrat who is willing to do the right thing, than by a politician who will fabricate a "scandal" for his own political benefit.
JC - not to mention the 2% SS tax increase that single-handedly swallowed that "net increase."
vorpalrbit - I'm surprised you're still attacking these people so viciously. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Have you seen any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing by the Department? All I have seen so far is the word of an apparently-financially-incompetent, loud-mouth senator motivated by political aspirations to fabricate a scandal -- against the word of some long-time state employees, with no motivation to risk their jobs by breaking the law. If I was on the jury, I know who I'd believe.
I'm not an expert, but as I understand biometric analysis, it's simply a comparison of measurements taken from a person's face? (i.e. a ratio of the distance between eyes to the distance between the nose and chin) Those types of ratios can become a facial "fingerprint" of an individual. It seems no different than having a law enforcement database of your fingerprints. Those metrics would help law enforcement identify a suspect from a photo. I don't see a privacy issue, since there's nothing about you that's more publicly available than your face.
Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand this type of analysis.
(1) I suppose it's reasonably debatable whether protecting the Missouri drivers license from fraud warrants the scanning of our personal documents. At least it sounds like they've cooled off the baseless allegations about the Department giving that information to the feds.
(2) What I don't understand is why Revenue continues to get blamed for the CCW disclosure. Didn't the Highway Patrol admit to disclosing that information to the feds? And wouldn't the Highway Patrol have access to that database whether it was kept by Revenue or by the Sheriffs? I am having a hard time seeing how transferring the CCW duties from Revenue to the Sheriffs would do any good.
Last login: Thursday, June 13, 2013
Copyright © 2014, CMNI.
All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Central Missouri Newspapers Inc.
Material from the Associated Press is Copyright © 2010, Associated
Press and may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall
not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or
redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for
personal and noncommercial use. The AP will not be held liable for any
delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages
arising from any of the foregoing. All rights reserved.
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.