I've always been a firm believer that you can tell something about the leadership of state politicians by the laws the enact, and how they run state agencies.

I was visiting thenewspaper.com, a site that focuses on traffic law related issues and found something interesting;

Mass. is quite fond of using it's traffic laws to collect more revenue from it's citizens and visitors, opting to increase citation issuance due to funding or revenue issues rather than an incrase in traffic crimes or injuries. But like any law enforcment agency they will clame their actions to enforce traffic laws all are in the interest of "public safety", and that they have no quotas or performance requirements.

Mass. also has laws on the books which make it harder for a citation to be challenged in court, which flies in the face of our national concept of a right to due process and to face our accuser when we are charged with a crime.

These bits of information get me a little irritated because prior to visiting thenewspaper.com I had just been reading comments on the TH column "Why Romney Is Right for Iowa, America by Doug Wilson (Monday, Dec 31, 2007).
http://townhall.com/columnists/DougWilson/2007/12/31/why_romney_is_right_for_iowa,_america

In the article Doug Wilson sings the praises of Mitt Romney like a well trained chior boy, and many other posters of comments goined in the sing along for Mitt.

I've become a bit disgusted by TH becoming a political PAC of Romney over the past few months, which is explained by Doug Wilson's participation in Romney's campaign (in CA), so I decided to offer examples of poor leadership in Mass. by Governor Romney by citing what I had found at thenewspaper.com.

I didn't have the space in the comments to cite all 5 pages of material on Mass., so I choose just the items which either involved agencies that fell under the direct authority of Governor Romney while he was in office (State Police), or items which as Governor he could have taken executive action to prevent if the legislature couldn't be convinced to take the proper action themselves (loss of citizen rights to challenge citations in a court of law).

Below are the examples, as I posted them, and one reply from a rather loyal Romney supporter who obviously didn't read the caveat in my first post about one of the examples happening while Romney was governor in 2006.
 
------

Christopher Parisho writes: Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:03 PM

If Romney was such a good governor....
then why do the Mass State Police have to order troopers to raise an additional $1.2 million in speeding tickets next year? http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2130.asp

The article above reports that to offset a budget shortfall, troopers are being ordered to hand out more tickets!
This makes the act of ticketing a revenue generator rather than a punishment for a crime.

Now before all this is blamed on Romney's successor read the last part of the story;

...on January 1. In 2006, the Massachusetts courts joined with insurance companies in encouraging the state police to offer bonus time off to troopers as an incentive for writing extra traffic tickets. This above action occurred during his administration, his term didn't end till Jan of 2007.

What a great leader! (sic)

He works with the state legislature to create a financial situation where the state troopers become tax collectors in order offset budget shortfalls, and the courts in Mass join with insurance companies (special interest, they get to raise rates on the ticketed drivers) to reward the troopers who write extra tickets.

Spiceman writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:12 PM

A Vote For Mitt Is A Vote For Liberty
It has been a good thing this has been a long campaign, because of the new GOP saviors that pop up and are propped up by the MSM as last minuet spoilers, Heralded by the same flip-flopping commentators in the heap of Liberal-Statists. Your empty claims, your bogus links, your and nay saying, and chanted regurgitated messages are figments in you own mind, or intended deception.

Believing what you think without confirmation, is to be wise with you own eyes fully closed as you pull the trigger, claiming that what the hit was the target.

I hope you have someone friend out there to balance your CHECK BOOK THIS YEAR.

Best to you All - HAVE A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!

Spiceman writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:27 PM

Thanks For An Easy Question!
Christopher Parisho writes: Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:03 PM
If Romney was such a good governor....
then why do the Mass State Police have to order troopers to raise an additional $1.2 million in speeding tickets next year? http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2130.asp

The answer to you question is easy. Mitt Romney is not the Governor. MA. had a over one billion dollars surplus when Mitt's term ended. So who do you think spent the money? The current Liberal Governor

Christopher Parisho writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:34 PM

And a bit more digging turns up....
Cities Eliminate Right to Contest Parking Ticket

In Boston and other cities in Massachusetts, motorists cannot challenge a $100 parking ticket in court without first paying a $275 court fee. If found innocent, the motorist does not receive a refund of the $275.

More: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2061.asp

Massachusetts: Report Documents Toll Road Mismanagement

Report finds that mismanagement threatens the financial viability of Massachusetts toll roads.

The Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission last week released a report documenting mismanagement of state's road network, including mismanagement of toll roads. The report issued a dire warning about the broad decline in the quality of roads and the selling-off of assets to mask deficit spending.

"The Massachusetts transportation system is in deep financial trouble," the report states. "Virtually every transportation agency in the state is running structural deficits and resorting to short-term quick fixes that hide systemic financial problems."

****

Loss of rights to challenge a citation due to a high court fee requirement which exceeds the fine and is required to be paid in advance of any court challenge....

AND

More evidence of financial mismanagement, this time with the state toll roads.

Oh, but hey, Mitt is the man of the hour for those not impacted by such poor leadership.

Christopher Parisho writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:49 PM

More on the state police to offer bonus
time off to troopers;

Massachusetts State Police Offer Cops Money for Tickets

Court system and insurance industry pressures Massachusetts State Police into giving cash overtime bonuses for writing traffic tickets.

Police unions are up in arms over a Massachusetts State Police offer of cash for traffic tickets. Under a program that became public last week, troopers are given a 1.5 hour bonus on their time sheet for writing a ticket, but only one hour for a written warning and just half-an-hour for a verbal warning. The move cuts in half the amount of credit given for the verbal warning and brings troopers half-an-hour closer to lucrative overtime payments for every ticket issued.

The Boston Herald reports that insurance companies and the courts had pressured police into making the move because both make millions from traffic fines. The overtime bonus payments can increase a trooper's hourly wage by 50 percent, or even double it during holidays.

Union officials in the Western and South Shore areas where the program is in place told the Herald that the program eliminates officer discretion and that, like a ticket quota, troopers are being threatened with punishments for failure to issue more tickets.

"I absolutely refuse to write tickets unless somebody really deserves it," one trooper told the Herald. "You think twice before you take $600 out of somebody's pocket."

Source: Troopers squawk over ticket reward: Pressure on staties to snub (Boston Herald (MA), 11/16/2006)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/14/1460.asp

Contrary to Spiceman's claim of bogus links, the above was from the Boston Hearald, then re-published at thenewspaper.com.

And I knew someone like Spiceman would blame the new governor. I cited this story because it involves the state police which are under the governor's authority and it happened on Mitt's watch. In 2006 Mitt was still in office as governor of Mass.

Christopher Parisho writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 1:54 PM

More on the lost right to a court
hearing in Mass.

Massachusetts: Appealing Parking Tickets Made Impossible

Framingham, Massachusetts resident learns she has to pay $330 to receive an independent hearing on a $200 parking ticket.

For many Massachusetts residents, it's practically impossible to appeal a parking ticket before an independent judge. Framingham resident Deborah Adcock learned this the hard way when the city charged her $200 for parking in a handicapped space. Adcock suffers from a debilitating condition known as fibromyalgia and has a valid handicapped parking permit. On August 22, she neglected to flip down her visor to make the permit visible.

Adcock mailed her appeal to the city which was denied by the hearing officer Allan Nardini. Nardini is a former Framingham Police captain, he still reports his hours to the police department and he is paid by the city.

"It's infuriating to me that there is no common sense on the part of the hearing officer," Adcock told the MetroWest Daily News. "He knows what I'll have to go through. To me it's astonishing and I'm flabbergasted and shocked."

Hearing officers know that they can dismiss appeals without reading them because ticket recipients have no realistic means of challenging their decision. To fight the $200 ticket before an impartial judge, Adcock learned she had to pay a non-refundable $275 fee to the Middlesex Superior Court in Cambridge, plus $25-55 in other fees. She decided not to appeal and, so far, not to pay the fine.

Source: How forgetfulness cost $200 (MetroWest Daily News (MA), 10/2/2006)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1368.asp

Christopher Parisho writes:Tuesday, January, 01, 2008 2:02 PM

In contrast to Mitt's Mass., Arkansas
has laws on the boobs to limit abuse of traffic laws to generate revenue.

Arkansas: Small Towns Push to Repeal Speed Trap Law

Arkansas Municipal League pushing to allow small towns to collect more than half of their annual operating revenue from speed traps.

Small towns in Arkansas are angry that state law does not permit more than a third of their annual operating budget to come from traffic citations. In response, the Arkansas Municipal League proposed changes to the legislature last week. The League wants towns to earn half of their revenue from speeding tickets.

The existing anti-speed trap law also prohibits issuing more than half of all speeding tickets for 10 MPH or less. Even this provision has not stopped cities from lowering speeding limits to entrap motorists, according to data from the SpeedTrap Exchange website which allows motorists to document areas notorious for unfair ticket activity.

"Some cities have got some really small budgets," the League's Executive Director, Don Zimmerman, told The Morning News. "If, in fact, they are limited to no more than 30 percent of their revenue from traffic violations exceeding 10 miles an hour, there are some places that can't even write a ticket a day."

Source: Talks ongoing to amend states speed trap law (Northwest Arkansas Morning News, 12/16/2006)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1502.asp

Extremely Urgent: Please Forward This Message to All Your Friends to RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE BORDER FENCE!

Petition Congress to Reinstate $3 Billion in Border Fence Funds

Read it and sign it at: www.ReformUS.org

Without explanation, Congress has stripped away $3 billion in desperately needed funds to build the Border Fence that it approved last year and to provide for other border security.
That's right—without telling the public, Congress is pulling the plug on the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence that it voted for with such enthusiasm last year (just before they asked voters to re-elect them).

Help us turn this petition into a national overnight phenomenon. Time is critical—Congress will finalize this funding question before Christmas!
Will you take a minute to sign it right now? Go to www.ReformUS.org.

IF CONGRESS DOES NOT RESTORE THE FUNDING . . .
. . . THERE WILL BE NO BORDER FENCE!

ROY BECK
President, NumbersUSA
1601 N. Kent Street, St. 1100
Arlington, VA 22209

Licenses for Illegal Immigrants?

Last week the state of New York announced a plan that would provide a type of license to illegal immigrants. A Minnesota state senator also stated that he was in favor of providing worker ID cards to illegal immigrants. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that he opposes giving IDs to illegal immigrants, but there is no federal law that prevents it. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer says that the new IDs will bring undocumented immigrants into society and help lower auto insurance rates. What do you think?

I support a form of ID card for illegal immigrants
I oppose a form of ID card for illegal immigrants

There is only one form of ID an illegal invader should have, that being the inmate number they are given when they are in police or DHS custody awaiting deportation.

Giving any form of illegal invader a form of state or federally issued ID would be another way of validating they are welcome as law breakers to enter illegally, reside illegally, and work illegally (many times using fraud and the stolen identification of legal residents or citizens to do so).

Any politician who supports any form of validation of illegal invaders should be recalled by those they represent and have their names forever etched in stone so the voters of this nation know who to blame when all this support of illegal invaders ends up destroying this nation from the inside out.

Don't disregard me as a bigoted racist or an isolationist.

I am all for LEGAL immigration! I'd like to see the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter this country each year be regulated in such a way that they do not present an undue burden on the already existing tax paying citizen and residents of this nation. I want to see immigrants follow the legal process so that our nation has a record of all who come here and can turn away those that might intend to do us harm or demonstrate by their previous actions (here or abroad) that they may be criminally inclined (known child molesters in other parts of the world are a good example of whom to keep out).

I would support temporary work permits to be issued which allow foreign nationals to come here for short periods only to work. But hiring foreign workers should be an option ONLY when no American citizen or legal resident can be found to fill the position. Employers should be required to provide proof that they sought and interviewed or tried to interview citizens and legal residents before hiring foreign worker(s). If it is found that the employer falsifies such proof they should be charged with a federal crime that if convicted has such a high penalty that it could put that employer out of business and maybe even in jail for a long while.

Maybe the number should be determined by a combination of the previous year's adult mortality rate after reducing it by the previous year's number of young adults who graduate high school, and reducing it further by the number of able bodied unemployed workers. So for example (using easy to comprehend numbers); if 1'000'000 adults died last year and 500'000 high school students graduated last year, and another 250'000 able bodied workers were unemployed last year then we should only allow for 250'000 worker permits to be issued for this year. This way if we ever have another baby boom then when those kids ender the work force their potential jobs are not all taken by foreign workers.

Of course if unemployment numbers are going to be a factor then we have to fix how unemployment numbers are calculated, but that is another issue for another day.

I think it is utterly ridiculous that President Bush claims that illegal (invaders) are doing jobs American's won't do, then allows (per the NAFTA treaty) foreign national truck drivers to cross the border and drive our streets and highways when we have plenty of hard working American and legal resident truck drivers willing if not begging for work. How are these foreign truck drivers "only doing jobs American's won't"?

The list below is from my votes list. If you are interested in seeing what I had to say in response to the columns listed below just click the link to the column and find my comments. I will update the list from time to time as it grows or till TH adds this type of feature to the site.

A trick I use to find my comments is to use the find feature. I look for my last name (Parisho) because it is rather unique and it finds any post I've made or any response anyone makes to me where they used my full name to address it to me or quoted my name and/or comment.

1) Court: Just being in U.S. isn't illegal

http://www.kansas.com/news/story/153645.html

Summary; A Kansas appeals court three-judge panel issued an opinion that a judge could not deny probation and order jail time for convicted drug dealer Nicholas L. Martinez based solely on the grounds that Martinez is an unauthorized immigrant.

The Judge in the initial case ruled for jail time because he felt if he gave Martinez probation as the prosecutor recommended, that Martinez's illegal status would immediately constitute a violation and put him right back in jail for a probation violation.

My opinion; If I were the judge I would have not even considered the prosecutors recommendation and given Mr. Martinez jail time, then as part of the ruling I would have ordered the prosecutor to notify ICE of his existence, thus they would place an immigration hold on him and deport him once his sentence was served. If the prosecutor failed to comply with the notification of ICE then I would issue a contempt of court citation against the prosecutor.

2) Immigrant's benefits inquiry brings arrest

http://kansas.com/news/local/story/156588.html#recent_comm

Summary; For five years Olivia Avila (51) worked under a false name and bogus Social Security number at the National Beef meatpacking plant in Liberal Kansas. She kept working there after obtaining legal residency two years ago. Recently she went into the Social Security Administration to get credit for her earlier wages as an illegal worker. She was attempting to take advantage of a loophole in federal law allows lawful immigrants to claim both legally and illegally earned wages in determining Social Security benefit eligibility.

She was arrested at her job in June on six immigration-related counts including using false documents to work in the United States and aggravated identity theft.

My opinion; Her arrest and being charged is good. She should pay for her crimes. We have laws in Kansas that say a criminal can no profit from their crime. If BTK can't write a tell all book and earn money from it's sale, she should not be allowed to receive any benefits she paid into the system under someone else's ID. Furthermore, her two year old citizenship should be revoked and she should returned to her country of origin immediately after serving her sentence for the crimes she committed.

3) NJ changes policy on illegal immigrants

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_us/schoolyard_killings_immigration

Summary; The New Jersey state Attorney General on Wednesday ordered New Jersey law enforcers to notify federal immigration officials whenever someone arrested for an indictable offense or drunken driving is found to be an illegal immigrant. This order essentially overrides the “sanctuary” policies of Newark where three teens were executed in a school yard. One of the suspects involved is an illegal alien from Peru who had been granted bail on child rape and aggravated assault charges without immigration officials being alerted to his existence.

My opinion; This is a good move on the states part. Although it doesn't order police to question and investigate anyone they suspect as an illegal, it does order them to take action when they arrest someone for another crime. The key here is when they arrest, not after they convict. This way anyone charged with a crime could be held by ICE even if by state law the crime they are charged with allows for bail.

Had such an order or policy been in place when the suspect was arrested earlier this year the suspect would not have been on the streets, and maybe the three teens would be alive today.

We need more action such as the New Jersey AG and authorities took against Olivia Avila, but we need less of what the appeals court in Kansas ruled.

In a conversation about the proposal to raise gas taxes by Rep Jim Oberstar (D-MINN) to fund repairs to infrastructure in the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse I heard the following;

HUME: Fred Barnes is not a big fan of government spending, but he is a fan of government spending on bridges and highways.

BARNES: But there is a better way to raise the money and also deal with our traffic congestion that is so terrible in so many urban areas. What you tax people on is not how much gas they buy, you tax them on where they drive and when they drive.

In other words you tax people…

HUME: Toll roads, you mean?

BARNES: No, we get to position technologically where we can have everybody taxed that way because of something on their car.

You want to tax people more when they are driving during rush hour, causing congestion, then you do if they are driving on Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m., when there is no congestion. It makes sense. We can deal with our traffic congestion, we raise revenue. It just makes a lot more sense.

KRAUTHAMMER: You want the government to actually know where your car is at all times.

HUME: Private investigators and divorce lawyers would want that information.

All I had to say at the time was; “Fred Barnes you F'ing idiot!”

But now that I have gotten over my initial reaction, I can come up with some other things to say.

He is not only suggesting we tax people based on when they drive, but to do so a government agency would need to track our vehicles in order to determine when and where they drive.

Maybe he should be a campaign consultant to Hillary “I want to take those profits” Clinton.

Doesn't Fred understand that most rush hours are determined by the times of day people are required by an employer to be at work? His suggestion is to punish people for driving to work at the times they have to in order to comply with their employers work schedule!

What would be the ramifications of such a tax?

• People would ask (or even demand contract stipulations in the case of union shops) that their employers change their work ours or shift schedules to put their drive times in the lower tax times. As seen with the sin taxes the revenue will drop as the driving habits (requirements) change, thus negating the reason for taxing based on certain times of day. The legislators would either have to come up with the needed funding from another source or change the law so that any time of day that becomes a rush hour would get taxed.

• Then once workers can no longer avoid the “rush hour” tax they will change their habits, but not always in the way desired.

•  

• The desire would be to encourage ride sharing and mass transit, but many would opt for jobs closer to home which may not be as well paying or even not working so they do not have to drive at all. Both of the undesired change in habits that I suggest would result in an increase in dependence on social services such as welfare and food stamps.

•  

• Those who continue to drive despite the tax would be subject to having the tax go up as others stop driving, and as law makers see it as a way to raise revenue for other pet projects, and still there is no guarantee that the revenue collected would go to the intended infrastructure repairs.

• Those who have their data collected would be subject to misuse of that data, or even future laws allowing the use of that data for many other purposes, as Brit Hume sarcastically pointed out.

Tom Tancredo said it best; “an income tax is designed to manipulate behavior, and that is too much power for the government”. He said that in a debate when commenting in favor of the FairTax, but I'd extend that logic to all taxes, including this suggested one by Fred Barnes.

We are taxed on pay day, when we buy gas to get to work, in some places in the country people are taxed to drive toll roads, and now Barnes wants to add another layer to that by taxing when we drive?

In this same segment another suggestion was made that I think is a better solution, and one which doesn't continue to penalize tax payers or try to manipulate them.

KRAUTHAMMER: You can spend the money either way, but nobody is spending on it because everybody wants his name on a new bridge and not on the new rivets on an old bridge.

The way to fix this is what Utah has. Utah has a law that says that you cannot spend money on a new project until you have appropriated all the money required for the maintenance of old projects. You ought to have that as a Congressional law.

He said this right before the comment Brit Hume made which started the portion I quoted above that included Fred Barnes' asinine tax idea. In my Opinion Krauthammer's suggestion is a much better one, and it is a shame that idea was not expanded on instead of giving Fred the time of day. The costs to make infrastructure repairs could easily be covered with the current revenue (Fed, State, And Local) but the revenue isn't being properly spent. We do not need more revenue, we need better spending of the revenue!

If Fred is a “card carrying” conservative or Republican he needs to have his cards seized and he needs to undergo socialist rehab. He has been in the “Beltway” too long and he has become addicted to the concept of government existing to dictate how the people live. It is the other way around Fred! The people dictate how the government works!

Ok, rant over.

I have yet to locate a video clip of the segment but If you want to read the transcript of the entire segment you can find it here; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294301,00.html