Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Et Tu, McAuliffe?

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , , , , , ,

mcauliffeBy Peter Galuszka

Sure, parents want to help their children but in the case of former State Sen. Phillip Puckett, it is getting ridiculous.

And the latest disclosure in this morning’s Washington Post makes the Terry McAuliffe administration look just as sleazy as their Republican counterparts.

Puckett, of course was a Democratic senator who held a key vote when McAuliffe, also a Democrat, was desperately trying to get past a GOP road block in the General Assembly to somehow expand Medicaid health coverage to some of the 40,000 low income people who might be eligible.

GOPers knew that Puckett’s daughter, Martha Puckett Ketron, wanted a job as a District Court judge but could not be appointed as long as she had a relative in the Senate. So, they pitched a deal where Puckett would resign on the eve of the key Medicaid vote, throwing the decision the Republican way.

In exchange, Puckett might get a six figure job with the infamous Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission, thanks, in part to the influence of the powerful Terry and Jerry Kilgore brothers. That would clear the way for Puckett’s daughter’s judgeship.

It all came out and the FBI is probing.

Now, it turns out that, Paul Reagan, McAuliffe’s chief of staff, left a curious voice mail on Puckett’s phone on the eve of the vote. It suggested that Puckett’s daughter could get some kind of high profile state job if he stayed in the Senate and voted McAuliffe’s way.

So much for McAuliffe taking the high ground on ethics reform following the spectacular corruption conviction of former Gov. Robert F. McDonnell.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

20 responses to “Et Tu, McAuliffe?”

  1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    The new license plate motto – “Virginia the Sophisticatedly Corrupt State.” The Virginia was is bipartisan.

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    somebody got access to a private voicemail..or someone who had access to it – released it!

    and it clearly shows that McAuliffe and company are no more virtuous than others… so what else is new?

    I’m willing to be if we had access to all politicians voice mail – we’d see PLENTY!

    I do not excuse McAuliffe or anyone in his administration – this is a slimy as it gets.. but I’m betting it’s not unique.

    one has to wonder – HOW STUPID was the CALLER? or one might ask – is the call captured on voicemail and released – the real deal or a dirty trick?

    this “gottcha” seems a bit too easy

  3. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Larry, I agree both Parties do this and neither should act “holier than thou.”

    I do wonder whether the FBI will also look into this issue as it did to the GOP contact with Puckett.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      I support the FBI looking into it – but I have to wonder if McAuliffe aides are this stupid?

      it sounds a little bit too convenient and the first order of business is to validate the voice on the tape.. but after that.. if it is the real deal – then butts should be shredded… but anyone who thinks only one side was trying to influence Puckett is living in a dream world.

      having said that – all is fair in politics .. if they get you they get you. if you escape – you escape…

      but assuming this guy was that stupid – I do have some advice… don’t blame it on your wife ….

  4. DonR Avatar
    DonR

    Oh, Peter – you missed part of the plot. By Virginia law, part time legislators who take state government jobs can count their time in the General Assembly toward their pension from the government job. No other part time employee of the state can do this. So, a Clown Show clown with 17 years of part time work can go work for the state for 3 years and qualify for a pension. Needless to say, the pension is based on the salary that the clown received for the 3 years of service in some state job.

    As I’ve written on this blog for many years – the state government in Virginia is irretrievably broken. The only solution is a new state constitution that slaps the snot out of our political class and gives considerable power to the localities.

    Virginia will become a functional state when the General Assembly has as much power as the University of Virginia marching band.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      I agree with EVERYTHING Don sez.. but HOW do we fix it if the GA is the one to decide when and what to change in the Constitution??

      right now – throughout Va .. throughout the country – there is anger and dissatisfaction with govt – at all levels.

      of course – there is no general agreement about what is wrong much less how to fix it – either… so there is just anger and dissatisfaction from dozens of different perspectives.

      To give one current example – there are those who say the CDC is an incompetent bureaucracy that should be investigated and sanctioned – at the same time we have folks who say the CDC has onerous and coercive power to dictate to people what they can and cannot do.

      so we have extreme dissatisfaction – yes – but it comes from all points on the compass also.. and like so many other things these days – a proposed bill to Congress will inevitably end up gridlocked…

      this is not the fault of Congress nor our General Assembly – when the citizens themselves cannot agree on what to do.

      recent conversations with TMT here – pretty much revealed that he would rather the politicians be in charge of these issues and NOT have referenda… for citizens to decide.

      but one thing is for sure on referenda – there is no gridlock -, unlike the GA or Congress – there IS a VOTE – AND the majority wins.

      the question is – how do you get the referenda – on ethics – in Virginia?

      TMT is also worried that special interests will bamboozle voters – that would be the same special interests that bribe our legislators to kill things in committee without a single recorded vote.

      we’re in a heap of bat guano.. these days.. and a lot of it – is our own fault.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Larry, you have misstated my position. I oppose the initiative, but can support the referendum in many cases. I can also support redistricting using the Iowa Plan because it keeps ultimate responsibility in elected officials and not people appointed by elected officials.

        I also support a requirement for paid lobbyists on appropriations to reduce their contact to writing and for the government to post it on the Internet.

        Finally, gridlock can be good, when the alternative is bad legislation. Remember the Founders created the Senate to curb the passions of the House. Still a good idea, IMO.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          TMT – I thought I had asked if you supported the CONCEPT of Referenda where citizens (who can be bamboozled by special interests) vote and don’t recall you answered that. my apologies if you did.

          so mea culpa – now that you say you do say you support referenda.

          but what you say you support – will never make it out of committee as long as lobbyists rule … in the GA.. so how do you fix that?

          in terms of gridlock – gridlock is bad if you cannot go forward on compromise solutions … and it’s the result of a small minority holding it up that would lose if the question were put on a referenda.

          gridlock is how we do nothing – nothing about immigration, nothing about health care and nothing about ethics..

          at some point – the folks who constitute the minority – yield.

          If SCOTUS did not decide by votes but instead by filibuster would it be good?

          at least the SCOTUS steps up and makes decisions – and charts the course forward.. even if some of us don’t agree with all the decisions. that’s better than doing nothing because you can’t find something that is perfect.

          we stop legislation because it does not meet the perfect standard – even “better” is rejected. we can’t operate that way. in my view of course.

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            I believe in accountability in government. I don’t want appointed boards or individuals making decisions. Making recommendations is fine. But the ultimate decision-making must be by people who are accountable at the ballot box.

            I once served on a redistricting advisory board. We each made recommendations that were narrowed by vote and then presented to the elected officials. They made the final decision.

            You complain about gridlock, but it often exists because the people are not in agreement on the details of legislation. It often takes time for consensus to develop – either that or a crisis. FDR wanted to send material assistance to Britain and France in the early days of WW2. But he could not get legislation through Congress because of strong isolationist sentiment in both Parties. There was gridlock. Was this bad when the people were not in agreement? I don’t think so.

            I don’t think there is consensus in either Virginia or the United States on what should be in an immigration reform law or even what should have been in health care reform. It’s easy to say our immigration laws could use a review. But what should change? I don’t think there is much consensus beyond we probably shouldn’t deport everyone who is here illegally and we probably should not have open boarders. There is a compromise proposal to: 1) allow people who have been here X years, without a criminal record and who are paying taxes remain, while not giving them a path towards citizenship. Do you think that would pass Congress? Do you think the Hispanic Caucus would allow Democrats in Congress to vote for this compromise? I think no. Is this gridlock? Should the minority back off (assuming the bill would pass)?

            The country and the Commonwealth are deeply split on many issues. This split reflects itself in splits in legislative bodies. Under the U.S. system of government, we have gridlock.

            We could have a parliamentary system where the president is gone when the House flips. We wouldn’t want a Senate because it would cause gridlock. But under this system, Clinton would have been president for two years. Bush for six. Obama for two.

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            ” I believe in accountability in government. I don’t want appointed boards or individuals making decisions. Making recommendations is fine. But the ultimate decision-making must be by people who are accountable at the ballot box.”

            but that’s not reality.. right? and the chances of that becoming reality – depends on elected officials who will not do that… right?

            “I once served on a redistricting advisory board. We each made recommendations that were narrowed by vote and then presented to the elected officials. They made the final decision.”

            yes…. there are such critters… most planning commissions operate tat way and in effect so do School Boards – and for that matter any board that does not have the power to levy taxes..and fees – and there really are not as many as we think but still more than a few.

            “You complain about gridlock, but it often exists because the people are not in agreement on the details of legislation. It often takes time for consensus to develop – either that or a crisis. FDR wanted to send material assistance to Britain and France in the early days of WW2. But he could not get legislation through Congress because of strong isolationist sentiment in both Parties. There was gridlock. Was this bad when the people were not in agreement? I don’t think so.”

            our system was designed to vote – that’s what SCOTUS does.. it’s a majority vote. what we have right now is not only gridlock – but the influence of special interests and small minorities in refusing to even putting something up for a vote.

            “I don’t think there is consensus in either Virginia or the United States on what should be in an immigration reform law or even what should have been in health care reform.”

            oh there is consensus on both – large majorities agree.. it’s minorities using blocking strategies and the minorities themselves do not have alternative proposals. they have no proposals.. and they block other proposals.

            ” It’s easy to say our immigration laws could use a review. But what should change? I don’t think there is much consensus beyond we probably shouldn’t deport everyone who is here illegally and we probably should not have open boarders.”

            you say that TMT – but some people oppose your first option vehemently and hold any/all possible consensus hostage to what? to something that almost no one would agree to – mass deportation – but the folks who support it would block all other proposals.

            a “secure border” is a myth. If we cannot erect fences to stop drugs..

            Canada has no fences and yet they stop illegal immigration – it’s not perfect by a long shot – it’s a compromise but it works a heck of a lot better than our “fence”.
            Here we have folks who claim to be fiscal conservatives advocating as much money as it takes to fence off the border… I’m not opposed to border security but somewhere along the line is some fundamental realities who refuse to accept.

            ” There is a compromise proposal to: 1) allow people who have been here X years, without a criminal record and who are paying taxes remain, while not giving them a path towards citizenship. Do you think that would pass Congress? Do you think the Hispanic Caucus would allow Democrats in Congress to vote for this compromise? I think no. Is this gridlock? Should the minority back off (assuming the bill would pass)?”

            no it won’t pass and we know why – a small minority of people oppose it an effectively use the GOP party system to block it. In terms of Hispanics – it’s not what we won’t provide to people that they would have to accept 1/2 loaf, it’s the folks on the other side who refuse to offer even 1/2 loaf… nothing – but gridlock.

            “The country and the Commonwealth are deeply split on many issues. This split reflects itself in splits in legislative bodies. Under the U.S. system of government, we have gridlock.”

            if we can vote up or down on referenda … that’s not gridlock.. the country was founded on – having the debate, protecting the rights of minorities – to oppose – but not block. This is precisely why we have 9 SCOTUS and not 8 – it’s on purpose.

            “We could have a parliamentary system where the president is gone when the House flips. We wouldn’t want a Senate because it would cause gridlock. But under this system, Clinton would have been president for two years. Bush for six. Obama for two.”

            I’m fine with that – and I’m also fine with the campaign money laws in those same countries that have Parliamentary systems.

            Our country today is held hostage by minority extremists and unlimited secret campaign money… we have lost the country the forefathers invented.

    2. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
      LifeOnTheFallLine

      Yeah, because taking the GA out of the P3 process has worked out so well for the citizens of Virginia with great projects like Elizabeth River Crossings.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        It’s angst in general against any/all govt .. whether it’s the GA, or VDOT and PPT, Metro, Public schools, higher Ed, cities that “restrict” density, and now.. this week, the CDC.

        Only problem is – that the critics, cannot themselves figure out what to do different…

  5. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Larry, I’m calling your raise. Give me ten bullet points of what would pass Congress (both House and Senate) in an immigration reform bill, assuming no filibuster in the Senate. Ten points that could in reality attract sufficient Democratic and Republican votes in both houses to pass and go to Obama’s desk.

    These ten points would need to be acceptable to both Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. No unilateral action by Obama.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      TMT – how about I give you 10 pieces of legislation passed by prior Congress that this Congress will not pass right now?

      Do you want me to tell you legislation that once the leadership allowed it on the floor in the House that would pass?

      you suggested a path for those already here.

      that’s a deal-breaker from the get go for those who would work to prevent even that one provision from getting even getting to the floor to vote on.

      The extremists tell the leadership of the House that if he allows legislation to even get on the floor – that they will oppose all other legislation – also.

      In fact, we’re seeing more and more that even one thing is linked to other things.. if we attempt to vote on one piece of legislation they will oppose other legislation.

      you can’t even pick single isolated pieces of legislation that will pass – because the others will oppose it because they cannot get their way overall.

      compromise means narrowing down things until you CAN find more narrow things to agree on – that’s compromise. That’s what got legislation through in Congress before under Ronald Reagan who famously said :

      ” I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying.

      I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised — for example, our entire economic program.”

      This is Ronald Reagan. It’s not the GOP today and that’s the problem.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Larry, you’ve proved my point. I don’t think anyone can offer ten points on immigration (for example) that a simple majority of both houses of Congress could agree upon. So how can anyone reasonably expect legislation to pass. For something to pass, there likely needs to be some recognition that at least some illegal immigrants will not be subject to deportation and will have some right to live and work here unmolested; there must be some recognition that enforcement and a secure border must exist before legalization steps occur; and that some recognition that we, as a nation, must agree whether we want immigrants with skills or whether we will take people who cost taxpayers more than they will ever generate in taxes. I don’t think a majority of each house could agree on fleshing out these points. Hell, Obama won’t even say he will enforce existing laws.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          re: ” there must be some recognition that enforcement and a secure border must exist before legalization steps occur”

          TMT – this is holding hostage ANY other actions unless this litmus test is met – and to the satisfaction of the opponents and it’s basically an impossible expectation. I’ve seen absolutely no alternative proposal put forth on the floor of the house .. nor from Brewer or Perry save for Perry’s futile stunt of sending the Nat Guard to chase kids across the border…

          we cannot even get money to PROCESS the kids who came over border – without more administrative judges – they sit for 2 years before they even get a date.

          you cannot go forward when you insist that one thing be done – that is near impossible to do – or else you oppose everything else.

          and you won’t even do what Canada does – successfully to tamp down illegal jobs…

          in other words – the opponents are not really serious in taking steps …they’re unhappy and basically oppose any and all solutions unless we can make the entire problem go away like magic.

          its the sound-bite world that many inhabit these days and while we have gridlock right now – eventually they lose.. it’s eats up some years until the blockers are pushed aside .

          you have to adopt positions that move forward on the issue. It’s like a guy blocking the left lane of a highway – …. because he does not like speeders.

  6. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – we can try to propose dozens of various new legislation to deal with immigration – including going after the employers – that would, just like in Canada, and reduce the all or nothing aspect of a 100% effective fence.

    Canada has a very effective guest worker program where businesses that get caught using illegal labor are heavily fined – can even be pushed out of business – like a company here might if hey were caught dealing illegal drugs or similar.

    yet the opponents have not made this the centerpiece of what they SEEK to have done. Instead they say if we don’t do something – that would likely be infeasible or so un-godly expensive as to be impractical – if we don’t do that AND that we have to deport EVERYONE – if we do not do those two things, they oppose ANY OTHER efforts – including the illegal employer – they gridlock.

    I’m not an ideologue -.. I’m pragmatic.. and seek change.. that may take incremental steps.. rather than demands that certain things be done or else we gridlock…the entire process.

    that’s just plain wrong in my book. choosing NO option because you don’t like any of the options is not dealing with the problem. It’s like having a broken fridge and not replacing it because you don’t like any of the new ones because the one you want costs $5000. Atl some point, you have to deal with reality.. you WILL have immigration – ongoing – no matter how much gridlock.. you can’t stop it by doing nothing.

  7. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Larry, do you really believe the Democrats would support legislation that effectively prohibited the hiring of most illegal workers? Or truly barred them from taxpayer benefits?

    I can support, and have supported, an approach that focuses on employers, rather than just on raids on workers. I can support an approach that allows guest workers and protects them with the full panoply of labor laws — provided they are not undercutting U S wages. But the Democrats are not going to do this. Most want open borders.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      “Larry, do you really believe the Democrats would support legislation that effectively prohibited the hiring of most illegal workers? Or truly barred them from taxpayer benefits?”

      I do. but further – if you are an OPPONENT – dem or GOP of illegal immigrants why would YOU – not make that a primary proposal and get it on the table instead of these idiot idea about deporting everyone or building an impenetrable fence?

      You forget – there are THREE parties GOP, Dem and independent and the independent look for reasonable compromise solutions not hard left or right and they DO comprise enough votes – to align with whatever party puts forth REAL proposals instead of demagoguery and hate politics.

      “I can support, and have supported, an approach that focuses on employers, rather than just on raids on workers. I can support an approach that allows guest workers and protects them with the full panoply of labor laws — provided they are not undercutting U S wages. But the Democrats are not going to do this. Most want open borders.”

      your own guys that you align with TMT – do not support this.

      this is the problem with your side. The opposition is all over the map and cannot even among themselves – agree on proposals that might win support from independents.

      you guys are perceived as opponents of immigrants – period and have no solutions – that – as a group – you would support and promote.

      it’s basically an “anti” movement and we go nowhere – on purpose.

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – NONE of potential solutions need be all or nothing propositions and in fact, if they become that – they fail.

    you cannot deport everyone. you cannot build a 100% impenetrable fence, especially when you thousands of miles of ocean and you cannot have a zero-tolerance employment policy.

    All of these would have to be in some moderation – compromises that will never satisfy the all or nothing folks but are the realistic and pragmatic way we tighten policies.

    People who are demanding all-or-nothing approaches not only fail – but they gridlock for everyone.

    you cannot have any kind of viable approach to ANY problem if that is the standard… yet our politics have moved more and more in that direction.

    we not only demand all-or-nothing but if we can’t get it, we block everything else..

    at some point, the rest of society gets fed up and just runs over top of the obstructionists… it takes a while because people have to become convinced that the obstructionists truly have no real alternatives or counter-proposals – but once you get there – you realize that those folks are not really looking for solutions ..

    that’s my frustration and I’m thinking I’m not alone. When we cannot even get fully-qualified people to lead govt agencies , you know how far off the rails the politics have gotten …

Leave a Reply

Read More