In the midst of a budget crisis, state government will spend almost $500,000 this year to continue paying off a monument to golf that was never built.

Now two Georgia senators want the state to give the 17-acre Golf Hall of Fame property to the city of Augusta for $1, even though state taxpayers will be paying that $500,000 in debt service until April 2015.

Other lawmakers denounce the idea and say it’s frustrating that the state has to continue paying off bonds on the vacant, weedy land at a time when they are furloughing teachers and cutting public health programs.
[...]
Some Augusta leaders, including Mayor Deke Copenhaver, are hoping the hall property can be re-developed as an entertainment center, complete with a baseball park for the city’s minor-league team. Copenhaver and the team’s co-owner, baseball Hall of Famer Cal Ripken Jr., have talked with Perdue about the plans.

Davis said he filed his bill to “get the conversation started” about what to do with the property. He said not everyone is behind the downtown baseball stadium proposal. “You’ve got to have all the key stakeholders at the table,” he said. “We’ve got to do something, and that’s what I’m committed to.”

Bert Brantley, the governor’s spokesman, said it would be illegal for the state to sell the Golf Hall of Fame property for $1. That would be a gift, which is unconstitutional. What price the state can get for the property, especially in this down economy, is unclear. The longer the site sits unsold and unused, the longer taxpayers will keep paying for it. State taxpayers are still on the hook for $2.85 million in debt service.

“If you ask anybody to prioritize the core functions of government, I don’t think hall of fames would make anybody’s top 10,” he said. “Many would argue, as we would, that it’s very questionable whether the state should be involved in this.”

For example, from FY 2004 to FY 2008 the Music Hall of Fame, which will receive $539,311 in FY 2011 if Gov. Sonny Perdue has his way (FY 2011 budget, page 17), lost $272,532 despite receiving almost $4 million in subsidies. Over the same period, the Sports Hall of Fame received $3.7 million in subsidies, but lost $171,301. However, it will receive another $471,684 in subsidies from the state in FY 2011.

There are some folks that believe government should provide these things, however, it's irresponsible for legislators to continue to fund these ventures that could reasonably and more efficiently be provided by private interests.

The lists are based off of filings with the Ethics Commission and Federal Election Commission and press releases I've received from various candidates. I also got some information off of Politics1.com.

If you see a candidate that isn't listed, drop me a line.

Jason provided Broun with a chance to clear the air on this, asking him straightforwardly, "Do you believe the President's citizenship is in question?" Broun's response to that yes/no question was an unfocused three-minute-long ramble that discussed everything from health care to Argentina. Broun claimed that he is not questioning Obama's citizenship ("because I've not gotten engaged in all that"), but wraps up by saying:

"That's what I said when I was asked: I don't know, nobody knows for sure, we've not seen any documentation one way or the other."
[...]
Thus, Broun's claim that "we've not seen any documentation" can mean only one of two things. One possibility is that he is ignorant of all of this evidence. I find this doubtful, considering that in the same interview, Broun acknowledges his familiarity with the questions that others have been asking. In any case, he's only promoting an image of ignorance if he's claiming to be unaware of the birth certificate that has been available online for almost two years.

The other possibility is that Broun is aware of the existence of this evidence, but for some reason, does not consider it to be decisive "one way or the other." Is Broun expressing doubt as to the authenticity or reliability of the available evidence? Does he subscribe to the conspiracist view that Obama's family and/or the state of Hawaii have been engaged in a conspiracy to cover up a non-Hawaiian birth? Is he suggesting that the evidence should be doubted in the face of baseless online rumor? What does Broun mean by this obvious falsehood?

I have no details about what was said during the hearing, but the committee decided to refer it to subcommittee. However, the make up of the subcommittee (thanks to Todd Rehm for giving me a heads up on this) is lopsided based on last year's vote on HB 614. Of the five members, only Sen. Lee Hawkins (R-Gainesville) voted for it. Hawkins is also one of the signers on SB 418.

The other members of the subcommittee, Sen. Judson Hill (R-Marietta), Sen. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome) and Sen. John Wiles (R-Kennesaw), all voted against it on the floor last year.

WSB Radio reported yesterday evening that the legislation raised eyebrows as some Senators were concerned that it smacked of Big Brother. Of course, that is a warranted concern considering what the bill does, such as a building a database that will hold private medical information of Georgians with absolutely without authorities having to obtain a warrant.

The bill is far from dead, there is a substitute ready for presentation, but concerns about privacy are being heard.

Carter is running her campaign on jobs and the economy and national security, an area where she feels Johnson has been especially disappointing . We also discuss health care, her support of the FairTax and briefly discuss free trade.

You can download the podcast here (just under 21 minutes/19MB, right click, "Save File As" to download).

In the next podcast, I'll be chatting with John Monds, a Libertarian candidate Governor.

If you have a candidate, no matter what party, that you would like for me to interview or questions that you would like for me to ask an upcoming guest, please drop me a line on Facebook or send an e-mail.

As former Congressman and US Attorney Bob Barr noted, HB 614 was intended “to make it easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to discover alleged ‘pill pushers’ and prescription drug abusers without having to go through the normal – and constitutionally appropriate – process of obtaining subpoenas and warrants (in other words, without having to first develop some evidence that a person may be violating the law before invading their privacy).”

The legislation was a clear violation of the right to privacy and protections against searches without a warrant protected in both the state and federal constitutions, as well as already established court precedent.

Under Georgia law, no law enforcement official can lawfully obtain any part of a Georgia citizen’s medical record without first obtaining the patient’s consent or a court order, such as a search warrant or a subpoena. In Johnson v. State, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that “the State is not entitled to exercise indiscriminate subpoena power as an investigative substitute for procedural devices otherwise available to it in the criminal context, such as a search warrant.”

In King v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court reiterated that “In this state, privacy is considered a fundamental constitutional right and is ‘recognized as having a value so essential to individual liberty in our society that [its] infringement merits careful scrutiny by the courts.’” It also noted that “[p]ermitting the State unlimited access to medical records for the purposes of prosecuting the patient would have the highly oppressive effect of chilling the decision of any and all Georgians to seek medical treatment.”

HB 614 was passed in the House by a vote of 161 to 9 on Crossover Day, but was defeated in the Senate just days later by a vote of 25 to 29. As you can see in the video below, Sen. Preston Smith was key in killing HB 614:

Unfortunately, the Prescription Drug Monitoring Act is back, although the sponsors aren’t using that name this time around. SB 418 was filed on February 16th and is sitting in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. A hearing has not been scheduled at this time.

I cannot say that it will receive consideration this year because of everything else going on, but it appears that some noise is being made by supporters of the bill. SB 418 would have to clear the Senate by the end of business on Thursday, March 25th, to be considered this session.

Radio talk show host Jeff Scott will be returning to radio via the Internet starting on Monday, March 15, using YouTube and BlogTalkRadio to continue to reach the people of Middle Georgia and the world.

“Even though I believe the Internet will never fully replace terrestrial radio, it is still a budding market for radio and a wonderful way to reach listeners” said Scott, who plans to post a video to YouTube every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to go with a one-hour live radio show every Tuesday and Thursday evening beginning at 7:00 PM. “I am excited about getting back on the air to speak with the people of Middle Georgia.”

Scott says that, even though the show will be broadcast on the Internet and available to the world, he will still be focused on local Middle Georgia issues and statewide issues in his new show and on YouTube. “The content focus of the show will not change. There is nobody else who analyzes local and state issues with a focus on liberty, and I will continue to be that local and state voice for liberty,” Scott said.

Dem Rep Jim Marshall, a prominent Blue Dog who voted No last time but was believed to be open to backing the Senate bill, is now a definite No, his spokesperson confirms.

“Marshall is a no,” Marshall spokesperson Doug Moore tells our reporter, Ryan Derousseau.

Marshall is one of 39 Dems who voted No last time that reform proponents were hoping to flip to Yes, in order to make up ground and get to 216 votes. The confirmation that Marshall will vote No reduces that pool a bit.

Conservative activist Ralph Reed has decided not to run for the Georgia congressional seat being vacated by Rep. John Linder.

Reed said he "can best advance conservative principles" through his consulting firm and his role as chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

"I had to make a choice," Reed said in a statement. "I believe electing 50 to 100 men and women of character and conservative beliefs to Congress and statewide office over the next two election cycles is a more efficacious way to advance the conservative agenda than seeking public office myself in 2010."

He added: "Should that door open in the future, perhaps I will arrive at a different decision, but I know this is the right decision at this time for me and the Reed family."

Among the issues discussed was the latest on ObamaCare, stimulus spending and jobs and the long term fiscal health of the country. We also touched on his recent comments on about President Barack Obama's citizenship status.

You can download the podcast here (over 26 minutes/24.3MB, right click, "Save File As" to download).

In the next podcast, I'll be chatting with Liz Carter, a Republican candidate in Georgia's Fourth Congressional District. That may be posted as soon as tomorrow.

If you have a candidate, no matter what party, that you would like for me to interview or questions that you would like for me to ask an upcoming guest, please drop me a line on Facebook or send an e-mail.

In case you haven't heard, they are mailing out letters letting us know that our census documents are in the mail. No, I'm not joking. Of course, this isn't surprising since the government spent $42 million in 2008 to tell us that rebate checks were being mailed out.

In a presentation delivered before the National Association for Business Economics, Mr. Elmendorf noted that the choices needed to address the medium and long-term budget deficit will be “larger and more fundamental” than in the past.

“U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path that can’t be resolved through minor tinkering,” he said. “The problem posed by the federal budget deficit not at its current level but on this trajectory… poses a growing risk to the recovery.”
[…]
In addition, the debt held by the public with current tax policies extended would soar to 90% of GDP by 2020, Mr. Elmendorf said, making the U.S. public debt load one of the world’s highest.

“The U.S. is entering unfamiliar territory in its level of public debt,” said Mr. Elmendorf. “It will be larger over the next decade than it’s been in half a century… and also unfamiliar by the standards of other developed countries.” The choice is not whether to change course from current policy, he noted, but “how quickly and in what way.” President Barack Obama has already declared a spending freeze on discretionary, nonessential outlays, but that only amounts to roughly 17% of total spending. Much of the rest of federal spending is for entitlement programs including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, defense spending and interest payments on the federal debt.

The size of U.S. entitlement programs has grown sharply since 1970, from 3.8% of GDP to 8.2% as of 2007, and is expected to hit 11.1% of GDP by 2020 thanks to an aging population of Baby Boomers and fewer workers in the system to help pay for their benefits.

On Friday, I posted some charts from the 2009 Financial Report Of The U.S. Government. As you can see, Elmendorf isn’t being simply being alarmist. There is a clear danger here, and yet there is no leadership.

Elmendorf does represent misguided thinking in terms of taxes. In the article he says that that the Bush tax cuts have to expire, rather than simply saying that spending cuts could meet the loss in revenue.

Elmendorf gets it right on the outlook, but wrong on how to solve the problem.

The rationale for your proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans is that it would encourage people to purchase less-comprehensive coverage and thereby reduce health care spending.

If that’s a good idea, then why is it bad when insurers raise premiums?

You can read their names below the fold.