Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “”There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…”

Second, the process by which decisions are made is the hallmark of a democracy. And the process here stinks. The process helps to create the substance. Failure to include all of our legislators in the process prevents us (and our legislators) from adequately analyzing the data and coming up with solutions.

Finally, since we haven’t been provided with the data, the reasoning behind the recommendations, or the time to have economists, lawyers, legislators, school administrators and other necessary parties review the plan, it seems a little silly to expect me to come up with the alternative, doesn’t it? How about giving the experts the opportunity - a real opportunity - to participate in our government. Then maybe the Republicans won’t be generating the anger they are right now.

I read in today’s D&C a letter to the editor, in which the writer wrote about Ms. Brooks’ “shell game”. I don’t know that writer, but I believe I used that phrase recently (I’m not feeling like reviewing the prior posts right now - dinner’s almost ready) . So this is what these practices create - rancor among the public, and budgets in which we have no confidence.

But you still haven’t answered my questions, which have nothing to do with choosing to ignore the topic, and everything to do with how things are done around here and why an increasing number of people are questioning the Republican party’s handling of county government.

To call my comments an ad hominem attackis inaccurate - unless by saying that when I question how things are done I’m attacking you personally. The Water Authority appointments are a prime example of the backroom deals that should not be the way business is done. Maybe you’re qualfied - but the process makes us all question this.

So if you really want to discuss the Brooks plan, why don’t you share with us, as a Republican insider, who may have been present or at least knowledgeable about the creation of this plan, who was consulted, what the considerations were (such as “Can the schools afford to lose this?” or “Will we be able to claim we didn’t raise taxes again”), whether the county’s finances were actually calculated, whether school costs were calculated, whether there was ever a thought to include members of the DemocratIC party or public, and if not why not. Maybe you can let us know why those who came up with this plan thought they should do this without generating the publicity or consulting with the other legislators or school administrators, the state and counties.

Charles did not refer to overseas telephone surveillance, he referred to domestic surveillance. The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must obtain a warrant before domestic wiretapping can be engaged in. Since the Bush Administration is not acquiring warrants, what they are doing is illegal.

Maggie’s and the county legislature’s plan is lacking on its merits for all the reasons stated above, including all the games they have been playing over the past decade, which have led to this mess.

Even the chairman Steve Minarik is in on the profit.
What’s with his public relations firm Impact Communications I think it is
Do they do or have they done work in the past for republican candidates (reputedly not so voluntarily on that part of those candidates) slop slop

I’m sorry to have to let facts interfere with your rant but:

The MCWA Board of Ethics has been in existence for less than 3 years. It did not exist at the time of Mr. Stanwix departure.

The Board of Ethics has nothing whatever to do with the actual operation of the Water Authority.

We members of the Board of Ethics serve witout compensation of any kind (except for the satisfaction of public service).

Here’s some free advice: make the fact-finding calls before you go off on ignorant, offensive, and incorrect rants.

My claim about Democrat talking points being regularly used by commentors on this site is hardly a stretch. In the last couple of days, critics of Brooks’s plan have asked “why do Republicans hate children” and there have been numerous references to “Bush’s war for oil”, among others. You referenced “illegal wiretaps”. Can you tell me when the Supreme Court ruled the overseas telephone surveilance program illegal? To my knowledge, the “illegality” is the opinion of Democrats, not based on any judicial finding.

Finally, please note that the Board of Ethics, of which I am a member, was created less than 3 years ago as a result of State legislation requiring various municipal boards and authorities to create them. The Board of Ethics did not exist at the time of John Stanwix departure.

It appears to me that your questions are an attempt to avoid the real issue; the merits of the Brooks’ plan. I’ll discuss that, not the ad hominem efforts.

I do believe that the Water Authority office was used to benefit Republican supporters, and manipulated to ensure that the Democrats didn’t have a say in how it ran.

I also believe that Minarik has manipulated this county’s political system, and that those who seek his support and political positions around here sacrifice good government in order to attain position.

I agree that Medicaid has burdened our county (and every other in New York) financially. But I don’t agree that we play a shell game of hide the tax hike, by shifting the hike to the school taxes and taking funding from our schools without notice, and without input from the state and schools.

There is money to be had in the county - once we stop providing welfare for Republican donors, be they contractors or supplier. It won’t make up this deficit, but it’s a start. Schools should be among the last places we look for funding - but if we do it, let’s do it in an aboveboard way, with notice and comment from the public, input from the schools and the state (the real funding source), and an acknowledgement that taxes are going up, instead of pretending that they’ve been reduced.

I think the dishonesty of the label and the way in this was handled, besides the 1984ish quality of labeling something as the opposite of what it is, cements the lack of trust many have developed for Republican politics. And I want to ask you the same questions -

Was that the Water Authority the board that, when required to have members from two parties on it, had members appointed from the Republican and Conservative parties? Are you denying that Steve Minarik calls all the shots for Republicans (and consequently the county) in this town? Let me ask you another - have you ever done anything counter to what Minarik wants? What were the consequences?

No wonder you fight like hell. This isn’t a seat on a board - it’s a way of life.

Why does it take majority opposition in either this blog OR in the Legislature, OR i nthe Assembly, State or Federal to get anyone in the GOP to tell the truth?

PEOPLE elect INDIVIDUALS to represent their best interests. Have you forgotten the definition of “public service”?

Nevermind - we’ll remind you come November for crying out loud.

I wonder if you have actually considered the effects of the Brooks’ plan and compared it to any alternatives. As I noted previously, its easy to criticise; its much harder to propose alternatives. Many Democrats blithely state that Brooks and the GOP have “caused” the deficit and now they want to balance the budget “on the backs” of the less fortunate.

Really? Can you articulate the policies that have led to the deficit? Do you deny the crushing growth of the medicaid program and its effects on the County budget? Is it unfair to look at school districts and ask them if a 1%-2% cut in their revenues isn’t reasonable, particularly since the state aid to schools has grown dramatically?

My point about “playing politics” was not an attempt to justify any actions by Republicans because the Democrats “do it too”. I was simply responding to the fact that most GOP actions are attacked here as being nothing but politics, without any effort to discuss the merits, while politically motivated moves by Democrats which bear on the same topics are ignored. I’m not supportive of any moves by members of either party made just for the sake of politics.

Finally, yes, I am the Gates GOP leader and I am on the Water Authority Board of Ethics. I have never made any effort to hide my political posts or persuasions. I wasn’t aware, however, that disqualified me from having an opinion.