A tip of the hat gets a slap in the face

tipofhat.jpgCFA wrote an article concerning Senator Jon Woods’ terrible legislation, Act 1280 of 2015. (See: Senator Jon Woods and the demise of the Arkansas ethics law )  We called his bad legislation the “do over” rule. We were told it had been called the “mulligan rule” by ultra-liberal blogger Max Brantley. We thought it humorous and wanted to use it. So, we gave Brantley a tip of the hat for the “mulligan rule” catch phrase. Heck we even put his name in italics.

Because of CFA’s gesture, Brantley used the opportunity to flip the subject to slam CFA.  Perhaps he thinks CFA was trying to piggy back on his Arkansas Blog or perhaps he thinks CFA came up with the article after reading him.  Sorry Max. We are sure you are swell, but the article is not based on you or the Arkansas Blog.

Brantley seems to think CFA wouldn’t criticize Woods at all but for Woods’ position on Obamacare Medicaid Expansion (currently called the Private Option). He doesn’t realize CFA and other conservative groups and individuals have been consistently complaining about bad legislation by Woods.

CFA started warning people about Senator Woods and Rep. Sabin’s deceptive Issue 3 back on May 28, 2014.  Meanwhile, on October 14, 2014 Brantley was still calling Senator Woods and Rep. Sabin “well-intentioned” even though he would have liked the amendment to be stronger. Brantley’s article on that date was about the group, Arkansas Term Limits, issuing a warning that Issue 3 was a Trojan horse to weaken term limits and to gain higher legislative salaries.  Instead of addressing the issue of deceptive in the constitutional amendment, Brantley used his article to question the group’s funding.  See a pattern?

We wonder if he noticed his “well-intentioned” sponsors gave the legislature authority to change the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Ethics Commission by majority vote, instead of the 2/3rds vote that used to be required.

Brantley also criticized CFA for not including in our article a criticism of Woods’ SJR16 saying, “(They didn’t mention Woods’ role in a constitutional amendment meant to reverse a court ruling that put a halt to taxpayer subsidies of private chambers of commerce.)” Actually, CFA criticized Jon Woods’s deceptive SJR16 back on August 7, 2015.  No, CFA did not mention the chamber of commerce provision but ended the article with a promise to write more about problems in the proposal. CFA dwelled on what we consider an even worse problem with Woods’ SJR16. Currently there is a limit of 5% of Arkansas General Revenue that can be pledged to help private business with what is classified as “super projects.”  Senator Jon Woods’ proposal strips out that protection.  With no limit on super projects Arkansas could soon find itself in the position of having to raise taxes. (Guess, tax increases are not seen as a problem to liberals.)

From where we sit, it looks like some people would rather let Senator Jon Woods run amuck with deceptive legislation than to risk a sure vote to continue the big government program Obamacare Medicaid Expansion.


List of CFA articles (with links) on bad legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Senator Jon Woods.

Issue 3

How Much Does Ethics Reform Cost? – PART 1: Origin & Scope of HJR1009

How Much Does Ethics Reform Cost? – Part 2: Term Limits and Salary Increases

How Much Does Ethics Reform Cost? – Part 3: Ethics & Deception

16 Year Term Limits Proposal Actually Gives Senators 18 To 22 Years.

Trojan Horse Amendment Gives Arkansas Legislators A Pension Boost

SJR16 of 2015 – A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

SJR16 of 2015 – How much state money is enough to assist big business with super projects?

Act 1280 of 2015 (SB967)

Senator Jon Woods and the demise of the Arkansas ethics law