Online Access to Community Service Grants, or ...

No, Kay Ivey did not have a good idea. (0.00 / 0)

Local money for local matters distributed by locally-elected representatives is a good idea.

Letting Republicans review, comment, and debate how Democratic representatives distribute local funding is a bad idea.

Sparks is right to oppose more control and restriction of the people's money. We already trust (ethics) and verify (audits), and the voters ultimately control the representative.

Kay Ivey is attacking the power of the incumbent, the power of the "pork", the Democratic power in Alabama as it stands today.

Sparks is right to call her out. Sparks is standing for local control and the Democratic Party.

He is the Democratic candidate.

---

by: yellowdog @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:05:14 PM CDT

If shoe is on other foot... (3.00 / 1)

I look forward to hearing you say, "Letting Democrats review, comment, and debate how Republican representatives distribute local funding is a bad idea," if the GOP happens to gain control of the legislature in 2010.

I don't care who is in power, let the people have access to tools that foster spending transparency.  That includes both how the funds are spent and how they are allocated.

---

by: Brian @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:25:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Surely it would work both ways ... (0.00 / 0)

Letting Republicans review, comment, and debate how Democratic representatives distribute local funding is a bad idea.

Republicans distribute community grants too, don't they?  And whatever Kay Ivey proposed (I've asked for specific wording but don't have it yet) it would only be fair if all the grant information was made available to the general public -- everyone, not just Republicans.  

Running against open government is a hard sell and it scares the heck out of me that some Alabama Democrats are positioning themselves to do just that next year.  If the concern over putting this information online is that it will be politicized in an election year, for God's sake, just agree in principle and make the rule effective starting January 2011. And if there are grants out there that can't stand the light of day, or that originators can't explain to their constituents, then don't do them.  

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:27:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just don't see what the problem is (4.00 / 2)

with having proposals for spending public money published.
I also don't understand what's wrong with UFO days in Fyffe.  
They keep Lowell Barron too busy to get up to mischief.  He's got to be worried that his alien overlords are going to beam him up in the middle of some scheme.

"The War in Iraq is not the disease. The War in Iraq is a symptom. Arrogance is the disease" - Bill Richardson

---

by: herding old cats @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:54:59 PM CDT

The problem is the Republican agenda (0.00 / 0)

They don't want Democrats handing out money. They want a chance to be outraged at the waste. They know Alabama voters don't care about local issues and events 300 miles away. "It's all just a waste of taxpayer money", and the Republicans want a tool to jam this down our throats.

As the Commission pointed out, we have regulations, laws, and accountability. We know where every dime goes, and those grants are reviewed and audited. We catch crooked politicians.

What the Republicans want is bureaucratic hurdles, delays, groundswells of opposition, and elimination of local discretionary funding. They want less government and less taxes.

So-called transparency (which we really have already) is just a means to an end.

 

---

by: yellowdog @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 23:55:49 PM CDT

Transparency (0.00 / 0)

Is there some way to see where these dimes are going?  I looked around at the open checkbook site and didn't see a category for these grants, but I'm not real familiar with that website.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:29:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are right, partly (0.00 / 0)

we do catch crooked politicians when we can be aware of spending practices.  We do it, us.... they don't just come and turn themselves in.

What on earth is wrong with less government and less taxes if there can be increased efficiency and better government?  I mean, are there people that want to pay more taxes out there?  They can pay mine if they want.

We have, in the Legislature, foxes guarding the henhouse.  They are supposed to be stewards of our money, but unless we have oversight, we can not guarantee that.  I don't mind entrusting them with the bureaucracy and work of the daily going ons of government, but I would like to be able to look at the books from time to time and ensure the books aren't being cooked.

BrokeSnake.com, demanding good government, one day at a time.

---

by: BrokeSnake @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 13:09:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem, (0.00 / 0)

as I and many others see it, is that Community Service Grants (while many of them may be spent on worthwhile projects) is that they are really tools that incumbents use to shower their constituents with money that their constituents view as reasons to keep re-electing their representatives, while other candidates for that office might have better ideas about what should be done and make better public servants. Other Community Service Grants are just pure “pork” to everyone other than those on the receiving end.

Fresh blood, rather than pork, can be beneficial when administered to a sick state government.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 07:46:49 AM CDT

I was with you 'til you got to the blood ... (0.00 / 0)

There may be some "pork," but I hear a lot of these grants go to things like volunteer fire departments which sounds more like an essential public service than pork.  I'd like to see more transparency because I really believe most of these grants are for good purposes and they're being tarred by innuendo and a couple of bad examples.  It's hard for me to believe that most of our Legislators are just using this as a vehicle to reward their buddies or line their pockets.  Open the books and I think you'd find that the vast majority of grants are reasonable and justifiable -- and you'd eliminate the few that aren't.  

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:36:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some do (0.00 / 0)

go to Volunteer Fire Depts. Guess who those VFD members and family are expected to campaign for and vote for come election time? Instead of grants those Departments should be funded direct;y by local, county and state government.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:49:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By "fresh blood" (0.00 / 0)

I mean new legislators. And I agree that many CSGs go for worthy things and that the taxpayers should be able to see which legislators give how much to what if CSGs are allowed to continue, At the same time the CSGs are used by some legislators to stay in office as long as they like, while new legislators might have new and better ideas about how to provide us with better government.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:46:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Be careful what you ask for... (0.00 / 0)

When every Republican lines up behind a proposal, and then mentions how they expect this action to benefit Republican opportunity in the State, does that not give a Democrat pause?

Are they a little more sophisticated in the nuances of political power than we Democrats are?

Would they use our idealism to eliminate our advantages as a pragmatic political party?

Are we now going to give every Republican proposal a fair analysis on the face of it without considering the source and the consequences? "It sounds good, lets do it!"

Shall we all gather hands and sing "Kumbayah, my Lord" because there is really no difference between a Democrat and a Republican?

We all want good government, and the key to that is to identify what brand of toilet paper some backwater elementary school is buying with a $50 Democratic "pork-barrel" grant, as the schools face a legislated 9% prorationed budget cut targeted at school supplies to go along with no money for school books?

Even though transparency has been legislated 'ad nauseum' lets back door it in when we are supposed to be approving grants on their merits and qualifying standards--let's hold that toilet paper money up right here...because Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey suddenly had a good idea.

The newspapers and blogs report Sparks told her where to shove it, and wag their finger because he didn't jump on the Republican bandwagon.

Well, call me partisan!

---

by: yellowdog @ Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:52:39 AM CDT

I call you wise yellowdog. (0.00 / 0)

So is Ron Sparks.

Y'all didn't fall for the republican okey doke.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:10:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Call me naive ... (0.00 / 0)

And I think you just did, but I still haven't heard an argument I can use to convince an Independent voter that opening up the CSG process is a bad idea.

Saying they're just proposing this to make political hay won't work unless you can either defend the status quo or show why their idea is a bad one. Yes, the Republicans hope to use the open government issue for political gain. Of course they do! I say it's probably going to work unless Dems either steal the issue out from under them or develop a cogent explanation of why there's nothing wrong with business as usual in Montgomery. Our flank is wide open on this issue and we need to take some action to protect it or 2010 will be a bloodbath.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:15:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]