Friday, July 14, 2006

Cardetti Says Revenue Official Lied About Harpool

The communication's director for the state Democratic party says a Department of Revenue official was just dead wrong when she stated that State Senate candidate Doug Harpool was a lawmaker in 1994.

"Doug Harpool served in the legislature from 1983 to 1992. He was out of office when Governor Carnahan came into office," said Jack Cardetti, the spokesman for the Missouri Democratic party.

The official was taking aim at Harpool for coming out for a fee license office reform plan now that a Republican controls the appointments. The official was trying to make the point that Harpool didn't push for the change when a Democratic Governor had power.

"Mr. Harpool was a state representative from 1984 to 1994, a time when the Governorship of Missouri was switched from Republican to Democratic hands. To Harpool's statement . . . Is that what you said in 1993 when Governor Carnahan was turning the contract offices over to his Democratic friends," asked the official. "At that time, how did you advocate awarding these contracts to school districts?"

But in fact, Harpool wasn't a lawmaker at the time the official alleged.

"It's hard to believe the Blunt administration would be spreading lies in an attempt to stall much needed reforms to fee offices," Cardetti said. "Doug Harpool show us he's not afraid to reform a corrupt system that doesn't work for the benefit of Missouri citizens."

"Whether they were misstating it on purpose or it was by accident, it doesn't take away the need for reform. And Doug Harpool is the only candidate in the Senate race willing to stand up to the Governor," Cardetti said.

Cardetti also said the party considers Harpools challenge to Springfield Senator Norma Champion "a top tier race." "We believe she's vulnerable. She hasn't done a lot to distinguish herself," Cardetti said. "It would really change the political landscape in Southwest Missouri. Overtaking the state senate seat in Greene County would be groundbreaking."

8 comments:

bobicus tomatocus said...

Once again you are shilling for Harpool so I have to beat a dead horse, again.

While it may be true that Harpool was not in office during that time neither he, or any other Democrat sought to reform the fee office.

Convient of you to leave out that the main point was still not answered. The spokes person never did answer the question why Harpool, or Democrats for that matter, never brought this subject up before.

Gee, I wonder why.

Lastly, Harpool has yet to show or prove that a single thing about his program would work in realty. That is partly because you, Dave, and the rest of the media refuse to ask him about it.

He is proposing a feel good program with no substance. I can do that.

Hey, I propose that all the money would go to local homeless shelters or the poor and needy. Hey, they need money too!

As you said earlier when you critiqued a Republican response, the devil is in the details.

Caught you in your own bias, Dave.

Takes two wings to fly straight said...

Bobicus-- Let me remind you one more time. NO GOVERNOR EVER AWARDED THE SPRINGFIELD LICENSE OFFICE OR THE OTHER ELEVEN MAJOR STATE RUN OFFICES TO FEE OFFICES BEFORE BLUNT. NOT BOND, NOT ASHCROFT, NOT CARNAHAN, NOT WILSON, AND NOT HOLDEN. ONLY MATT BLUNT.

That is why no one has ever made an issue of it before. The vast majority of fee offices have always been in rural areas involving far less money then these 11.

The decision to award the Springfield license office to a political contributor hasn't been an issue before because NO ONE has ever done it before. Now tell us all why Blunt's political friend and family fundraiser should get the profits from the Springfield fee office (from the fees we are required to pay under state law to drive and license vehicles)instead of the Springield school system.

Takes two wings to fly straight said...

By the way Bobiscus. The program Harpool proposes--- allowing schools to receive funds from operation of license offices has worked successfully for years in Rolla and Lebanon. In fact around 40 of the fee agent offices statewide are already run by not for profits. Harpool's proposal actually allows not for profits other then school's to apply for the offices. What more proof do you need that the program could work other then the fact that it is already working in several other location in the state. Why shouldn't our schools benefit the ways the schools in Rolla and Lebanon do? By the way Carnahan first awarded those offices to the school systems.

We are said...

FOUL!

Bobicus, I notice you said nothing about the "slant" of the article that said Harpool was in office during that time. Perhaps that could be because you didn't care about what that article said, as it did not say anything against a republican.

Fact- that article related the position that the department of revenue held.

Fact- this article consists of the response from the Democrats.

Neither article is biased, old boy. Just one relates the side that you want, and the other works against you; that, to me, sounds like fair reporting. And your actions sound, to me, like you do not want fair reporting, but would rather engage in an attempt to bias the media to only presenting information and articles that support your side.

If you have points to make or questions to ask, as you did in this response, then make them and/or ask them. But do not charge the articles with being biased simply because they don't go the way you would like.

Randy said...

I am so tired of hearing that it's o.k. for Republicans to do something because Democrats did it when they were in power. What a childish excuse for doing anything. I don't care if these political supporters of Governor Blunt run the most efficient offices that have ever been run in Missouri, let's go along with what Doug Harpool and the Republican legislators have suggested and put these moneymaking operations in the hands of not-for-profit organizations so all of us will benefit and not just a select few.

bobicus tomatocus said...

@randy. You missed the point of the discussion entirely. Some people would like you to believe it is about socialism and redistributing wealth, but it is not. At the very center of this discussion should be are the offices working effectively in carrying out their task. It is a very simple yes or no question.

The answer is yes, they are working very effeciently and should end up bringing in more state revenues than if they were run by the government.

What we have, though, is a media driven problem which is centered on the fact that now that the Republicans are in office and the tables are turned, many democrats dont like it.

I say tough.

In the end, if we are talking about some sort of a reform to the system in which the offices are to be folded into the state government, then we need to start talking about setting up offices and the expenses which are entailed. Keep in mind that would mean more money out of the state budget - and because it would be less efficient, it would mean less money in the state coffers. It would be a double whammy.

Finally, This article and many which are posted here are highly biased because they are only critical of Republican proposals. I have yet to see one story which is independent and looks at the pros and cons of Harpool's proposals.

I take that back, we keep seeing the pros, but we just never see the cons and the reality of how such a system might be deployed on a state wide basis.

I mean you are talking about giving control of the fee offices to schools. You know, places which are supposed to be teaching out kids how to read and write. How much money do you think it will take out of the SPS school budget to run the offices? Are you willing to absorb a start up tax hike?

None of these issure are EVER explored by Dave because he knows, as he posted in an article about a Republican, the devil is in the detail.

By definition when are you gate keeping the information and leave out important details and only tell one side of the story, it is bias.

Takes two wings to fly straight said...

Bobiscus-- Once again you appear to intentionally mislead voters. These large offices make lots of money from state mandated transaction fees and are very profitable. That is why big political donors position themselves to get to run them. The estimated overhead is 40-50% which is paid from transaction fees. That makes profit 50-60% which is a lot in an office that generates $975000 in transaction fees. The amount of the money that goes to the state does not come from the transaction fees and is not related to the efficiency of the office. The state gets 100% of the registration and license fees, sales tax etc regardless of the profit margin from transaction fees. How much the state gets depends on how many motor vehicles are licensed and how many drivers licenses are issued not on the efficiency of the fee office.

bobicus tomatocus said...

@two wings:

Your argument does not follow. One catch phrase: ESTIMATED.

To make a proper analysis we would need exact numbers, wouldnt we?

There is no telling how bloated the government program could be, which would eat into the "profit" margin.

Efficiency is at the very heart of the argument; just as the lack of an analysis of a SCHOOL DISTRICT running a fee office.

if there is anyone who is misleading voters, it is you and your ilk. That includes this news station in its coverage.