Comments for The Bitterest Pill at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.theind.com Sat, 18 May 2013 23:53:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/9819-the-bitterest-pill#comment-25825 The haves prosper while the have-nots DIE, sadly this is the trend in America only one step away from a third world country. Long may it wave, hah now what politician will insure the heath care of these unfortunate ones. Not Jindal, lets remember this you dimwits. - chano leal Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:20:00 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/9819-the-bitterest-pill#comment-25824 Every year, our state legislators insert $10-20 million in legislative slush funds (member amendments) into the budget bill. These are line items, used to pay for NGOs and other non-capital outlay local projects. The last two years, because of public irritation over this practice during budget deficits, they've just done a better job of hiding these projects. In 2010, they hid the projects in the prison/ancillary bill. Last year, they hid them in the capital outlay bill (HB2). http://thehayride.com/2011/06/yes-those-projects-are-still-there/ Now we're seeing, according to other news reports, $3-4 million in potentially devastating cuts to UMC. Looks to me if our legislators would do without their vote-buying slush funds, especially if enough of them had agreed to do away with the practice 3 years ago when we started having deficits, the money to sustain UMC would absolutely be available. Some legislators have tried for a few years now to do away with these slush fund items, especially while the state is having to cut Higher Ed and health care. Unfortunately, they have been in the vast minority on this reform. Contact your State Legislator. Ask him/her if they have supported doing away with these slush funds/member amendments in the past. Chances are, they have not. Now their vote-buying practices are coming back to harm others. - Nicholas Bouterie Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:24:45 +0100