Rick Perry - Elect Me...

[SparrowHawk]

I posted the links. Not my fault if you don't want to read them. TX has filthy air. State government has no interest in cleaning it up or telling the polluters to clean up or shut down.

The election cycle has just started. Paul will be out in short order. As 777 pointed out, when he starts being questioned on getting red f MC, SS and other social programs the people will no be too happy about it.

I still believe out of the current crop Romney will be the last one standing.

Dr Paul has a nice sum of money raised and he can stay in for the duration regardless of polls. He is gaining in popularity and his numbers nationally are in the low teens. Another good showing or two and he's in the thick of it. This time it's different as many if not all of the things he predicted have happened.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Perry Bills Feds for Housing Illegals

Friday, 26 Aug 2011 07:11 PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to reimburse the state $350 million to cover costs of imprisoning illegal immigrants.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the top-tier Republican presidential candidate blamed the federal government for not securing the border with Mexico, allowing illegal immigrants to cross over and use taxpayer-funded resources. He said resources for county jails are being depleted as a result.

Perry included in the letter the formula he used to determine the costs and included a memo from state Comptroller Susan Combs supporting his calculations.

Perry is on the right side on this.

 

[delldude]

Dell,

Since you have not responded I will assume that you now understand that the DOT never had plans to require farmers to have a CDL and that Perry was wrong regarding his accusation and that it came up because states were actually applying the federal regulations inconsistently and that the pubic comment was to get examples from the farmers. Since you offered no proof to the contrary I will assume this matter is resolved?

You know what they say about assume don't you?

Well Pal, DOT did intend to require CDL's as Perry correctly stated.
It was one of the first orders of business of the White House Rural Council created by EO from Rocky Bama. Ray LaHood is a sitting member of the WHRC and head of DOT, they did propose the action. Part of the process included public comment on the proposal which ended up with some 1700 pissed off farmers comments and then DOT decided it wasn't a cool idea.

And it is another intrusion by the federal government into our basic lives and liberties and an end around on the COTUS. I posted about Agenda 21 before......and WHRC is a backdoor.

 

[tech2101]

You know what they say about assume don't you?

Well Pal, DOT did intend to require CDL's as Perry correctly stated.
It was one of the first orders of business of the White House Rural Council created by EO from Rocky Bama. Ray LaHood is a sitting member of the WHRC and head of DOT, they did propose the action. Part of the process included public comment on the proposal which ended up with some 1700 pissed off farmers comments and then DOT decided it wasn't a cool idea.

And it is another intrusion by the federal government into our basic lives and liberties and an end around on the COTUS. I posted about Agenda 21 before......and WHRC is a backdoor.

One thing great about our country is all information regarding these things is public. All you have to do is look or do a FOIA request.

Notice

Background

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31279), FMCSA published a notice requesting public comment on: (1) previously published regulatory guidance on the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce in deciding whether operations of commercial motor vehicles within the boundaries of a single State are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; (2) proposed guidance on the relevance of the distinction between direct and indirect compensation in deciding whether farm vehicle drivers transporting agricultural commodities, farm supplies and equipment as part of a crop share agreement are subject to the commercial driver's license regulations; and, (3) proposed guidance to determine whether off-road farm equipment or implements of husbandry operated on public roads for limited distances are considered commercial motor vehicles. The Agency indicated the guidance would be used to help ensure uniform application of the safety regulations by enforcement personnel, motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers.

Since the publication of the notice, the Agency has received a letter signed by 18 U.S. Senators and numerous requests from the agricultural industry to extend the comment period. The Senators and industry acknowledged the importance of the issues covered by the notice and requested additional time to provide farmers, many of whom have planting and harvesting responsibilities during this time of the year, additional time to review the notice and consider the likely impacts of the guidance on their operations. Copies of the requests for an extension of the comment period are included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

The FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of the U.S. Senators and farmers and extends the public comment period from June 30, 2011 to August 1, 2011. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on August 1, 2011. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses” section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent practicable comments received in the public docket after the closing date of the comment period.

Issued on : June 27, 2011
William Bronrott
Deputy Administrator
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

Comments and response

I apologize if this reality does not fit your conspiracy theory.

 

[delldude]

Thank you for supporting what I posted.

 

[777 fixer]

Perry is on the right side on this.

I think Texas has received more than enough money to cover the costs.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/recovery/

 

[tech2101]

I think Texas has received more than enough money to cover the costs.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/recovery/

So if we secede from the United States, do we still get to keep our $21 billion and change?

 

[eolesen]

You seem to have no problem on commenting about us heathen liberals. I was not aware that only conservative religious whack jobs were allowed to comment on things out side their realm of knowledge. My apologies your highness.

The key difference is that I just say you're heathens. There's no point for me trying to to predict or explain how you or any other Demobrat would vote, because frankly, even Darwin would be hard pressed to figure that one out...

 

[eolesen]

You seem to have no problem on commenting about us heathen liberals. I was not aware that only conservative religious whack jobs were allowed to comment on things out side their realm of knowledge. My apologies your highness.

The key difference is that I just say you're heathens. There's no point for me trying to to predict or explain how you or any other Demobrat would vote, because frankly, even Darwin would be hard pressed to figure that one out...

 

[eolesen]

Well Pal, DOT did intend to require CDL's as Perry correctly stated.
It was one of the first orders of business of the White House Rural Council created by EO from Rocky Bama. Ray LaHood is a sitting member of the WHRC and head of DOT, they did propose the action. Part of the process included public comment on the proposal which ended up with some 1700 pissed off farmers comments and then DOT decided it wasn't a cool idea.

Whether or not the intent was to require CDL's, they certainly opened the door to it.

None of the current pilot duty requirements started out with a bold statement that they were going to require more stringent duty restrictions. They start out with a commentary and investigatory phase, which then leads to a NPRM, and then the final rule being implemented.

What the Demobrat supporters here fail to recognize is that few initiatives reaching the NPRM ever get reversed.

If the agricultural lobby and Angry White Man Radio not picked up on this when they did, it would have likely been too late to close the barn door, so to speak...

 

[Ms Tree]

You know what they say about assume don't you?

Well Pal, DOT did intend to require CDL's as Perry correctly stated.
It was one of the first orders of business of the White House Rural Council created by EO from Rocky Bama. Ray LaHood is a sitting member of the WHRC and head of DOT, they did propose the action. Part of the process included public comment on the proposal which ended up with some 1700 pissed off farmers comments and then DOT decided it wasn't a cool idea.

And it is another intrusion by the federal government into our basic lives and liberties and an end around on the COTUS. I posted about Agenda 21 before......and WHRC is a backdoor.

Again you are wrong and I already provided the link directly from the DOT that you seemingly did not read. The comments were requested by the DOT to find out where the discrepancies were in the state enforcement. The right wing took this as an opportunity to spread falsehoods.

Why don't you prove some proof from the DOT to refute this or we will just go with the idea that you got this info the same place you got the info on what Mr Beer from the S&P said. Perry was wrong. Not a big surprise there.

 

[Ms Tree]

Whether or not the intent was to require CDL's, they certainly opened the door to it.

None of the current pilot duty requirements started out with a bold statement that they were going to require more stringent duty restrictions. They start out with a commentary and investigatory phase, which then leads to a NPRM, and then the final rule being implemented.

What the Demobrat supporters here fail to recognize is that few initiatives reaching the NPRM ever get reversed.

If the agricultural lobby and Angry White Man Radio not picked up on this when they did, it would have likely been too late to close the barn door, so to speak...

And what you fail to realize is that the DOT stepped in because the States were overstepping their bounds and making arbitrary and burdensome rulings.

Demobrat? Are you that immature that you have to resort to juvenile name calling.

 

[tech2101]

What the Demobrat

What are you, 12 years old?

 

[delldude]

Again you are wrong and I already provided the link directly from the DOT that you seemingly did not read. The comments were requested by the DOT to find out where the discrepancies were in the state enforcement. The right wing took this as an opportunity to spread falsehoods.

Why don't you prove some proof from the DOT to refute this or we will just go with the idea that you got this info the same place you got the info on what Mr Beer from the S&P said. Perry was wrong. Not a big surprise there.

Funny, the proposed reg's were a cause for worry over a year ago in Pennsylvania.....key words:

Proposed Regulations

February 2010

Proposed regs

The U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed a series of regulations aimed at operators of farm equipment in Pennsylvania. Those regulations would require farmers to keep logs, prohibit anyone under 18 from working a tractor, and anyone operating a tractor or other farm equipment would need a medical certificate.

These proposed regulations, which are set to go into effect March 1, would treat farmers much like interstate truckers, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau has said. The organization is lobbying federal lawmakers to overturn the regulations.

Officials with the USDOT did not return phone calls seeking comments.

Why ag focus?

Carl Shaffer, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, said Pennsylvania is being singled out with these regulations because of a recent federal review of the state’s motor carrier standards.

Regulators in the USDOT have threatened to withhold highway funding to Pennsylvania if these regulations are not enforced, Shaffer said.

“You are putting undue stress on our farmers,” he said.

Requiring medical certificates, and asking farmers to keep log books of the time they’ve spent traveling on the road, are unnecessary regulations that put a burden on farmers, Shaffer said.

Link

Looks like this has been an issue at USDOT for quite some time, not just this May.

Perry said that he had talked on Sunday with U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley at a GOP dinner in Waterloo. Perry told Grassley he had heard in the past two days that the federal government was going to put such a rule in place.

“Your own United States senator, sitting there at the table, said, ‘That’s right.’ And I said, ‘What were they thinking, senator?’ And he said, ‘They weren’t.’ So that is the issue at hand here,” Perry said.

 

[eolesen]

And what you fail to realize is that the DOT stepped in because the States were overstepping their bounds and making arbitrary and burdensome rulings.

So you're claiming that the states don't have the ability to make up their own laws with regards to who can operate a motor vehicle?

Please, enlighten me on when the Tenth Amendment was tossed out. I might have missed that edition of USA Today...

Demobrat? Are you that immature that you have to resort to juvenile name calling.

No worse than this, Garfy:

I was not aware that only conservative religious whack jobs were allowed to comment on things out side their realm of knowledge. My apologies your highness.