FUNNIEST THING: Kid as Obama Joker surprises Obama at White House Halloween Party

The kid came as Obama Joker for today’s Halloween Party at the White House	GatewayPundit has the video.
FLASHBACK 2009: Obama Joker Posters – 2009	Obama Joker posters popped up in Los Angeles – 2009

FLASHBACK: Bill McCollum Defended Rick Scott in 1998 from Clinton’s Abuse of Power

THE CLINTON ADMIN. USED THE MEDICARE REGULATIONS TO GO AFTER THOSE OPPOSED TO HILLARYCARE In the early 1990s, Rick Scott was one of the most vocal critics of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan (a.k.a. HillaryCare). Under Bill Clinton’s administration a myriad of ambiguous and complex Medicare regulations were created. Full compliance was not feasible. It was more a game of gotcha and revenue than of law enforcement. The government was criticized in the media for classifying simple mistakes as “fraud.” Dozens of prestigious health care institutions paid millions in fines, including Yale Hospital, Duke University Hospital, Harvard University Hospitals, University of Chicago Hospitals, Johns Hopkins, and industry giants Tenet and Columbia/HCA. In 1998, then-congressman Bill McCollum defended health care providers like Columbia/HCA against the Clinton Administration’s witch hunt: Here is a re-print of McCollum’s 1998 speech: ——–  HON. BILL MCCOLLUM in the House of Representatives THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998  [Page: E434] GPO's PDF Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, in introducing the Health Care Claims Guidance Act . This legislation recognizes that, in our zeal to crack down on health care fraud and abuse, we must be careful not to throw our nets so wide that we ensnare honest providers who are making inadvertent billing mistakes. Ensuring that health care providers comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations is, and always has been, a priority. At the same time, we should not carelessly paint all health care billing mistakes as billing fraud. Many hospitals and other health care providers have received demand letters from the offices of U.S. Attorneys asserting that the provider may be guilty of fraudulent billing and threatening the imposition of treble damages plus $5,000 to $10,000 per claim under the False Claims Act unless a quick settlement is reached. In some cases, demand letters have been sent based on alleged overbilling of less than $100. In one case, a demand letter was sent to a hospital for overbilling in the amount of $8.79 on a single claim over a one year period. The most innocent of providers often feel forced to settle these claims instead of facing the prospect of an automatic $10,000 fine for a small disputed amount. Even if a provider could clearly prove their innocence and show that these claims resulted from innocent clerical error, they would be likely to settle the case rather than incur large legal costs. The numbers speak for themselves. In fiscal year 1997, there were 4,010 federal civil health care fraud matters pending but only 89 cases resulted in the actual filing of a civil complaint. The large majority were settled. Considering that providers are faced with a federal health care payment system of more than 1,700 pages of law and over 1,200 pages of regulations interpreting those laws, as well as thousands of additional pages of instruction, it is inevitable that human error will occur and that erroneous claims will be submitted. Every day, providers submit over 200,000 federal health care claims , adding up to 73 million claims per year. Considering the sheer volume and complexity of such claims , it is unreasonable to view every single billing mistake as fraud that merits the threat of the severest civil sanctions. Mr. Speaker, the Health Care Claims Guidance Act provides a clear and simple way of distinguishing between those claims that are fraudulent and those claims that result from human error. The bill establishes a deminimus threshold requiring that the amount of damages in dispute be a material amount for an action brought under the False Claims Act . The deminimus threshold would be established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This requirement would protect against the use of the False Claims Act for small, erroneous billings which likely result from human error. In addition, the legislation would provide safe harbors for reliance on government advice or written policies. There is no better example of fundamental unfairness than when a private party relies on government advice but is then threatened with court action for having done so. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act would also provide safe harbors for claims that are in substantial compliance with model compliance plans. Affirmative defenses would be established for these situations. It is clearly in the public’s interest for parties to work together to prevent health care billing mistakes from occurring. Providers should actively seek out trouble spots and quickly flag problems to government agencies. At the same time, in order to further the goal of compliance, federal agencies which administer federal health care programs should be encouraged to assist providers in the early detection and correction of practices which may result in a disputed claim. By encouraging such self-policing, providers and government agencies will be able to work together to root out problems quickly. It is clear that there are organizations and individuals engaging in efforts to defraud the federal government and we must use all of the tools at our disposal to pursue and severely punish such willful violators. In fact, during consideration of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act during the last Congress, the Crime Subcommittee worked on provisions to strengthen criminal health care fraud statutes. At the same time, there are honest providers doing their best to comply with complex health care rules and regulations who will make honest mistakes. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act provides clear guidance to ensure that the false claims of fraudulent actors are distinguished from the honest mistakes of innocent providers. I urge all my colleagues to support the Health Care Claims Guidance Act .

GREEN FAILURE: Impact of the Global Warming Hoax

SUMMARY: The Global Warming Hoax and its Impact
	For years businesses and the general public have been told by mainstream climatologists that the planet is warming due to human activity and that immediate action is necessary to avoid a global catastrophe. The U.S. government relied heavily on a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to justify the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) created anthropogenically. Over time, Congress enacted numerous policies to increase clean energy production, such as mandates for renewable fuels, expanded tax credits for renewable energy, and new energy efficiency targets for vehicles and appliances. All of these policies had the goal of reducing America’s carbon footprint. Congress is now seeking to expand and create new policies aimed at further reducing emissions by placing a national cap on carbon emissions and enforcing a federal mandate for renewable energy production. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is on its own regulatory path to decrease CO2. (…) Recent flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe. Leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the U.K. revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals. Furthermore, gaffes exposed in the IPCC report have only increased skepticism among businesses and the public, and raised serious questions about sacrificing economic activity to reduce CO2 emissions. (…) The Shifting Consensus The alleged scientific consensus on climate change holds that the planet is warming at a dramatic rate. But not long ago, scientists thought that global cooling was a threat to the planet. As recently as 1975, The New York Times ran an article titled, “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”[1] Some proposals even included covering the polar ice caps with black soot to melt them.[2] Only six years later, climatologists predicted that global warming was inevitable, and the issue gained more traction throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The IPCC published multiple reports, the first in 1990, pronouncing that human activities, predominately fossil fuel use, were warming the planet. A supplementary report followed in 1992, the second report appeared in 1995, and the third in 2001—all presenting “newer and stronger” evidence that the planet’s surface was heating due to human activity.[3] The message that warming was incontrovertible continually gained momentum and exploded in 2006 when former Vice President Al Gore released his book and documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, claiming that the planet would witness more Hurricane Katrina-like disasters and rising sea levels if humans do not drastically reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The 2007 IPCC report became Al Gore’s magnum opus on climate change and the main source for the “evidence” he relentlessly pitched to Congress. The 2007 report declared that global warming is “unequivocal,” and the frequency and intensity of natural disasters is likely to increase.[4] The report’s “Summary for Policymakers” warned that carbon emissions from fossil fuel production and nitrous oxide, and methane emissions from agricultural production, are significantly contributing to global warming.[5] Government officials in the U.S. and around the world continually use and exaggerate the IPCC report to justify the need for carbon reduction policies, creating a large disparity between hype and reality. For instance, even the IPCC projection of sea level rising over the next century is a modest 7 to 23 inches, with the lower end of that projection occurring over the past two centuries. Is There a Scientific Consensus? Several recent events, including revelations that forced the IPCC to retract parts of its 2007 report, have called the scientific consensus into question. Although the study puts the probability of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 at “very high,” the authors acknowledged that they based this and other claims on speculation.[6] Further, the IPCC’s assessment of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa came from two dubious sources. One was from a magazine that discussed anecdotal evidence from mountain climbers; the other came from a student dissertation.[7] The IPCC also acknowledged overstating crop loss in Africa, depletion of the Amazon rain forest, sea level increases in the Netherlands, and damage from weather catastrophes.[8] Climate data sets are also raising questions. Hackers leaked thousands of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that detailed how these climatologists, many with important roles in promulgating the official U.N. science, refused to share data, plotted to keep dissenting scientists from being published in leading journals, and discarded original data. Some have resigned and others have been investigated for breaching data laws under the Freedom of Information Act.[9] Russian climatologists blamed the scandal-laden Climate Research Unit (CRU) for omitting cooler data points from its data set.[10] In the U.S., computer programmer E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo detailed how the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) dropped thousands of data points from its climate data set—data points that were in cooler regions around the globe.[11] …[C]limatologists questioned the IPCC’s findings before these gaffes. University of Virginia professor Fred Singer recently published an 800-page report titled, “Climate Change Reconsidered,” which questions and debunks many of the IPCC conclusions and emphasizes that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.[12] Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes that the IPCC’s models fail to take into account naturally occurring cycles such as El Niño, the Pacific decadal oscillation, or the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[13] Other prominent scientists called political action “irresponsible and immoral” because of the lack of credible evidence.[14] When the IPCC released its report in 2007, 400 climate experts disputed the findings; that number has since grown to more than 700 scientists, including several current and former IPCC scientists.[15] (…) Government Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Despite these revelations about scientific research on global warming, the U.S. government has aggressively pursued climate change policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. During the past two decades, the federal government has spent more than $79 billion on climate change policies, “including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”[16] Legislation signed into law in 2005 and 2007 included more steps to transition from fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency to reduce CO2 emissions. More recently, the Obama Administration has attempted to tip the balance in favor of renewable energy by advocating a cap-and-trade system, CO2 regulations, renewable electricity mandates, and additional billions of dollars in government spending for government-picked “clean-energy” sources. (…) The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included funding for renewable energy as well. Also known as the stimulus bill, the $814 billion package allocates nearly $47 billion for renewable energy sources, smart grids, and energy-efficiency programs. Congress granted an additional $20 billion to manufacturers of renewable energy technology in the form of tax credits. The reason these sources of energy need government help is that they are too uncompetitive to reach the market otherwise. To the extent that there is a valid economic case for wind energy, solar energy, and ethanol fuel, industry will provide them even in the absence of government dictates and subsidies. Moreover, government-mandated energy-efficiency programs may sound good to consumers, but it is rarely good when Washington controls the market, since the forced energy-efficiency standards can result in decreased product performance, features, or reliability, which destroys value for the consumer. Mandatory improvements in efficiency usually raise the purchase price of appliances; sometimes the increase is more than enough to negate the energy savings. Key legislative and regulatory steps are: ● 2005 and 2007 Energy Bills and 2009 Green Stimulus. Over the past five years, the government implemented two key policies to support renewable energy production, and passed a stimulus bill in 2009 with billions allocated to renewable energy projects. (…) ● Cap and Trade. One way to make clean energy more competitive is to tax fossil fuels to make them more expensive through a cap-and-trade system. Under cap and trade, emitters of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide derived from fossil fuel production, would be required to obtain permits (also known as allowances) for each ton of CO2 emitted… ● EPA Regulations. With Congress unable to deliver a final cap-and-trade bill to the President, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working on a backdoor policy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions much like cap and trade…In April 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding, saying that current and future greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious threat to public health and safety. The EPA relied on the 2007 IPCC report as well as data from the NCDC to establish this finding. Thus, questionable science is guiding major changes in economic regulation. Under this approach, almost any activity that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Like cap and trade, regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would similarly burden the economy with higher energy costs, and would also include higher administrative compliance costs for businesses, higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations, and higher legal costs from the inevitable litigation. Business Responds to Government Recognizing policymakers’ commitment to reducing greenhouse gases, businesses shaped their plans around government policies, despite the fact they are based on poor scientific evidence. Companies worldwide are taking climate change into consideration when making short-term and long-term business decisions. (…) There is nothing wrong with these business decisions if they are made voluntarily. But if they are made in response to government policies favoring renewable energy over other sources, especially on questionable scientific grounds, it misallocates private resources, crowds out innovation, and wastes taxpayer money. In Spain, solar companies enjoyed lucrative subsidies for years; when the global recession forced the Spanish government to cut back its handouts, the Spanish solar market crashed.[23] In a free market, the private sector should bear the risk and, therefore, reap the reward or suffer the consequences of an investment decision. If the government dictates these decisions by subsidizing a portion of the project, businesses receive all rewards with minimal risk. With start-up companies and large corporations alike receiving money from the government through stimulus funds or tax credits, firms will divert investments to clean-energy technology away from other—potentially more profitable and value-creating—investments.
CLIMATEGATE - Global Warming Hoax Revealed: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science - ClimateGate emails MORE - FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

RICK SCOTT’S FRAUD? He fought HillaryCare and then the Investigations Started (FL-gov)

Did you know? - Rick Scott was never indicted or arrested. Simply, he was never charged with any crime. - Prosecutors never attempted to depose Scott nor found evidence he was directly involved in the fraud: Peter Chatfield, who spent seven years working on a Columbia-HCA civil case brought by two whistleblowers, said that deposing Scott was not a high priority for the case. “His e-mails were mostly motivational.” “After sifting through years of discovery documents, Chatfield said he never had a feel for whether Scott knew of any wrongdoing.” - The convictions were tossed out for the only 2 individuals initially convicted of wrongdoing at Columbia/HCA. - On 7/25/97, Rick Scott along with 2 other executives resigned. - Rick Scott wanted to challenge how regulations are interpreted, but the board of directors wanted to settle: Scott “took the position that the courts ultimately did, which was that there could be honest disagreement over how the regulations were interpreted,” Scott campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said. - In 2000, three years after Scott left the company, HCA agreed to settle and pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. In 2002, HCA agreed to pay an additional $881 million. - The $1.7 billion fines in context: Columbia/HCA was the largest hospital company in the nation and world in 1997. Columbia/HCA operated 343 hospitals, so a $1.7 billion fine is equivalent to approx. $4.9 million per hospital. - Whistleblowers were offered 25% of the settlement - Janet Reno was the Attorney General (DOJ press release of Dec. 14, 2000) - Did Scott take the 5th Amendment 75 times? Read here. Rick Scott Fought Against HillaryCare in the 1990s RedState: - Rick Scott, then-CEO of Columbia/HCA, coordinated private health providers to fight HillaryCare during the Clinton Administration. - Rick Scott won. HillaryCare was defeated. Clintons’ Revenge - After HillaryCare was defeated, the Clinton Administration decided to give a hard time to every health care group that had opposed them. They pushed for stricter interpretation of Medicare regulations which consisted of well over 100,000 pages. Clintons’ Witch Hunt: Simple mistakes became fraud The Clintons targeted many health providers in addition to Rick Scott’s Columbia/HCA. Forbes, 1998: It’s almost a manhunt. [In 1998] As of March 375 FBI agents work exclusively on health care fraud, up from about 100 in 1992…Health & Human Services and its Inspector General’s office boast a medical fraud staff of 1,143, up a third from 1996. With that many cops out there, they’ve got to justify their keep. More and more, simple mistakes and misunderstandings are being labeled as fraud. [...] “The whole [focus] on infringement as opposed to flagrant violation means everybody’s guilty…So you violate something on page 44,391 — and you’re guilty. Full compliance is not feasible. The regulations are Byzantine.” It seems pretty clear that the real aim of this game of gotcha is not law enforcement, but revenue. In all, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in fines and settlements last year. [...] It hasn’t been a hoot at Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, a $48 million (annual revenues) facility in Largo, Fla. The Inspector General’s office audited five years of patient records at the hospice in early 1996 and determined that 176 of its 15,426 dying patients were ineligible for hospice coverage. Why? They lived longer than six months. Medicare rules say hospice patients must be terminally ill, defined as being within six months of death. Suncoast was fined $8.9 million — equal to about five years of operating profits. Clinton administration created a myriad of ambiguous Medicare regulations RedState: In 1992, there were just ~600 Medicare investigations By 1996, there were ~2,200 Medicare investigations (4x increase) In 1997, there were over 100,000 pages of Medicare Regulations By 1998, the government announced a program to assist hospitals in fraud prevention The government was criticized in the media for classifying simple mistakes as “fraud.” Dozens of prestigious health care institutions paid millions in fines, including Yale Hospital, Duke University Hospital, Harvard University Hospitals, University of Chicago Hospitals, Johns Hopkins, and industry giants Tenet and Columbia/HCA Even the Courts agreed the Medicare regulations were ambiguous The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the regulations the Clintons put in place were so arcane and complex that reasonable people could disagree on their application and, consequently, dismissed cases filed against employees: The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions of [HCA's] Jay Jarrell and Robert Whiteside, saying government prosecutors had failed to prove that fraud had taken place. [...] U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew…said the government’s case was “not completely persuasive” and noted that even the government’s experts testified about the complexity of the Medicare reimbursement process. In the decision filed late Friday, the appellate court agreed with Jarrell and Whiteside’s lawyers who argued that competing interpretations of the applicable law were reasonable and justified. “Reasonable people could differ,” the court said. “This ruling should give the government pause before they charge someone with a crime when the regulations they are relying on are ambiguous,” said Peter George, Whiteside’s trial attorney. [...] The appellate decision raised questions about how successful the government would have been in pursuing criminal charges against HCA if the company hadn’t agreed to pay $95-million in fines to avoid criminal trials. “Things would be reviewed differently today,” [HCA spokesman Jeff] Prescott said. “But given our position and the potential consequences, settling the case was the best business decision to make at that time.” Some of the charges were before Columbia/HCA acquire the hospitals RedState: “Additionally, some of the issues being pinned on Scott originated before he entered the picture and some came from hospitals absorbed into Columbia/HCA through merger or acquisition” [T]he U.S. Justice Department has revealed its belief that the roots of the wide-ranging Medicare billing fraud allegations against HCA-The Healthcare Co. extend to the pre-Columbia Hospital Corp. days of the original Hospital Corporation of America and its co-founder, Thomas Frist Jr., M.D. PRNewswire: Another example: The indictment related to reimbursements since 1986 at Columbia Fawcett Memorial Hospital, a Port Charlotte, Fla. hospital which was acquired by Columbia in 1992. Bill McCollum Defended Rick Scott’s Company in the 1990s In 1998, then-congressman Bill McCollum defended Columbia/HCA against the Clinton Administration’s witch hunt: (Congressional Records: March 19, 1998; Page E434, or here.) St. Petersburg Times “In our zeal to crack down on health care fraud and abuse, we must be careful not to throw our nets so wide that we ensnare honest providers who are making inadvertent billing mistakes,” McCollum said March 19, 1998, when he introduced his Health Care Claims Guidance Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. [...] Columbia/HCA wasn’t the only hospital targeted by federal investigators. It was the most high-profile, however, because it was the largest private chain. The company controlled 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations in 37 states. With so many hospitals facing investigations during the Clinton administration, the American Hospital Association, which received major backing from Columbia/HCA, fought back in Congress with the legislation that McCollum helped sponsor.

ALEX SINK’S TRICKS: She Benefited Bailed-Out Banks and Hid Her Assets from the Public (FL-Gov) [video]

ALEX SINK IS NO SNOW WHITE Many people think that Democrats detest money, power, big business and lobbyists. But Alex Sink proves them wrong. Alex Sink is a multi-millionaire who was a banker for 26 years and has made millions in stock investments. In 2000 as the head of Bank of America’s Florida operations, she made $3.4 million from the bank in salary, pension, deferred compensation and stock grants. During the 2006 campaign, she listed her net worth as $10 million.
ALEX SINK’S INSIDE DEAL Alex Sink Found Ways to Benefit her Former Employer, Bank of America When Alex Sink was President of Bank of America she didn’t have any problems with Lewis’ leadership and Bank of America’s appalling banking practices. She kept quite while tens of thousands of sub-prime borrowers were swindled by Bank of America. Sink and Lewis made millions at their expense. She didn’t care about the thousands of Floridians she laid off just to increase short term profits which increased stock prices and her earnings in stocks. In 2000, besides $3.4 million in stock options and lump-sum pension payments, she collected $75,822 in dividends.” (AP, 9/21/02) Now that she’s running for Governor, Alex Sink wants people to forget.
Alex Sink’s trick to stop the public from knowing where her money is invested: Blinding the public by hiding her assets behind a blind trust. (Alex Sink’s Blind Trust [PDF]) When Alex Sink became Florida’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the top financial watchdog, “she put her assets in a blind trust, which she said would help her avoid conflicts of interest…since she owned stock in Bank of America, which receives millions in banking, bond and investment fees from Florida every year.” She had investments in other companies and had served on the board of the brokerage firm Raymond James Financial, which “had a stake in her decisions.” But with Sink’s “blind” trust the only one who ends up blind is the public. Blind trusts are not regulated in Florida and do not require Sink to disclose the specific investments in her blind trust. Sink likes to say, “It’s blind because I don’t know what’s in there.” But she knew what investments initially were part of her blind trust. Sink knew that with the so-called blind trust there “is less public disclosure about her finances than other officials and greater uncertainty as to whether she is deciding matters in which she may have a financial interest.” Incestuous network of bankers, lobbyists and donors behind her “blind” trust It is easy for Alex Sink to know the investments in her blind trust. The rules states that the person managing the trust cannot be a spouse or relative – the person must be a “disinterested party” But Alex Sink’s trust is run by “political allies with ties to her husband [Bill McBride].” Robert Waltuch, the lawyer “who wrote the trust agreement and serves as a trustee, was a partner at Holland & Knight when McBride ran the law firm. Waltuch recently joined Shutts & Bowen, which…has a lobbying operation in Tallahassee.” Alan Fisk, an original trustee is Sink’s longtime accountant and donor to her campaigns. His wife is a former vice president of Bank of America and a Sink contributor. Hjalma Johnson, a banker and investor, replaced Fisk as a trustee and serves on the same investment board with Alex Sink’s husband. Johnson is a “major political donor…and lobbies for banks in Washington.” Alex Sink’s Conflict of Interest by Funneling $770,000 to Bank of America Florida law “forbids a public official from having a financial relationship with any business entity that would create a continuing conflict.” The law also requires the official to disclose a conflict within 15 days “if a state official casts a vote that would result in private gain.” “Without declaring a potential conflict, Sink has had a stake in matters benefiting her former employer and other companies that she owned stock in before she placed her assets in a blind trust. Because of the trust, it can’t be learned how much of a financial interest, if any, she had in the firms at the time of her decisions.” “Sink voted with the governor and other Cabinet members to allow negotiated, or no-bid, bond deals for a financial underwriting team that includes her former employer, Bank of America. One transaction resulted in $770,000 in fees for a subsidiary of the bank and its newly acquired Merrill Lynch unit. She is one of three trustees of the State Board of Administration, which administers Florida’s hurricane fund. The fund has a financial consulting contract with a subsidiary of Raymond James. Last November, the head of the SBA notified Sink’s deputy that the contract terms could mean a “windfall” for the company [Raymond James]. Sink agreed that those terms had to change. But they stayed the same.” In brief, Alex Sink and other cabinet members funneled $770,000 in no-bid contract to Bank of America, her former employer which has been indicted. There was no competitive bidding. The state negotiated a deal with a setup preventing open competition that could produce lower interest rates. On top of that Alex Sink used a blind trust to hide her assets and conflict of interests.

BANK OF AMERICA ENTRENCHED WITH DEMOCRATS: Bank of America is so entrenched with Democrats that they should change their logo to this: (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin) - Bank of America = Bank of Democrat America - Bank of America = Bank of Illegal Alien America - Bank of America and the Democrats’ Countrywide scandal - No cheers for left-wing collaborators at Bank of America

A VOTE FOR ALEX SINK IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012 (FL-Gov) [videos]

ALEX SINK IS INDEED AN OBAMA LEFTY In 2008, the media and pundits told us that Obama was a moderate. But Obama has taken this nation sharply to the left. His leftist policies led to record-breaking unemployment, foreclosures, deficits and debts. Now, these so-called experts tell us that Alex Sink is a moderate, but records who she is as radical as Obama.
Alex Sink Lied to us about Obama		Alex Sink is an Obama Rubber Stamp
Alex Sink Loves High Taxes		Alex Sink Financed Washington Liberals
IF ALEX SINK IS SO MODERATE, WHY ARE RADICAL LEFTISTS DONATING TO HER CAMPAIGN Leftists supporting Alex Sink: Sink has been reliant on a small universe of big givers, a tight network of unions and interest groups that have disclosed large contributions to the Florida Democratic Party. The FEA, the statewide teachers union, has funneled at least $2.5 million — and $1.74 million since September — to party coffers, largely to help pay for Sink’s ads, campaign staff, polling and other expenses. [...] The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees [AFSCME] has sent the party $1.2 million through Oct. 8 — and $775,000 since the primary. Unions are investing heavily in Sink, in part because Scott has pledged to reduce the state workforce by 5 percent and cut property taxes by $1.4-billion statewide… [...] But perhaps the biggest cash infusion has come courtesy of Tallahassee elections lawyer Mark Herron, who has sent up a political committee called Mark-PAC that has raised $6 million — and sent more than $4.8 million to the state Democratic Party over the last two months. Most of his total — $5 million through Oct. 8 — came from the Democratic Governor’s Association, but $300,000 came from abortion-rights group EMILY’S List and $750,000 from the American Federation of Teachers. No Transparency By running money through Herron’s committee, set up as a Committee of Continuous Existence under Florida law, the groups don’t have to create their own committees and disclose contributors in Florida — which has one of the broader campaign-finance disclosure laws in the country.

ALEX SINK RECORD: She Wasted Millions of Taxpayer Money in Luxurious Courthouse (a.k.a. Taj Mahal) [videos]

ALEX SINK FAILED TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM $50 MILLIONS WASTED ON LUXURIOUS TALLAHASSEE COURTHOUSE (a.k.a. Taj Mahal)
ALEX SINK BLAMING OTHERS Alex Sink is confronted with questions of why she didn’t raise red flag sooner on ‘Tallahassee Taj Mahal.’ As CFO she signed the checks for the excessive spending, but has been consistently pushing the blame on the Florida Legislature.		ALEX SINK SIGNED THE CHECKS FOR THIS GOVERNTMENT WASTE a.k.a. Taj Mahal: Millions wasted in luxurious Tallahassee courthouse: granite countertops, flatscreen TVs, plans for 20 miles of imported African hardwood and exercise facilities for the 15 judges.

RECOMMENDATIONS: FLORIDA’S AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6

AMENDMENT 4 BALLOT TITLE: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans. FLORIDA TAXWATCH RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4 ANALYSIS: Amendment 4 would undoubtedly require additional elections. The state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), which is required by law to develop an economic impact statement on amendments brought to the ballot by citizen initiative, says that how many elections would result is unknown but elections are expensive. [...] Amendment 4’s envisioned restructuring of property rights from private to public and the associated change in decision-making from the marketplace to the ballot box will likely have devastating, lasting effects on Florida’s economy, the taxpayers, and the treasuries of cities and counties throughout or state. Amendment 4, should it be enacted, will introduce a large and consistent bias against voter approval of new projects as has been demonstrated in similar situations. As a result, commercial and residential investments as well as business formations and expansions will diminish. Higher costs will emerge for approved commercial and residential investments as well as forming new businesses and expanding existing ones. Special interest groups might arise and be funded in attempts to convince a large number of people to vote for or against a given project. Funding special interest groups would further add to the cost of development. Moreover, permanent increases in the direct and indirect costs of elections will occur. Overall, the successful passage of Amendment 4 would be expensive for Florida taxpayers and could be devastating for Florida’s economy. Recommendation: Floridians should vote NO on Amendment 4. THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4 ANALYSIS: Opponents say that Amendment 4 will cost jobs and hurt Florida’s economy by stifling growth, thereby costing taxpayers millions of dollars…Opponents also note that because of the large numbers of comprehensive plan amendments proposed in many jurisdictions during each election cycle, the presence on the ballot of scores of highly technical questions may exacerbate Election Day congestion at polling places. However, by far the most persuasive argument against Amendment 4 may be the experience of St. Petersburg Beach, where a local version this measure has been blamed for causing higher taxes, a loss of jobs, and endless litigation. The evidence against Amendment 4 is overwhelming. Currently, more than 334 organizations, associations, and local governments, plus every daily newspaper in the state, have taken a position against this amendment…and for good reason. Because of the detrimental impacts this amendment would have on Florida’s economy and on citizens’ property rights… Recommendation: NO on Amendment 4.
AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6 BALLOT TITLE: Standards for Legislature to follow in legislative and in congressional redistricting. THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6 ANALYSIS: Enactment of the confusing and contradictory standards mandated in Amendment 5 [and 6] would increase the likelihood that any redistricting plan devised by the Florida Legislature would be subject to protracted litigation and would ultimately be replaced by a plan devised by appointed judges rather than by the people’s elected representatives. Recommendation: Vote NO on Amendments 5 and 6 FLORIDA’S FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE (FIEC) CAN’T DETERMINE THE COSTS The state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) is a state commission in Florida that is required by law to develop an economic impact statement on amendments brought to the ballot by citizen initiative. The FIEC can’t determined the financial impact of Amendments 5 and 6, because there will be more litigations, and more challenges in the courts. This means more costs to Floridians. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) expects that the proposed amendment may result in increased costs: “The State may incur additional legal costs to litigate the redistricting plans developed under the proposed constitutional standards…For example, the requirement that every district be drawn so as not to favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party may spawn challenges…These legal costs are indeterminate.”
FINANCING RADICAL LEFTISTS ARE BEHIND THE PROPONENTS OF AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6…check the public records: - Radical leftist George Soros, unions, and trial lawyers financing proponents of Amendments 5 and 6 - Big Democrat donor financing proponents of Amendment 4