This reported in the Associated Press. Makes for a good week.

Below is an article from the L.A. Times about the Nichols case. In it, House Speaker Rep. Glenn Richardson goes off about the cost of the defense. Those who follow state politics may recognize Richardson as a complete dumb ass. Of course, they would be right. Richardson is getting his butt kicked because he's promoting a stupid idea that will raise taxes.

In this case, however, Richardson is just jumping on the bandwagon. The fact is, there are two reasons this case is costing so much. One, it's a freakin' complicated case involving multiple jurisdictions, the federal government, and a huge media spotlight. Never mind that many of the folks who would usually be involved in the defense or prosecution in Fulton County could end up being called as witnesses. The second reason is the D.A.'s office. I firmly believe almost all problems with the criminal justice system are caused by either the legislature or the district attorneys. This case proves my point. The L.A. Times article has a paragraph (down towards the bottom of course) detailing how the D.A.'s office challenged one of the original lawyers, one who was on staff with the Public Defenders Standards Council. I don't believe the Council has even one backbone in the entire office, so they substituted all the lawyers with private (and costly) ones.

This is only one incident. Fulton County D.A. Howard, who never met a media frenzy he didn't like, has FIVE prosecutors on the case. Maybe he needs them, maybe not. But why isn't Richardson up in arms about those costs? Could it be because this case actually highlights what a dismal failure the legislature has done in funding public defense? That's not a problem with D.A.'s since they get a piece of almost all the action in the state, possibly including playground toughs taking milk money.

If the D.A. takes the death penalty off the table, the costs go way down. If he won't, then he should be blamed for the costs. If politicians want the ability to tramp human rights at will, they shouldn't complain that it costs a lot.

Costly trial puts heat on Georgia judge
By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

ATLANTA -- Angered by the soaring cost of defending Georgia's most notorious murder suspect, state lawmakers said Thursday they would explore the possibility of impeaching the judge presiding over the case of Brian Nichols, the rape suspect who escaped from a courthouse in 2005 and allegedly killed a judge and three others.

Critics say DeKalb County Senior Judge Hilton Fuller has mismanaged the high-profile death penalty case. They are particularly incensed that he has allowed attorneys hired by the state's public defender program to rack up more than $1.2 million in pretrial expenses and fees.

The case has come to a halt because of disputes about those payments.

"How many more millions will be spent giving Brian Nichols a defense that no one, including the taxpayers, could afford for themselves?" said Republican House Speaker Glenn Richardson in a statement. "There are serious questions about the poor handling of public funds that need to be addressed. The law provides the House that authority, and we intend to investigate the matter."

Richardson said he planned to appoint a special committee, headed by attorney and Republican state House Majority Whip Barry A. Fleming, to investigate Fuller's handling of the trial and whether there was an "abuse of the system."

It was a rare move for a state legislature, and one that could raise thorny separation-of-powers issues. But Republican state Sen. Preston W. Smith said he feared other death-penalty defendants would take Nichols' lead and find a way to run up costs, making it difficult -- if not impossible -- for the state to prosecute capital cases.

"I'm concerned that the judge's behavior is going to lead to the system, as we know it, being dismantled," he said.

Fuller, a veteran judge known for his attention to detail, could not be reached for comment Thursday. He volunteered to preside over the Nichols trial in neighboring Fulton County because the county's entire Superior Court bench had recused itself from the case.

Nichols escaped from a deputy at his rape trial in a Fulton County courtroom. He then allegedly fatally shot the judge presiding over a case, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a U.S. customs agent. Nichols' alleged crimes, and the manhunt that followed, shocked Atlantans and was covered by international news outlets.

Soon after Nichols' arrest, the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council assigned a team of salaried defense lawyers to the case, but prosecutors raised issues about the standing of one of the attorneys with the State Bar of Georgia, and moved to disqualify the entire public defender's program from the case.

The council withdrew the original lawyers, and in an abundance of caution, assembled a new team that included three outside lawyers who billed by the hour. Fuller approved those rates, which are as high as $175 per hour, in July 2005. By last August, according to court documents, they had billed for more than $700,000 in attorneys fees and $200,000 in expert fees.

Two of the defense attorneys contacted by The Times declined to discuss the case. But their colleague, North Carolina-based Henderson Hill, has argued that the prosecutors are to blame for the trial's high cost.

Fulton County Dist. Atty. Paul Howard's office has assigned five assistant prosecutors to the Nichols case. They filed a 54-count indictment and submitted the names of 300 potential witnesses. Defense attorneys argue that they need a budget that allows them to mount a sufficiently vigorous defense.

Howard declined to comment for this story. But in court filings, prosecutors argued that the defense was trying to give the impression that the case was "too expensive to try and the State should just take a plea."

The case is taking a toll on Georgia's public defender system. The Legislature cut the system's budget for the public defender's council about 20% this year. It owes the three outside attorneys more than $160,000, and has declined to pay, despite an order from Fuller.

On Oct. 17, Fuller halted the case after two days of jury selection after the defense attorneys asked that the funding issues be resolved. Fuller ordered the council's director, Mack Crawford, to a hearing to determine whether he was in contempt of court. The hearing was postponed, and a new date had not yet been set.

richard.fausset@latimes.com

I just saw someone on CNN referring to Wilson ordered released. I don't know if this is true yet, or what the details are. One can only hope that this tragedy has finally come to an end.

More details on Wilson case available at www.wilsonappeal.com.

Atlanta Jobs with Justice has sent out a call for support for workers at Agnes Scott College. Friday, October 26 at 10:00 AM until 11:00 AM on the corner of E. College Ave. and S. McDonough. I'm reprinting the original call below. You can find some more information on the Agnes Scott Living Wage Blog, but it looks like it's a out of date.

Atlanta JwJ/Atlanta Transit Riders Union has been working with and supporting the Agnes Scott College worker/student Living Wage campaign for some time, because we understand that creating justice on this campus is morally correct, and it helps create conditions for justice elsewhere. And now, workers and students are asking for our support this Friday. They want to demonstrate to the ASC Board of Trustees that students, workers, and community favor human rights, over privilege and oppression.

The ASC Board of Trustees has been making empty promises to respect the dignity and the human rights of ASC workers by providing Living Wages & Decision Making Power. But thus far, they've done very little to live up to those promises. We know all too well about Atlanta's history of empty promises; they made promises at MARTA; they're making promises at Grady; Barney Simms and Renee Glover are making promises in Housing. None have ever or will ever be kept without our voices!

The Agnes Scott Living Wage Campaign is having a Rally on Friday, October 26th at 10:00 AM until 11:00 AM on the corner of E. College Ave. and S. McDonough. Please invite your friends to this event

The online version of the Athens Banner-Herald ran an editorial by Jim Thompson. In it, Thompson tells a little bit about Glen Richardson showing up to a meeting of school superintendents to talk about his dumb idea.

For those who don't know, Richardson is proposing to raise taxes by saying he'll lower taxes. Specifically, he wants to eliminate the ad valorem taxes and the income taxes and replace it with an extended sales tax. The result will be higher taxes on more goods and services because the taxes Richardson wants to end bring in more revenue than what he wants to replace them with. The only way to prevent a huge budget shortfall is to raise taxes. Most people understand this. Richardson doesn't.

The Thompson editorial doesn't go into detail about how Richardson's plan went over. I wish it did. Instead, Thompson tells us about a nasty realization. Richardson can destroy the state and there's not much those who don't live in his district can do about it. Aack! There's some truth in the editorial, but only some. We who don't live in Hiram don't get to vote out Richardson. We do get to make noise though (at least until Bush decides the 1st amendment is too inconvenient).

Here's an idea: Get involved. Here are some ideas.

Poor People's Day. The next planning meeting is November 8 at 12:30 at 9 Gammon Ave., Atlanta 30315. There's no website yet, but you can email me at organizerdan at gmail dot com.

Georgia Budget & Policy Institute. They have a great analysis of Richardson's dumb idea. Check it out.

Georgia Rural Urban Summit. Not a huge grassroots group, but the lobbying they do is great. Larry is a gifted political analyst. You can also find links to groups all over Georgia.

The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) is reporting that Cobb County law enforcement is targeting immigrant families, specifically Latin@s. There is a documentation campaign being coordinated by GALEO, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund), and GLAHR (Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights).

GALEO sent out an email. Here's the text:

------------

Greetings,

It has come to our attention by several sources and several independent accounts that Cobb County law enforcement appears to have stepped up their efforts to target Latino and immigrant families.

Here is what we do know. Several jurisdictions have been involved in the following. There have been some cases of individuals that were victims of crime or in an auto accident. In the process of contacting police, their immigration status was questioned and they were detained.

Additionally, there are reported cases of people not being given appropriate due process in their detention. Family members are not being allowed to visit people that have been arrested for minor traffic violations. Family members are afraid.

Cobb County jail officials have allegedly told people visiting these arrestees that because they are "illegal" they have no rights.

Everyone, regardless of immigration status, is entitled to due process under the laws and our U.S. Constitution.

We are urging anyone in Cobb County that has experienced any type of discriminatory practice/encounter or possibly illegal abuse should contact any organization or faith community that they trust. These cases need to be documented and relayed to MALDEF ( 678.559.1071), GLAHR or GALEO. We need your help to rein in the "wild west" mentality that appears to be occurring in Cobb County.

We are encouraging people NOT to drive if they do not have a driver's license. This minor traffic violation has lead to several detentions, deportations and separation of families. Do not drive without a license, especially in Cobb County.

If anyone experiences any discriminatory practices by any state or local agencies, or if anyone experiences discriminatory issues with any law enforcement agency, please contact MALDEF at 678.559.1071.

Please report any problems you may experience in order for these issues to be documented. Don't let it happen to more people within our communities.

Step up and help us by filling out the INTAKE forms and then faxing these over to MALDEF. We need to stop some of the alleged discriminatory and possible unconstitutional treatment that people are currently facing. Help us document these cases and we need our community to come forward.

--------

Links

Documentation intake form. - http://www.galeo.org/resource.php

Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Contact Page - http://www.glahr.org/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3

MALDEF Atlanta Contact Page - http://www.maldef.org/about/offices.cfm?LocationID=10

Rep. Gingrey's office sent an email in response to a letter my wife and I sent earlier this week. In our letter we asked a series of questions. Gingrey didn't answer any of them. He also didn't say whether or not he would vote to override the presidential veto. Perhaps we need to send another. Rep. Gingrey's response email is below.

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the current state of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or as it is called in the state of Georgia, PeachCare. I appreciate having the benefit of your views and welcome this chance to respond.

Georgia’s PeachCare program provides medical insurance for 270,000 children whose family income is less than 235 percent of the federal poverty level. This is a testament to the strength of the PeachCare program in the state of Georgia and how important it is for Congress to act in order to ensure the program’s solvency.

As a physician for nearly 30 years, I am a strong supporter of the SCHIP program. Sadly, loopholes in the SCHIP program have been exploited in recent years, compromising the mission of the program. For example, many states have filed waivers with the federal government to ask permission to use SCHIP funds to cover new populations for which the program was not intended – including single, childless adults. This practice undermines the financial integrity of SCHIP and takes money away from states like Georgia.

I voted to pass a continuing resolution that will fund the SCHIP Program through November 16 this year. I am also co-sponsoring an 18 month extension bill of the SCHIP bill, H.R. 3584, that will ensure that our nation’s children – including the children in Georgia covered under the PeachCare program – will not go one single day without health insurance.

Rest assured I plan on being a leader in the effort to reauthorize SCHIP. I will advocate for commonsense reforms to strengthen the program and make sure funds will be available to provide healthcare to—first and foremost—the population this program was intended to help: low-income children.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you feel that I may be of additional assistance on this, or any other matter of importance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also contact me via my email at gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov, or log your ideas and opinions on my website: www.house.gov/gingrey.

This review was originally written for Left Turn magazine. If you haven't seen the latest issue, turn off your computer and go get a copy. It's great stuff.

Peter Gelderloos first published How Nonviolence Protects the State in 2005, and South End Press has recently reissued it. A short read at only 143 pages, he does make some interesting points. Gelderloos calls to task pacifists for their protest etiquette, specifically for serving as arms of the police and for mandating demonstration codes of conduct. He has scathing critiques for what he terms the “anti-war movement” as well as for the work to shut down the School of the Americas, the US military base training Latin American torturers. He also talks about strategy vs. tactics, something sorely missing in many discussions.

Gelderloos’s thesis is 1) pacifists have a limited view of violence, 2) the terms violence and nonviolence only work to limit tactics and therefore effectiveness, and 3) without using the full range of tactics victory isn’t possible. In the introduction, Gelderloos immediately puts forward that the idea of nonviolence is so pervasive real discussion of strategy and tactics is cut off. He further argues this cut off is necessary because pacifists don’t have a good argument for nonviolence and only have hegemony due to falsified history and state complicity. Each chapter is titled after a supporting argument (e.g. Nonviolence is Ineffective, Nonviolence is Racist, etc.), and the last chapter is devoted to an alternative.

It is hard to argue against Gelderloos’s main thesis. The contradictions, even hypocrisy, seen at modern protests is undeniable. We are to believe the smashing of a Niketown in Seattle in 1999 was violent and therefore horrific. However, Medea Benjamin’s statement subjecting not just anarchists but all those arrested to the violence of the police was OK. There are simply countless stories like this from all kinds of protests. This is more than a source of anger for Gelderloos, it’s a stumbling block for change in the US.

Gelderloos’s anger is clear, however his analysis isn’t. In none of the preceding chapters does he make the case. The problems start in the introduction with his definitions. He defines revolution as “a social upheaval with widespread transformative effects.” World War II was a social upheaval, but I’m thinking Che talked about something different. He makes nonviolence a synonym for pacifism by defining both as “a way of life or a method of social activism that avoids, transforms, or excludes violence….” There is a difference between a method and a way of life, but Gelderloos ignores this and therefore hamstrings his historical analysis.

Gelderloos does have a historical section, but again the analysis doesn’t hold up. In his look at the modern civil rights movement, he focuses on Martin Luther King and then later the Black Panther Party, but doesn’t mention the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). King’s religious coalition, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), founded in 1957, viewed nonviolence as a lifestyle to be adhered to religiously (no pun intended). SNCC, founded in 1960, was a contemporary of SCLC and viewed nonviolence as a strategy to be used as long at it worked. Both organizations were working in the same region, at the same time, in the same movement. What better opportunity to evaluate effectiveness. Gelderloos misses this. He merely mentions a 1970 poll showing Black pride in the Black Panthers.

Unable to critically examine the history, Gelderloos opts for the paternalistic argument that the civil rights movement didn’t win anything. He doesn’t differentiate between the modern civil rights movement, which demanded equality, and the Black power movement, which demanded liberation. He simply says there was one civil rights movement that demanded equality and liberation, but didn’t win it. He acknowledges the ending of legal segregation (Jim Crow), but de facto segregation exists so that’s a wash.

In the same section, Gelderloos correctly points out that the current “anti-war movement” has been powerless, despite everything it has done, to affect the occupation of Iraq in any way. He places the blame on the reliance on nonviolence. He doesn’t ask an obvious question, at least obvious to me. If a movement isn’t able to affect any kind of change, let alone reach its goal, should it be called a movement? He doesn’t define movement in the book, so I assume he uses the word not to describe a societal phenomenon but to lend importance to activity.

The most disappointing, even maddening, section of the book was devoted to patriarchy. I hoped for some interesting observations and questions. Instead, it led to something stupid. Gelderloos actually states that patriarchy can be “gradually overcome by groups that work to destroy it.” A page later he unintentionally explains that nearly every tactical or strategic discussion he’s participated in was dominated by men. Now it makes sense. He’s surrounded by men who (surprise!) are taking a “gradual” approach to gender liberation.

In the end, Gelderloos simply doesn’t have the analytical tools needed to make his argument. His class analysis, except where he mentions the limited vocabulary and analytical development of poor people, is absent. When he does compare histories, he undermines his own argument. Gelderloos makes a good case that the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were mistaken to denounce sabotage and not speak out against WWI, since they were destroyed anyway. However, in comparing the union with the Galleanist, a group of Italian anarchists that conducted several bombings and other actions against the war, Gelderloos writes that they “did not fold as quickly as the Wobblies.” It’s just not enough to say we need to diversify tactics because it will take the government a few more weeks to destroy us.

Neither does Gelderloos effectively make a case for what should be. Even though the last section of the book is titled, “The Alternative,” he doesn’t mention one. He spends a sentence on community centers and gardens, but it’s cotton candy without the sweetness. It’s fluffy, insubstantial, and leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. In the end, that describes the book as well.

October 8, 2007

Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D.
119 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Rep. Gingrey:

We have recently moved into the 11^th district into a nice neighborhood. My wife and I have a modest home, friendly neighbors, and weeds in the yard.

My wife and I don’t have children. I’m a small-business owner and my wife is about to become one. We’ve mostly worked in the non-profit industry. We have a keen interest in health care since the financial burden is so great. We are particularly interested in the SCHIP legislation and the presidential veto. We would like you to vote to override this veto. Frankly, we are disappointed in your statements on this program. The news room on your website (gingrey.house.gov) has a press release with comments you made on the House floor. The title reads, “Gingrey blasts Democrat’s plan to expand SCHIP to cover wealthy families and illegal immigrants on their way to socialized medicine.” We hoped, as a doctor, you would focus on getting as many people as possible quality health care.

We read the entire release on website. We understand you oppose health care for “illegal immigrants.” Why is that? Is it better to cut off some people from the health system? What if these people have an infectious disease? Even a cold or the flu? Wouldn’t excluding them actually put everyone at risk? Should we exclude other people from this basic human right (Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)? At any rate, the legislation actually doesn’t change the fact it’s against federal law for “illegal immigrants” to sign up for SCHIP program. Given this is a non-issue, why do you use it? We hope it’s not because you use the term “illegal immigrants” as a manipulative device to avoid real issues.

The press release also says the legislation is “a measure which would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children of families with income levels up to $80,000.” We went to factcheck.org to find out. Here’s what they said:

The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.

The income ceiling in Georgia is $48,528. The highest income ceiling is in New Jersey and is $72,275. Factcheck.org also cites a study by the Urban Institute that about 70% of children projected to benefit from the legislation are in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level ($41,300 for a family of four). The link to the study is http://www.urban.org/publications/411545.html. Doesn’t this mean your statement is wrong?

We like factcheck.org, so we studied the site for a while. We found some interesting bits of information. For example, in your press release you said, “Rather [the legislation] diverts precious resources from those who need it the most in order to cover adults and already privately insured children. In fact, the extra $35 billion the Democrats are asking American families to pay for is aimed at a population where 77% of the children already have private insurance coverage. These children would simply be transferred from private insurance coverage to a taxpayer funded, government controlled healthcare entitlement program.”

We searched factcheck.org but couldn’t find anything that supports your claim. We did find out about something called the “crowd-out effect.” This is a phenomenon in which government programs targeting the uninsured are used by those with (or those who could have) private insurance. The SCHIP legislation you voted against has a crowd-out rate of 32% according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also stated that this is probably the best percentage one can achieve with this kind of legislation.

Where did you get the 77% figure? It wasn’t on factcheck.org. We searched the Internet and couldn’t find anything to substantiate your claim. We did find a page on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities citing an analysis by Jonathan Gruber that 77% of the Bush administration’s health tax proposals would go to those already insured. The link to that is http://www.cbpp.org/7-16-07health.htm.

We have one more question. In your press release, you describe the SCHIP legislation as “implementing a major tax increase on working class Americans.” As working class people, we deeply oppose major tax increases on working class people so this statement delighted my wife and me. We’re wondering then why you voted against the original House bill CHAMP (Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act). This legislation would have funded SCHIP expansion, in part, by cutting Medicare Advantage subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, private insurance companies are paid 12% on average more than what it really costs to cover the same beneficiaries. The CBO estimates overpayments will be about $54 billion over the next five years. Wouldn’t opposing subsidizing giant corporations cheating working-class people out of our hard earned tax money be a good way to oppose major tax increases on working-class people? If “illegal immigrants" ran the corporations taking billions of dollars from taxpayers, would you support reducing the Medicare overpayments?

We apologize this letter is so long. We hope to hear from you soon. If you like, stop by the house and we’ll make you some homemade Indian food.

Sincerely,

Dan & Rita

The military regime of Burma (which calls the country Myanmar) has been in power for the last 15 years and has met the nonviolent "Saffron Revolution" of Buddhist monks and ordinary citizens with brutal killings, beatings, rapes, slave labor, and burning of villages, and is escalating their viscious attacks.

October 6, this last Saturday, was the day of action to free Burma. If you missed it, don't worry you can still help out.

Find out about upcoming action and direct support by going to:

With the media crackdown by the military regime, documentation of human rights abuses is critical. To donate for needed equipment, visit Stone Circles at www.stonecircles.org and click on the "Donate Now" button.

For ongoing information, also see:

• The Irrawaddy, www.irrawaddy.org
• Mizzima News, www.mizzima.com
• Buddhist Peace Fellowship, www.bpf.org

Thursday, October 18 @ 7pm
The Solarium
Fun, Fun, FUN

I'm forwarding you information on Sex, Wine and Chocolate. This is a fundraiser for Georgians for Choice and Generation FIVE. The event (a sex-positive cabaret) is Thursday, October 18. It's a night of fun, wine, and chocolate. How cool is that?

The title is a bit provocative, isn't it? Unless, of course, law enforcement does stand in the way. That answer depends on what happens this year with eyewitness ID reform legislation. Frankly, I believe criminal justice law has been taken out of the hands of the public, even out of the hands of legislators, and is now determined by district attorney's and, to a lesser degree, law enforcement. If the DA's want it, they get it. If they don't want it, it doesn't happen. What do the DA's want? Easier convictions.

The only true thing I've seen on Law & Order is a quote by a judge saying the court is not a search for truth, but for admissable evidence. Easier convictions happen when evidence is easier to admit. A coerced confession for example. Or bad eyewitness testimony. How bad is eyewitness testimony? The Innocence Project has worked on the exoneration of more than 200 people nationwide and 75% were convicted based on bad eyewitness testimony. Six people have left Georgia prisons when eyewitness testimony has proved to be bad. Think about how hard it is to prove a witness was wrong, especially years after the fact. Without something like DNA evidence, getting a conviction reversed is like climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen. Or climbing equipment. Yet 6 Georgians have reached that summit. How many are at the base waiting for their turn?

There's a decent solution. Record all confessions on video/audio and institute guidelines for eyewitnesses. If a cop violates the guidelines, at least the impact on the case can be argued. Of course, law enforcement hates the idea. Police accountability doesn't usually go over well with the police. Rep. Stephanie Stucky Benfield is sponsoring legislation on eyewitness ID reform. It hasn't gone anywhere for the last two years, but momentum seems to be building. There are a series of committee meetings, the last one was this last Monday. Spokes people from both the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police (GACP) and the Georgia Sheriffs Association (GSA) were there to say reform is a bad idea. The GACP said this was a problem with university studies not accurately reflecting what happens. Also, that while there may have been a problem in the past things are better now.

The GSA rep, Sheriff Mike Jolley, laid out a doozy. Jolley said a state law would impede law enforcement's efforts to have better procedures. One law would mean an agency couldn't update their polices when new information came out. This would be almost believable if 83% of law enforcement agencies in Georgia had no policy at all. According to Jolly though, freedom is equal to lack of accountability. Or standards. Or even knowing what they hell you're doing.

The next meeting of the committee is November 13. At that meeting they will determine whether or not to put forward a bill and what it will look out. Check it out if you're free.

Good Links on Eyewitness Reform:

The Innocence Blog: By The Innocence Project, good info on stuff happening across the country.

Georgia Innocence Project: A state version of the national project. Great work there.

Eyewitness Identification Reform Blog: A whole blog devoted to pushing this reform. Focusing a lot on Georgia right now.

Savannah Morning News Article: This has details on the GACP and GSA testimony at Monday's committee meeting.

Online Athens Story on Committee Meeting: A different take on Monday's meeting.

According to a local NPR report on PBA, Rep. Glenn Richardson is proposing to do away with income tax as well as property taxes. In previous posts, I've ranted about the stupid idea of getting rid of property taxes. It does away with local control and centralizes financial decisions in the legislature. Just as importantly, it leads to higher taxes since the sales tax has to be expanded. The taxes on the poor and working poor are particularly hard.

If the report is true, and Richardson is slowly losing his mind, Georgians have got to strike this stupidity. The Georgia Budget & Policy Institute has done some analysis on what's known so far. You can check out their website to find the schedule of forums for more information. You can also download fact sheets.

This is from the Athens Banner-Herald on Glenn Richardson's stupid idea to raise taxes in Georgia. They make a great point. The idea's premise is stupid, but it's just plain dangerous to let the legislature figure out the details.

Editorial: Lack of detail in 'Glenn Tax' should trouble all
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/092807/opinion_20070928044.shtml

What could possibly be worse than Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson's not-so-great plan to eliminate property taxes in favor of an expanded state-administered sales tax?

Letting the entire Georgia General Assembly get its hands on the proposal, that's what.

Yet that's exactly what state Rep. Jerry Keen, R-St. Simons, the House majority leader, is proposing that the people of this state allow to happen. Speaking to Kiwanis and Rotary club members Wednesday in the south Georgia city of Cairo, Keen "said that lawmakers should be allowed to finish the plan during next year's legislative session before there is a rush to criticize it," according to a report in the Thomasville Times-Enterprise.

Also according to the Thomasville newspaper, Keen went on to say that a critical feature of the proposal - the formula by which the state would determine how much sales tax revenue would go to the various municipal and county governments and school boards across the state - remains undefined. Keen told the south Georgia Rotarians and Kiwanians that the formula - again, a critical component of the speaker's tax proposal - is "the last piece of the puzzle we're working on."

So, with a little more than three months remaining before the 2008 session of the Georgia General Assembly is gaveled into session - months that will, of course, be interrupted by major holidays - here's where we are with Richardson's tax proposal: No one can say how its proceeds will be distributed, and the people of Georgia are being asked to entrust that issue, and no telling how many other critical components of a massive overhaul of the state's tax system, to a group of people whose leadership includes the man who came up with the dubious scheme in the first place.

What all that means is that the speaker's tax proposal, which is not yet close to having even a minimum degree of clarity - as Keen admitted Wednesday in south Georgia - could morph into complete gibberish as it makes its way through the requisite committee hearings and other legislative horse-trading during the General Assembly session.

In other words, whatever Georgians might think the proposal is, and what it means for them, in advance of the legislative session, it's entirely possible - indeed, it's probable - that any final version approved by lawmakers will be something vastly different.

Consider, for instance, the fact that even Richardson himself has already proposed at least one modification to his sales tax proposal, telling an audience in LaGrange last month that he's considering exempting treatment for catastrophic medical conditions from the levy.

Clearly, Richardson's proposed exemption won't be the only one sought for the tax. There are likely any number of special-interest groups that write checks to legislator's campaigns, and any number of lobbyists who wine and dine the lawmakers, who'll be pushing for their own exemptions. Write enough exemptions into the proposal, and soon enough, any announced funding formula for local governments - if such a formula is, indeed, ever made public in any meaningful way - has to be changed, with little or no notice to the affected governments. And maybe that new formula means that no new teachers can be hired for the local high school, or that a needed fire engine can't be purchased, or that other urgent needs go unmet.

Of course, even if Richardson's proposal makes it through the legislature - as a proposed constitutional amendment, it would need an OK from two-thirds of the House and Senate - it would have to be approved by a majority of Georgia voters in a statewide referendum.

Yet, here again, just as in the run-up to the January start of the legislative session, a lack of detail could carry serious consequences. That's because ballots would have only the barest details regarding the proposal, likely asking voters to cast ballots on the overly broad question of whether the constitution should be amended to replace property taxes with a sales tax.

On its face, that's an appealing proposition. But, as with so much in life, the devil is in the details. Which should prompt Georgians to ask what the devil Richardson and other supporters of the tax proposal might be trying to hide as they move their admittedly unformed proposal through the legislative process.

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 092807