Christmas Present for Taylor

Via the AJC:

A memo obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows the governor was supplied an analysis that outlined the change before he signed House Bill 488 on April 12, 2005.

The memo to Perdue from Rebecca Sullivan, deputy executive counsel, recommends that the governor sign the measure, which also included many routine revisions to the state’s tax code.

This will no doubt change the outcome of the election…oh wait…

In all honesty, the land deal still confuses me more than a little bit, and there is plausible deniability on Governor Perdue’s part, but I think it kills any talk of SP being veep.

There are no clear (or even murky) answers and it does makes the whole affair more suspect.

10 comments

  1. drjay says:

    assuming it was a good bill–what was sonny suppose to do not sign it just b/c he might benefit from it??? and screw all the other people the bill would effect….

  2. rightofcenter says:

    Bobby Kahn is alive!

    It is rather pathetic that the Dems had a one issue campaign, got stomped, and still want to harp that same issue.

    Here’s a clue, Bobby (and by extension, Roy and Dubose): nobody cares!

  3. gatormathis says:

    Funny how the AJC has continued to dig, poke, and rewrite this issue, even on past the election.

    Taylor’s real Christmas present has been the continued avoidance of the trash issue Taylor was involved in Crisp County.

    Now if you want to really see some high stake paper manipulating and much aligned money making, that is a good place to start.

    But the AJC will simply sidestep the issue their golden boy, family, and friends made off so well with.

    One day, I would love to know how much they actually made off with.

    I suspect the meter is still running……….

  4. Clint Austin says:

    Wrong again. Some of our left-leaning friends still don’t understand why this issue doesn’t sell.

    A simpler analogy points it out well:

    If a bill to get rid of the car tag tax were to come up in the General Assembly, should every legislator who owns a car recuse themselves from the vote?

    Or should every legislator with a child recuse themselves from the vote on the sexual predator bill?

    The standard for “conflict of interest” cannot be that a bill personally benefits a lawmaker – it’s whether it would ONLY benefit the lawmaker in an unusual way.

    Many other states passed tax laws just like this one – backdated as the Georgia law was.

    Saying Sonny should not have signed the law is like – well – car owners recusing themselves from car tag tax votes.

    Silly, confusing, and irrelevant – or so said the voters.

    Is anyone on the left side of the spectrum listening?

  5. rugby_fan says:

    At the risk of being identified on the left end of things…

    That analogy is only partly apt. A car tax is of a much smaller magnitude than the land deal and tax break in question.

    However, the amount of money involved (to me at least) is not what the issue is here.

    The issue is that SP said he had no knowledge of the tax break and had no idea that he would be saving money. This story shows that at the very least, the former is not true.

  6. Bill Simon says:

    My question is, if the current occupant of the Governor’s Mansion was a Democrat and a Democrat had denied that he knew this tax break would help him (and, was actually inserted in the bill totally on behalf of his tax situation) , would Republicans be as dismissive of it as they are with SP?

Comments are closed.