I sort of agree with this. I wonder could anything get done in new york state politics without this kind of list of "moneygetters." So long as the good outweighs the bad, it might be ok. Although, I don't know if the good outweighs the bad. I do generally agree though that if it can be done with criteria for getting money instead of an upfront list of who gets money, that would be preferable.
Hello, R.J.HitsC, thank you for joining the discussion. It's an interesting idea to have criteria replace a list of political beneficiaries. Since you've given us a suggestion on this issue, I'd like to follow up with another related question:
Setting aside, for the moment, the "moneygetters" issue, do you support the other parts of the bill generally and do you agree with the rationale for investments, as stated in the window to the left, in this topic (3.1)?
I sort of agree with this. I wonder could anything get done in new york state politics without this kind of list of "moneygetters." So long as the good outweighs the bad, it might be ok. Although, I don't know if the good outweighs the bad. I do generally agree though that if it can be done with criteria for getting money instead of an upfront list of who gets money, that would be preferable.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Hello, R.J.HitsC, thank you for joining the discussion. It's an interesting idea to have criteria replace a list of political beneficiaries. Since you've given us a suggestion on this issue, I'd like to follow up with another related question:
Setting aside, for the moment, the "moneygetters" issue, do you support the other parts of the bill generally and do you agree with the rationale for investments, as stated in the window to the left, in this topic (3.1)?
View this comment in the discussion thread