my take wasn't the same dave. it looks to me to be congruent with the dem bashing of every standard policy the admin makes in an effort to smear them coming into the election season. while i'm not the biggest branstad fan out here, the practice of letting people go, having them sign a nondisclosure agreement and providing them a severance is SOP... it has been for decades. it is the same exact practice culver, nutsack, etc. have done as well. so the d's relabel it as a 'scandal' and 'hush money' and we soak it up like it's true???
who's the idiot now? we are. ...if we believe what we're handed.
knowing this is the case how is schultz any different. citing his wife had an illness is coincidental, as i can assure you his insurance would continue to provide up to 18mon afterward at a minimum. that is just icing on a hollow cake. if matt schultz went to the taxpayers and said "sorry, we fired our other guy, kicked him to the curb, and it has taken about nine months to get our new person up to speed, we can't help you much during this time of transition..." we'd be having a fit over that.
simply put, i'm not big gov pal... far from it. but when standard practices of ending employment, that are acceptable and wise in some cases, are made to sound criminal and we buy into it, we're being part of the problem. i'm not sure if matt is the right guy for latham's job, but he's the first person in his role that has EVER pushed the need for voter IDs in this state and he's pushed it hard. in a state that's budget is 20% in place to tackle the money needed for illegals, the issue of providing proof you're eligible to vote is a prerequisite.
20 fucking percent man... of the six billion dollar budget this state has, 20% is for dealing with illegals, whether that be crime, penal issues, and most of all public education provisions like teachers, interpreters, etc.
looks like a dsm register hit piece to me...