He's Responsible, If Not Guilty

In writing about Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Tribune reporter Mark Magnier wrote, "Although Singh's personal integrity is generally considered above suspicion, his oversight role has come under growing scrutiny."

The observation came amid controversy about "a rash of alleged irregularities connected to sports, telecommunications and real estate deals, potentially involving tens of billions of dollars" in India.

These revelations and observations coincided with my decision to speak out about Governor Rick Scott's revelation of his decision to kill high speed rail in Florida. In reaction to the February 16 announcement, I posted on Facebook: "Apparently Florida Gov. Rick Scott only takes federal money if he can do it fraudulently. Rue the day, Floridians."

I point out that this was only his revelation moment because of my conviction that Scott had actually made the kill decision long before the announcement - perhaps even before his election to governor. I don't pretend to have insight into his motivations except that, based on what I have learned of Scott, I'm fairly certain that the kill decision is motivated by personal gain.

It is no secret that I dislike and distrust the former beneficiary of Columbia/HCA Medicare fraud which netted the company a multi-million dollar fine - the  largest in U.S. history - but no criminal prosecution of its captain. Scott has always maintained that he knew nothing of the criminal activities of his company, which brings me back to the parallels with Magnier's reporting of the Singh story.

"If he didn't know about the alleged irregularities going on around him, his leadership should be called into question, and if he knew, he should have halted them."

Scott is no Singh. Unlike Singh, we can't say that Scott's personal integrity is considered above suspicion. Which is the basis for my contention that putting Scott in the governor's office is equivilent to tasking the fox with guarding the hen house.