I talked to one of my coworkers yesterday, who shared with me that "Obamacare is great."
His son has a tough part-time job, and he cannot afford health care on his own.
He signed up on Obamacare, my coworker told me.
Then I shared with him about the many people across the country, not just here in California, who are losing their health insurance, or they are seeing their health insurance premiums increase.
He then mentioned one of the most disturbing yet ignorant comments I had every heard.
"You don't have to sign up."
He gave the impression that people do not have to have health care.
But every American has to have health insurance, according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
He then commented that Obamacare is not for everybody, that socialized medicine is not for everybody.
When it comes to government interventions in health care, there is no choices.
Everyone has to respond to Obamacare, since the law requires every individual to have their own health insurance.
The great problem in our times, it would appear, is an unenlightened electorate.
Most people know a lot about their own work, their families. They know how to work with people, take down complex information. They recognize economic trends within their own careers.
Such was the case with the coworker I was talking with.
Socialized medicine is not for everybody? Does the man even know what he is talking about? The growing lack of awareness people have about these unprecedented shifts in health care is disturbing, indeed.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Marriage Does Not Equal Maturity
Dennis Prager's take on social issues, as well as many others, takes off from his profound respect for Judaism.
The religion of the Jewish People, as rendered in the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. also known as the Torah and the Tanakh, speaks of a coming Messiah.
The Messiah is the focal point of all scripture, not rules and regulations.
The whole point of the Mosaic Law was guardianship for the Jewish People until the fullness of time would come, in which Messiah Jesus Christ would come and die for the sins of all mankind and offer us kinship once again with God the Father.
Because Dennis Prager holds on to the customs and traditions of the Old Covenant, many of his arguments have no salience or stability, and his conservatism has little ground.
Marriage does not make us mature, any more than sitting in a garage makes us a car.
Yet he argues precisely this view in his latest piece for the Jewish Journal.
The publication is vocally, and virulently liberal, especially because of the offensive political cartoons of Steve Greenberg.
In order to draw in Reform Jewish readers, not necessarily conservative ones, the publication offers a column from Prager.
His arguments are inconsistent and inconsequential.
He submits that marriage forces people to mature.
His definition of maturity is commendable.
The notion that men and women stop depending on other people and learn to take responsibility for their lives, that sounds like maturity to me.
The argument that marriage causes one to become mature, in fact "forces" maturity is not true.
First of all, maturity by its nature cannot be forced. If someone is required to be responsible, then they are not motivated from within to take on a task or a calling.
Maturity must spring within a person, or otherwise that person is still dependent on someone, something, or some circumstance ever still.
In effect, people cannot be forced to be mature. They choose it.
Second of all, two married grown-up children will end up creating a marriage of two grown-up. From counseling television shows to personal experience, I have witnesses grown children who still behave that way when married, and often they end up getting divorced.
Marrying younger does not guarantee that anyone will grow up sooner or faster.
Any challenge, including marriage, will reveal character, but not create it.
Marriage does not equal maturity, and the high spate of divorces in our society attest to this truth.
The religion of the Jewish People, as rendered in the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible. also known as the Torah and the Tanakh, speaks of a coming Messiah.
The Messiah is the focal point of all scripture, not rules and regulations.
The whole point of the Mosaic Law was guardianship for the Jewish People until the fullness of time would come, in which Messiah Jesus Christ would come and die for the sins of all mankind and offer us kinship once again with God the Father.
Because Dennis Prager holds on to the customs and traditions of the Old Covenant, many of his arguments have no salience or stability, and his conservatism has little ground.
Marriage does not make us mature, any more than sitting in a garage makes us a car.
Yet he argues precisely this view in his latest piece for the Jewish Journal.
The publication is vocally, and virulently liberal, especially because of the offensive political cartoons of Steve Greenberg.
In order to draw in Reform Jewish readers, not necessarily conservative ones, the publication offers a column from Prager.
His arguments are inconsistent and inconsequential.
He submits that marriage forces people to mature.
His definition of maturity is commendable.
The notion that men and women stop depending on other people and learn to take responsibility for their lives, that sounds like maturity to me.
The argument that marriage causes one to become mature, in fact "forces" maturity is not true.
First of all, maturity by its nature cannot be forced. If someone is required to be responsible, then they are not motivated from within to take on a task or a calling.
Maturity must spring within a person, or otherwise that person is still dependent on someone, something, or some circumstance ever still.
In effect, people cannot be forced to be mature. They choose it.
Second of all, two married grown-up children will end up creating a marriage of two grown-up. From counseling television shows to personal experience, I have witnesses grown children who still behave that way when married, and often they end up getting divorced.
Marrying younger does not guarantee that anyone will grow up sooner or faster.
Any challenge, including marriage, will reveal character, but not create it.
Marriage does not equal maturity, and the high spate of divorces in our society attest to this truth.
Self-Critical Conservative Defends GOP 2014
Self-Critical Conservative David Brooks Defends GOP
New York Times syndicated David Brooks strikes limited government advocate readers as a faux-conservative.
With a Hamiltonian regard for big government (federal power can make things better), he also recognizes the need for cutting taxes and lowering the spending. He even exposed the “tax-credit” spending spree conniving which lawmakers engage in to avoid the charge of deficit spending. Instead of granting a massive earmark to a company, lawmakers will offer a tax credit, thus they can claim that they are cutting taxes and helping businesses, when they are still picking and choosing winners and losers while growing the annual deficit and the national debt.
Brook’s pragmatism about the role of government may buffer his credential as a compassionate conservative, yet his thinking has caused him to veer towards placating Beltway Establishment leaders, too, as when he claimed that Obamacare was clearly constitutional, even though Chief Justice John Roberts ended up employing the most tortured logic to justify the 2,500 page monstrosity.
Regarding the current government shutdown and debt-ceiling debacle, Brooks has remained avid critic of the Republicans and Conservative Democrats in Congress who resist Obamacare, first to defund, then delay the individual mandate, and then to repeal the widely despised medical device tax.
He opined that US Senator Ted Cruz’ decision to defund Obamacare at all costs had no exit strategy, and was widely panned by his conservative colleagues. While US Senator Ted Cruz’ twenty-two hour speech galvanized activists around the country, and while he himself may have realized this his speeches and Republican colleagues’ decision to vote for cloture while voting to defund Obamacare were inevitable, Cruz’ outreach, the Democrats’ outrage, and Obama outlier status have pushed the debt, budget, and Obamacare fight to the forefront. Activists across the country are acting out their frustration not through crime, but lawful protest and loyal opposition.
That’s what American government is all about. We the People make our voices heard, share our concerns and frustrations, and expect our leaders to respect our viewpoints with a view towards enacting policies which honor the Constitution and protect our rights.
David Brooks, for his lack of foresight or his oversight to the concerns of media elites, shared some pithy remarks about the Republicans chances in 2014, too, in his latest discussion on PBS News Hour.
The shut-down will not cost the GOP seats in 2014. The reasons, according to Brooks, is that a government shutdown has not affronted the American public as the Democrats had hoped it would. The whole dance is a small issue. Even Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who has exposed Obama’s media shenanigans about the sequester, has remarked that blame for the government gridlock in Washington will ultimately tarnish Obama’s legacy. “No one remembers who was Speaker of the House. People think of history in terms of presidencies.
With Washington D.C. as the New Hour backdrop Brooks further pointed out that most Americans do not notice the shutdown. DC officials have not blamed Republicans for the halt of public services in Washington, they have blamed the Democrats, specifically Majority Leader Harry Reid. Fearing the media backlash, Reid told DC leaders to be quiet. One state senator in Los Angeles, California Ted Lieu (D-South Bay) has also acknowledged on his own Twitter account that the shut-down has hurt very few people. Just like in 1995-1996, a government shut-down turns into much-ado-about-nothing, and the nothing getting done is hurting no one, either.
If a soft conservative journalist who criticizes Republicans states that the GOP has nothing to lose from the current government shut-down and debt ceiling fight, then the budget impasse should not seem like an impossible barrier to keeping up the fight against Washington profligacy, Obama’s obstinacy, and even Establishment Republican’s temerity.
New York Times syndicated David Brooks strikes limited government advocate readers as a faux-conservative.
With a Hamiltonian regard for big government (federal power can make things better), he also recognizes the need for cutting taxes and lowering the spending. He even exposed the “tax-credit” spending spree conniving which lawmakers engage in to avoid the charge of deficit spending. Instead of granting a massive earmark to a company, lawmakers will offer a tax credit, thus they can claim that they are cutting taxes and helping businesses, when they are still picking and choosing winners and losers while growing the annual deficit and the national debt.
Brook’s pragmatism about the role of government may buffer his credential as a compassionate conservative, yet his thinking has caused him to veer towards placating Beltway Establishment leaders, too, as when he claimed that Obamacare was clearly constitutional, even though Chief Justice John Roberts ended up employing the most tortured logic to justify the 2,500 page monstrosity.
Regarding the current government shutdown and debt-ceiling debacle, Brooks has remained avid critic of the Republicans and Conservative Democrats in Congress who resist Obamacare, first to defund, then delay the individual mandate, and then to repeal the widely despised medical device tax.
He opined that US Senator Ted Cruz’ decision to defund Obamacare at all costs had no exit strategy, and was widely panned by his conservative colleagues. While US Senator Ted Cruz’ twenty-two hour speech galvanized activists around the country, and while he himself may have realized this his speeches and Republican colleagues’ decision to vote for cloture while voting to defund Obamacare were inevitable, Cruz’ outreach, the Democrats’ outrage, and Obama outlier status have pushed the debt, budget, and Obamacare fight to the forefront. Activists across the country are acting out their frustration not through crime, but lawful protest and loyal opposition.
That’s what American government is all about. We the People make our voices heard, share our concerns and frustrations, and expect our leaders to respect our viewpoints with a view towards enacting policies which honor the Constitution and protect our rights.
David Brooks, for his lack of foresight or his oversight to the concerns of media elites, shared some pithy remarks about the Republicans chances in 2014, too, in his latest discussion on PBS News Hour.
The shut-down will not cost the GOP seats in 2014. The reasons, according to Brooks, is that a government shutdown has not affronted the American public as the Democrats had hoped it would. The whole dance is a small issue. Even Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who has exposed Obama’s media shenanigans about the sequester, has remarked that blame for the government gridlock in Washington will ultimately tarnish Obama’s legacy. “No one remembers who was Speaker of the House. People think of history in terms of presidencies.
With Washington D.C. as the New Hour backdrop Brooks further pointed out that most Americans do not notice the shutdown. DC officials have not blamed Republicans for the halt of public services in Washington, they have blamed the Democrats, specifically Majority Leader Harry Reid. Fearing the media backlash, Reid told DC leaders to be quiet. One state senator in Los Angeles, California Ted Lieu (D-South Bay) has also acknowledged on his own Twitter account that the shut-down has hurt very few people. Just like in 1995-1996, a government shut-down turns into much-ado-about-nothing, and the nothing getting done is hurting no one, either.
If a soft conservative journalist who criticizes Republicans states that the GOP has nothing to lose from the current government shut-down and debt ceiling fight, then the budget impasse should not seem like an impossible barrier to keeping up the fight against Washington profligacy, Obama’s obstinacy, and even Establishment Republican’s temerity.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Left's Last Losing Argument: Blame the Koch Brothers
It's the Koch Brothers!
Two Old White Guys with Money!
They will gum you to death with their false teeth!
They will run you over in their motorized wheelchairs.
If you're not careful, they will use their senior discount and pay less for their eggs and bacon at Denny's!
Must stop the old white men!
They control everything!
They control the media!
They control the country!
They control the UNIVERSE!
Oh No!
The Koch Brothers are to blame for all the evils of the world!
It's their fault when a puppy dies!
It's their fault when a baby cries!
It's their fault when a turkey fries (in an oven)!
It's their fault that SNL is no longer funny!
It's their fault that President Obama refuses to lead, that he refuses to listen, that he refuses to meet with Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and deal with the spending issues and the budget problems.
It's their fault that Congressman Henry Waxman has done nothing for decades to assist our wounded veterans who suffer homeless on the streets of Los Angeles County! It's also their fault that Waxman ran oversight hearings on baseball, yet had no idea what he was investigating. It's their fault that the Obama administration federally funded nineteen green tech companies, all of which failed.
It's the Koch Brothers' fault that the state of California, under the leadership of Governor Jerry Brown and a liberal, Democratic supermajority, that taxes are going up, that businesses are fleeing the state, that our schools are failing. It's not because of overwhelming bureaucracies, funded by coerced tax dollars which fund red tape and lawsuit settlements.
Of course not -- It's the Koch Brothers' fault! Never trust an old white man with wealth, especially if he is from Kansas!
It's the Koch Brothers' fault that Obamacare, all 2,500 pages and tens of thousands of pages and growing, has failed to control costs, that premiums are rising more than ever, that doctors are quitting the profession, that men and women are having a hard time order health insurance on glitched and stitched Medicare exchanges!
Another old white man with wealth, Warren Buffet, says that Obamacare should be scrapped. It's all his fault, too!
Blame the Koch Brothers!
Down with old white men! Boo!
(YAWN!)
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Governor Christie is the Weakest Presidential Contender (Yahoo!)
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie talks tough and takes down opponents with savvy and flair.
I did not like the big hugs with Obama.
His stance on gun control is all wrong.
He cares about dolphins at taxpayers expense, he pushed a special election for October just to up his chances of winning, and he attacked the House Republicans because they refused to push a massive, pork-laden spending bill along with the Hurricane Sandy aid.
He was wrong to attack his Republican colleagues, and he even fell into Twitter war with a constituent trying to backpedal from his frustration with the House GOP.
But he was all class and flair against his Democratic gubernatorial opponent Barbara Buono.
He is a vocal supporter of school vouchers and school choice.
This guy had better make up his mind or get his act together.
He pushed tax cuts.
He rejected massive funding projects.
He is pro-life. Winner!
I must say, though, that if Governor Christie does run for President in 2016, he will be the weakest candidate.
And he's a strong contender already.
Things are look good for 2016! I can't wait to see who else runs. . .
I did not like the big hugs with Obama.
His stance on gun control is all wrong.
He cares about dolphins at taxpayers expense, he pushed a special election for October just to up his chances of winning, and he attacked the House Republicans because they refused to push a massive, pork-laden spending bill along with the Hurricane Sandy aid.
He was wrong to attack his Republican colleagues, and he even fell into Twitter war with a constituent trying to backpedal from his frustration with the House GOP.
But he was all class and flair against his Democratic gubernatorial opponent Barbara Buono.
He is a vocal supporter of school vouchers and school choice.
This guy had better make up his mind or get his act together.
He pushed tax cuts.
He rejected massive funding projects.
He is pro-life. Winner!
I must say, though, that if Governor Christie does run for President in 2016, he will be the weakest candidate.
And he's a strong contender already.
Things are look good for 2016! I can't wait to see who else runs. . .
Unions and the California Republican Party
 |
| California GOP Chairman Jim Brulte |
A local Republican candidate also accepted union donations from unions. I have negative opinion about it right now, but will this candidate, and future candidates who reach out and receive private sector union endorsements, stand their ground on principles and policies which support the public interest first and foremost?
Does this turn of events bode for the better or the worse for the Republican Party and the State of California? Republicans are getting union endorsements. Democrats are losing a little of their funding.
At this point, I guess the answer is "It depends."
Granted, up to 40% of union members are Republicans, and they do not have any voice in California politics when it comes to the heft of political donations and activism from unions. I have been a member of a union before (UTLA) and am a member now (United Food and Commercial Workers) I was forced to join. I do not like my forced dues paying only Democratic candidates. But I would prefer not be forced to join at all. A colleague of mine was a member of the SEIU education cohort, and she informed me that members can opt out of membership, and pay less in dues. But they still have to pay.
Union members believe that Republicans who become union leaders can change the system, get the unions to honor the needs of the workers, rather than the power structure of unions, and move the state towards the much-needed reform to end the pension abuses, waste, fraud, and cover-ups which drain the state coffers at the expense of stake-holders: all of us.
That strategy may have some merit. I write this hesitantly, since power corrupts, and rising up in any organization often makes it more difficult to change it.
Then the other question arises: are unions inherently immoral? Once again, it depends.
Private-sector unions enter into agreements with private employers. When they strike, they take in their wake the profits of the employer. The consumers may be inconvenienced, but they can go somewhere else. Private sector unions are looking for better representation than the Democratic Party.
With public sector unions, however, they strike against the government, yet the money comes from the third party, the taxpayer. Their entitlements, not rights, need to be curtailed. Any collective bargaining contract augmented between politician and union cannot be a fair agreement as long as the taxpayers have no one speaking on their behalf.
Unions which collect dues from employees, then use the money to fund candidates and causes which support union interests at the expense (in every sense) of the public interest set up not an adversarial relationship between labor and management, but an accommodating one.
Where's the bargaining when a third-party cannot come to the party, and pays for the party?
This is unfair. Will Republicans representing unions be able to convince their backers of the need for reforms? Possibly.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has initiated comprehensive reforms in New Jersey because the Democratic Party bosses in Trenton work with private sector unions. They are more than happy to renegotiate overgenerous public contracts, which take advantage of the private sector employees.
Wiscon Governor Scott Walker took a tougher stance. He required that all public sector unions recertify the membership of their employees, and discontinue the automatic donation stream through coerced contributions. Even the police and fire unions had to contribute more toward their retirement.
What can California do, as long as public sector unions continue to hold so much power? The initiative process has worked at the local level. Liberal San Jose and Conservative San Diego pushed pension reforms despite heavy campaign financing from the unions in those areas.
Migrant workers are resisting union efforts in the Central Valley, precisely because migrant workers will always move to a better job, and union membership prevents this movement of trade and commerce. Cesar Chavez may have a commemorative day on the California civil calendar, but his legacy is dead-in-the-ground sterile, since his efforts to organize migrant workers fell in the face of "It's the economy, stupid!" pragmatism.
So, California GOP Chairman Jim Brulte has taken contributions from unions. Will this be a good thing or a bad thing? The donations compare very little with current Democratic contributions, but the symbolic aspect of it deserves some attention. Are the unions hedging their bets for a 2014 shellacking of the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento? Can Chairman Brulte honor the needs of unions, as long as they do not impinge on the financial well-being and fiscal future of the state?
It really depends. The push for collective bargaining reforms, and the lobbying power of union interests in Sacramento, whether by Democrat or Republican, must happen now.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
LMU Trustees Remove Elective Abortion
Loyola Mount University (LMU) is a private post-secondary institution grounded in a religious tradition and faith in God. One of the most egregious elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is that employment insurance must fund abortions. Religious institutions like LMU and business owners of a distinct conscience have refused to implement the portion of the law which requires them to provide insurance funding abortions.
The Catholic Church, the sponsor for Loyola Marymount, recognizes the biological and genetic truth that life begins at conception. Thus, LMU’s Board of Trustees has decided that their employment insurance plans will no longer cover elective abortions. They have the authority per the First Amendment to assert this belief on their campus.
LMU professor Anna Muraco suggests that the university’s policy decision was “sudden and unnerving.” As an employee of a Catholic institution, surely she would have understood her employer’s stance on life, conception, and abortion. For her to contend that the university is depriving women of their reproductive rights is unfounded. Muraco’s argument that the university is breaching social justice in removing elective abortion as an insured medical procedure adds nothing substantial to our understanding of this complex issue, nor does it justify any argument that Loyola Marymount is undermining “workplace equity”.
A woman has a right to have a child, or she has a right not to have a child. She also has the right not to work at a Catholic institution if those values do not agree with hers. In the tragic circumstances of rape or incest, certainly a pregnant woman would have the choice whether to carry that child to birth, yet such circumstances could be deemed “emergent” as opposed to “elective”.
Like many Americans, I believe that there should be limits to access to abortion. As a conservative, I believe that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. Kathleen Hannon Aikenhead, the head of LMU’s Board of Trustees, commented that LMU would ensure women’s other health issues. I respect the university’s decision not to cover elective abortions as part of their employees’ insurance plans.
The Catholic Church, the sponsor for Loyola Marymount, recognizes the biological and genetic truth that life begins at conception. Thus, LMU’s Board of Trustees has decided that their employment insurance plans will no longer cover elective abortions. They have the authority per the First Amendment to assert this belief on their campus.
LMU professor Anna Muraco suggests that the university’s policy decision was “sudden and unnerving.” As an employee of a Catholic institution, surely she would have understood her employer’s stance on life, conception, and abortion. For her to contend that the university is depriving women of their reproductive rights is unfounded. Muraco’s argument that the university is breaching social justice in removing elective abortion as an insured medical procedure adds nothing substantial to our understanding of this complex issue, nor does it justify any argument that Loyola Marymount is undermining “workplace equity”.
A woman has a right to have a child, or she has a right not to have a child. She also has the right not to work at a Catholic institution if those values do not agree with hers. In the tragic circumstances of rape or incest, certainly a pregnant woman would have the choice whether to carry that child to birth, yet such circumstances could be deemed “emergent” as opposed to “elective”.
Like many Americans, I believe that there should be limits to access to abortion. As a conservative, I believe that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. Kathleen Hannon Aikenhead, the head of LMU’s Board of Trustees, commented that LMU would ensure women’s other health issues. I respect the university’s decision not to cover elective abortions as part of their employees’ insurance plans.
Recalling the Recall (Which Should be Recalled)
Arnold Schwarzenegger rose to power in 2003, just months after Democratic Governor Gray Davis won reelection in 2002.
Davis had tripled the state's car tax, and the state legislature had signed into law a provision which would permit illegal immigrants to earn drivers licences.
The legislature repealed the license law, but the voters had to recall David in order to restore the car tax cut.
Riding populist upset with the dot.com bust, the energy roll-backs, and a general economic malaise in California, Ted Costa mounted a recall effort to get rid of Gray Davis.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Vista) jumped in with money and papers to run for governor. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger, state senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Democrat Cruz Bustemante, Peter Camejo of the Green Party, Independent Peter Uebberoth, Arianna Huffington, and a hundred other odd candidates, including Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt, Porn Star Mary Carey, and even the late former child star Gary Coleman.
One hundred candidates threw their hats in the ring to run for Governor. They even made guest appearances on the Tonight Show, and the Los Angeles Times feature their biographies in extended interviews.
The most memorable moment for me during the election was not the Arnold no-shows in debate after debate, or the egg-throwing, or even the up-and-down media circus that took over the state.
The best part took place in the last debate, in which Arnold finally showed up, and slowly but surely made it clear that he has something to offer as an actor-politician. The best line started with Huffington attacking Schwarzenegger for his frequent womanizing, along with allegations of assault.
"Now that was an attack!" the moderator interrupted. "Mr. Schwarzenegger, you may respond.
"I have the perfect role for you in my next movie!" Schwarznegger fired back, and the entire audience burst out laughing.
The recall of 2003 connected perfectly with Arnold's movie Terminator 3, which featured a female enemy robot, whose head Arnold "The Terminator" slams in a toilet bowl."
Perhaps that would have been a good role for Huffington, since her campaign went down the drain after that, and she dropped out.
On October 7, 2003, "The Terminator" Terminated the competition and became the Golden State's 38th Governor.
Recalling the recall, I must recall that they should have recalled Arnold just as soon as they sent him in.
Yes, he repealed the tripling of the car tax. McClintock assured every voter that he would have done the same.
But when it came to governor, he was out of his league, and the political culture terminated Arnold, putting his head in the bowl.
He advanced good initiatives in 2005, all of which crumbled. Paycheck protection then and now has faced an uphill battle in California.
He called the Democrats in California "girlie men", but they put up a fight, and his Republican colleagues in the senate budged very little toward his Democrat-lite form of governance.
The spending spree spiraled out of control. He pushed Cap and Trade on the state, and the residents today endure rising electric rates and a declining business culture because o fit.
The populist outrage that put Schwarzenegger in Sacramento did little to stop the bleeding tax revenues, nor did his policies
Davis had tripled the state's car tax, and the state legislature had signed into law a provision which would permit illegal immigrants to earn drivers licences.
The legislature repealed the license law, but the voters had to recall David in order to restore the car tax cut.
Riding populist upset with the dot.com bust, the energy roll-backs, and a general economic malaise in California, Ted Costa mounted a recall effort to get rid of Gray Davis.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Vista) jumped in with money and papers to run for governor. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger, state senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Democrat Cruz Bustemante, Peter Camejo of the Green Party, Independent Peter Uebberoth, Arianna Huffington, and a hundred other odd candidates, including Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt, Porn Star Mary Carey, and even the late former child star Gary Coleman.
One hundred candidates threw their hats in the ring to run for Governor. They even made guest appearances on the Tonight Show, and the Los Angeles Times feature their biographies in extended interviews.
The most memorable moment for me during the election was not the Arnold no-shows in debate after debate, or the egg-throwing, or even the up-and-down media circus that took over the state.
The best part took place in the last debate, in which Arnold finally showed up, and slowly but surely made it clear that he has something to offer as an actor-politician. The best line started with Huffington attacking Schwarzenegger for his frequent womanizing, along with allegations of assault.
"Now that was an attack!" the moderator interrupted. "Mr. Schwarzenegger, you may respond.
"I have the perfect role for you in my next movie!" Schwarznegger fired back, and the entire audience burst out laughing.
The recall of 2003 connected perfectly with Arnold's movie Terminator 3, which featured a female enemy robot, whose head Arnold "The Terminator" slams in a toilet bowl."
Perhaps that would have been a good role for Huffington, since her campaign went down the drain after that, and she dropped out.
On October 7, 2003, "The Terminator" Terminated the competition and became the Golden State's 38th Governor.
Recalling the recall, I must recall that they should have recalled Arnold just as soon as they sent him in.
Yes, he repealed the tripling of the car tax. McClintock assured every voter that he would have done the same.
But when it came to governor, he was out of his league, and the political culture terminated Arnold, putting his head in the bowl.
He advanced good initiatives in 2005, all of which crumbled. Paycheck protection then and now has faced an uphill battle in California.
He called the Democrats in California "girlie men", but they put up a fight, and his Republican colleagues in the senate budged very little toward his Democrat-lite form of governance.
The spending spree spiraled out of control. He pushed Cap and Trade on the state, and the residents today endure rising electric rates and a declining business culture because o fit.
The populist outrage that put Schwarzenegger in Sacramento did little to stop the bleeding tax revenues, nor did his policies
Monday, October 7, 2013
Book Booker for Bad Leadership: Lonegan for US Senate
A strange tale of proportions, both large and small, has emerged in New Jersey. Newark mayor Cory Booker once decided to live for one week on food stamps, just to show that people in poverty are struggling to get by, and that the government is not giving them enough to live on. In contrast, Governor Chris Christie, who could get by without eating for one week, has been cutting back on government so that people do not have to rely on food stamps in the first place, nor feel compelled to live off government more than they have to.
Now another conservative has entered the New Jersey political scene: Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, who is running for US Senate to replace the recently-deceased Frank Lautenberg, followed by interim appointment Jeffrey Chiesa. Instead of food stamps, instead of hand-outs, Lonegan wants to help every New Jerseyan off his feet and back into working.
Lonegan understands the important of balancing budgets. He also understands the need for safe cities in order to have thriving communities. He respects our rights, represents the Constitution, and wants to make sure that the next US Senator recognizes every New Jerseyan's interest, too.
Between Booker and Lonegan, Christie endorsed Lonegan.
Why wouldn’t he? Not just because they are Republicans, but because they care about education, they want to end the partisan bickering, and they want to get the federal government out of health care.
Governor Christie went on “Oprah” to tout education reform for all New Jerseyans, including the Newark school district. Wearing his furry wet fleece through thick and thin, Christie stood by his state when Hurricane Irene then Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey. He cut property taxes for three years in a row, and he helped designate his state as “Number One” for corruption busting. He demanded teacher tenure reform and blocked excessive federal boondoggles which would have cost billions that taxpayers could not pay. He pushed for pension reform, saving workers retirements without ruining the state or breaking the state’s entitlement funds.
While media conglomerates will explain that Christie and Booker are friends, the fact remains: Governor Christie has endorsed a like-minded fiscal conservative for US Senate, Steve Lonegan. Christie has saved New Jersey many times, and Lonegan will carry on Christie legacy in the US Senate.
While mainstream media pundits are still asking the Governor if he “weighs too much”, Christie still asserts, and rightly so, that government “does way too much.” Lonegan will trim the fact, cut the crap, and get the federal government back to basics. New Jersey has been a donor state too long, losing more tax money than getting. Lonegan can bring home the bacon once again.
I know that the Garden State prefers a Big Governor who supports limited government as opposed to a little leader who boasts about Big Government.
They would definitely prefer US Senator Steve Lonegan, who did not squander millions pretending to help education. Booker wasted one hundred million dollars on education consultants instead of improving Newark schools. Then there's the rising homicide count, too.
Booker was in Hollywood making friends and dancing with the stars. Lonegan was in New Jersey, representing his people.
Book Booker for extravagance and malfeasance. On Wednesday, October 16, vote for Steve Lonegan for US Senate!
Saturday, October 5, 2013
It's Your Fault, Jerry! (California Didn't Commit Suicide)
 |
| He's a Loathsome, Offensive Brute. Yet I Cannot Look Away! |
In one episode of Seinfeld (The Susie), Jerry has a rough time collecting money on an illegal bet. His "bookie" Mike is so bad, he forgets to hold onto Jerry's cash, or provide it when the bettor wins. In order to make up for his bad booking, Mike offers to fix Jerry's trunk. Even after Jerry accidentally slams his car's trunk cover on Mike's thumbs, the bad bookie agrees to fix the trunk, bandaged and all.
Later in the episode, Mike gets locked into Jerry's car trunk by accident. Overnight he overhears Jerry and Elaine talk about axing a made-up character named "Susie", an office persona accidentally fabricated at Elaine's workplace.
"Eliminate her. She's dead!" Jerry yells with muted sarcasm. Gasping in horror, Mike thinks that Jerry is going to kill someone.
The whole hoax gets so overblown (this is Seinfeld, folks, the show about nothing), that when Elaine explains to her boss Mr. Peterman that Susie is dead ("She committed suicide"), Peterman and the company throw "Susie" a funeral.
At the funeral, everyone believes that Susie committed suicide (Peterman eulogizes for her, claiming that they and had an incredible one-night stand). Then Mike, who had been trapped in Jerry's trunk for an entire day and overheard the conversation, bursts in and announces that "Susie" was actually murdered by Jerry Seinfeld
When I think of this humorous scene, I think of another Jerry, another claimed suicide, and the real culprit.
Then a new declaration comes to mind, and it would go something like this:
"California didn't commit suicide. She was murdered. . .by Jerry Brown!"
Such a leap of fancy seems not just improbable, or laughable, but so ridiculous, that only a sitcom would come up with it.
My thoughts exactly, except that the real death of California, by taxes, regulations, rules, spending deficits, pension obligations, is no joke, and Governor Jerry is responsible. Unlike the TV show, there is some truth to this charge.
Let's go back to Jerry's former days as. . .governor.
Jerry Brown instituted collective bargaining rights for California's public sector employees. Now public sector unions are helping to bankrupt the Golden State, convinced that what's good for the goose, every resident in California, is good for the grabbing.
Public servants retire early, pay in very little, yet can receive as much as 90% of their salary in pensions. City leaders can leave a local seat for a county or even state-wide office and expect two pensions upon retirement.
In one account, a firefighter worked for twenty years in one city, retired at forty (after working twenty years), then worked for another twenty years at another deparment. He's getting two pensions for one lifetime of work!
Other states, other leaders are correcting these financial problems.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie decried the retirement of two local police officers, who cashed in so much sick-pay, that the ciy had to float a bond worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay off the sick pay.
"That's why they're called "boat checks", because retirees by their dream boat with the money."
Now, what's been happening in California because of Jerry's move for collective bargaining?
Pensions problems have spiralled in California.
Notable abuses include Bell, California, where the police chief was receiving $400,000 a year, and slated to keep almost all of it because he claimed disability, not mention the outrageous pilfering from the city council and the city manager.
In Hermosa Beach, parking enforcers can claim a hefty state pension, even though they get paid more than the local teachers to write tickets.
But Jerry also helped kill California not just with skyrocketing pension costs.
Governor Moonbeam introduced mandatory sentencing to California courts, which took away from judges the needed discretion to diminish sentences for rare or first-time offenders. Today, California prisons are at 150% capacity, facing federal court orders demanding realignment of California prisoners.
The litigation on the prison crises is taking away $200 million from our state coffers, as well. Still, Jerry refuses to cave to federal orders, resisting the final forced release of thousands of prisoners back onto California's streets.
Because of required prison realignment, though, crime waves are rising in California cities, which should be enough to put Jerry out of office. Even the San Francisco Bay police have commented that forced realignment has caused rising crime rates, and Los Angeles County Jail has ended up in the center if the realignment brawl, with no signs of improvement or relaxation for the already-strained system.
From pensions to prisons, from job perks to jails, California has not committed suicide, but has been dying slowly, because Jerry helped kill the state softly over time with progressive policies which have bankrupted that state and bereaved our streets of safety.
While pundits do claim that Brown can help CA bounce back, most of them acknowledge that much of CA's problem are of Jerry's making.
Maybe Governor Brown will end up breaking our thumbs, too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)