GOP Candidates Are Crabs In A Bucket

A man walks is in a small town by the Chesapeake Bay. He walks by a store and sees a bucket of crabs without a lid sitting by the door. The man goes into the store and asks the woman behind the counter, "excuse me ma'am but you know your crab bucket out there has no lid. Aren't you afraid some will get out?"

"No they won't escape, they are Republican crabs."

"Why are they Republican crabs?"

"Because as soon as one starts to get ahead and get up out of the bucket the others reach up and pull him back into the bucket."

That is what I think about as I watch the Republican Presidential candidates go at each other on issues that they should not be focusing on. Instead of focusing all their efforts on the poor performance President Obama has had in the White House, his failed economic and fiscal policies, the rising unemployment during his tenure, the continued lack of confidence of consumers and business owners, the candidates are attacking each other and pulling each other down. This only plays to the benefit of Obama and his re-election as the media will use the sound bites of Republicans to discredit whichever candidate gains the nomination.

Republican candidates, voters and pundits need to focus on what matters to our nation: jobs, jobs, jobs and economic growth.

Focus on the $4 trillion spent in deficit spending since Obama took office that has not stimulated our economy.

Focus on the myriad of business restrictions and job killing policies from Obama's regulators.

Focus on ObamaCare that was put through Congress with only Democratic support and is hindering business expansion.

Focus on Dodd-Frank passed with only Democratic support that is restricting lending and the ability for small businesses to obtain credit.

Quit focusing on "gotcha's" in debates on other GOP candidates and attack the incumbent, his party and their policies that has stifled business growth and economic development. Present what will happen when you take office to eliminate these programs.

Focus not on your opponent in the primaries but our opponent in the general election in 2012. Quit acting like crabs in a bucket.

Election June 8th

In two weeks we have the opportunity to once again exercise the most most important right we have as American citizens: voting. With a lot on the ballot I will run through my two cents for the races on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots.

Note that I am a registered Republican so the recommendations below indicate that barring some unforeseen circumstance this is how I will be completing my ballot. For the Democratic candidates I am using my wife's sample ballot and will provide my thoughts on why if I were a registered Democrat for my choice.

Governor: It seems the Democrats have only one selection: Jerry Brown. While he has six opponents none of them have a chance. With Jerry you will be getting an old fashioned liberal. For the Republican side I am voting for Meg Whitman, I feel she has the stronger backbone to stand up to the Democratic majority that is guaranteed to hold in the Legislature against further tax increases and expansion of our state government.

Lt. Governor: This is an anyone but vote and I need to do a little more research but it seems tough to beat the ones with name recognition. For Republicans anyone by Abel Maldonado who sold out on his personal vow to not raise taxes as a member of the California Senate and cast the vote needed to give us the highest tax increase in history last year. He did it so he could be appointed Lt. Governor by Schwarzenegger, thankfully the Democrats in the Legislature have not confirmed him. On the Democratic side anyone but serial law breaker Gavin Newsom. As Mayor he has encouraged law breaking by making San Francisco a sanctuary city, performing gay marriages and even cheating on his wife. The guy seems to have no moral compass for right or wrong, for law or lawlessness, it is what ever makes him happy.

Attorney General: Republicans need to vote for John Eastman, who I wrote about in March and am endorsing. For the Democrats I know that Kamala Harris has support locally, but as DA in San Francisco she has aided and abetted the law-breaking of Mayor Newsom, while I am in favor of gay marriages it is not the law in California, he job as DA and as AG if elected is to enforce the law not allow politicians to break the laws. For Democrats I would take Chris Kelly, like Eastman a non-politician with no favors to pay-back. We need a strong AG to enforce the laws and Constitution of this State, not go off on their own agenda as we have seen with current AG Jerry Brown.

Insurance Commissioner: I can't believe we vote for this position. On the Republican side we have one member of the Legislature who like Maldonado broke a no tax pledge to his constituents (Villines) who I cannot vote for, therefore I am voting for Brian Fitzgerald who is in the Insurance Department's enforcement division. On the Democrats side two members of the Legislature are running, Hector De La Torre who annually tries to pass a law to give illegal immigrants drivers' licenses and Dave Jones. I hold my nose and vote for Jones.

U.S. Senate: I doubt any Democrat will beat incumbent Barbara Boxer, ma'am, though I think it is funny that uber-liberal Mickey Kaus is running against her because she is not liberal enough. On the Republican ballot I stick with my endorsement of Carly Fiorina from February. Acknowledging that Tom Campbell and Chuck Devore are very good candidates and would do a very good job, I think Fiorina has the best chance of unseating Boxer.

U.S. Representative (37th): Yeah! I actually have a candidate on the GOP primary for the 37th District! And it is a great candidate with a solid chance to win the general election in November: Star Parker. On the Democrats side we have incumbent Laura Richardson who is under ethics investigations and has a well chronicled history of personal financial mismanagement versus two always-runs and a new comer. The new comer deserves support and votes from local Democrats, Terry Ponchak. He is from the Bixby Knolls area of Long Beach, local attorney, involved in the community and is not Richardson. I wish him well in unseating an incumbent in the primary--it has happened in other parts of the country will local voters see it happen here?

Member of the Assembly (55th): For Republicans there is one name on the ballot, Christopher Salabaj. For Democrats incumbent and organized labor's best friend Warren Furutani who has never met an anti-business/pro-labor rally he didn't like, he should have an SEIU patch on his suit.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Not a visible office but an important one, both parties have the same names on their ballots. I have not researched every person, however I do know that Diane Lenning on the bottom of the ballot has been criss-crossing the state listening to parents, teachers and administrators as she campaigns for office. I am voting Lenning.

Propositions: NO on all propositions but Prop 13 which limits the reassessment of property that has undergone seismic retrofitting. My initial instinct would be to vote no on this, however if a building has to undergo state mandated seismic retrofitting, as in a hospital or private school or college, then why should that retrofit further increase costs by raising taxes? Yes on Prop 13.

Regarding Prop 14, aka the open primaries proposition, I am against this. This proposition only helps the majority party and hurts the minority party and minority candidates. A case in point is the race for governor. There is no way that Jerry Brown loses the Democratic nomination. If Prop 14 were law now this guaranteed win allows the Democrats to encourage their party members in key districts to vote for the candidate of the Democrats choice, most likely the candidate least likely to win the November election. The same can happen in strong Republican districts for Assembly and Senate, GOP voters putting votes to the weakest Democratic candidates to ensure wins in November. If we are having open primaries then ban parties and make all statewide offices non-partisan and run like city council elections, unless someone gets 50% plus one of the votes then have a run-off. Open primaries allows more dishonesty into the political process, vote no on Prop 14.

The only major news that can come from this election is the race between Ponchak and Richardson for the Democratic nomination for the House of Representatives, if Ponchak can upset Richardson it will continue the story of an upset electorate across the country. I hope this is the story that is on the top of the fold on June 9th: Ponchak Wins.

DCS05262010

Of Course It's Partisan, Duh!

The airwaves and blogrolls and editorial pages and lecterns are filled with acrimony decrying the "partisanship" in Congress, but only by Republicans. Those making most noise are either ignorant, hypocritical or stupid, and by the way it it possible to be all three.

From January 2008 well into January 2010 the Democrats have had super-majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate plus the King Democrat in the White House. For twelve months the Democrats have needed not one Republican vote to pass any legislation, but they did need every Democratic vote in the Senate. Despite this incredible legislative advantage Democrats were unable to rush through any health care legislation, evidently because of Republican partisanship.

While the votes are there to pass any legislation, the Democrats have had difficulties because the legislation they have wanted passed that has run into difficulties has been bad legislation. The problems President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have had has not been Republican partisanship, but rather lack of partisanship within their own party. Democrats who have recognized the ruinous bills put forth by Pelosi and Reid for health care reform has either balked considerably to pass the bills, or as is the case with many Democrats in the House, have voted against the legislation.

So Obama decrying the partisanship in Congress, despite being extremely hypocritical, is right. His problem is partisanship, or rather lack of it as members of his party have rejected the hard swing left in policy taken by party leadership. Representing their constituents and not the ideals of a San Francisco liberal or a Chicago party loyalist, so called Blue Dog Democrats have refused to toe the party line. But their not being partisan has become a rallying cry and issue for attacking Republicans.

How ignorant is this form of attack? The elitist mentality that has driven the legislative agenda and pursuit of massive health care reform and full government control of the health care industry in American is one that presumes we are dumb and cannot do the math for ourselves. The arrogance of power and position has enabled Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their allies in the press to lambaste Republicans for blocking health care reform thinking you and I, and Uncle Joe in Oshkosh and Aunt Marie in Albuquerque are too dumb to know it is not Republicans that are preventing them from waltzing legislation through Congress but their own party members.

Fortunately, despite that fact that half of America is below average in intelligence, it does not take much intelligence to figure this one out. Are Republicans being partisan? You betcha! (And thank goodness.) But aren't they supposed to be? John Boehner won a Republican primary in his district in Ohio and then won the general election running, get this, as a Republican! He told the citizens of his district the values he held, the issues as he saw them and the solutions he would have. He was very clear with his positions and that he is a Republican. And he won the election. So did almost two hundred other members of the House who won Republican primaries and then general elections with (R) next to their name.

It is evidently the position of Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and liberal media pundits and editors, that now that they are in Congress they are to come under the messianic spell that dumbfounded the majority of American voters in 2008 and cast aside their party affiliations and vote the way our President desires. For Obama and the Democratic leadership their ideological objectives are more important than representation of the people of the United States. The majority of constituents in Pelosi's district in San Francisco are thrilled with her health care proposal, the majority of Rep. Hal Rogers' (R-KY) district however is against it. As are the majority of residents in Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-NC) district.

What is really either upsetting or hilarious is the gall of Obama to try to play the partisan card on Republicans. When he did vote, Obama voted straight down Democratic party lines during his stint in the Illinois legislature and his few years in the Senate. He voted against President Bush nominees for the Supreme Court (twice) against appointments to the U.N. and cabinet positions. Where was he when the Gang of 14 was established? Hiding in the Democratic cloakroom. Obama was a Democratic party hack while representing the people of Illinois, and now he expects the Republican members of Congress to betray their constituents and follow his extremely liberal agenda. His agenda is more important than their integrity. Talk about arrogance, my ideas are more important than your ideals--or those of the people you represent.

Maybe to get around the partisanship he is suddenly so concerned with Obama should scrap the Democrats agenda and listen to the Republican agenda. Put tort reform in any health care bill, allow insurance companies to offer health insurance nationwide to expand competition and opportunities, make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Try those positions on Mr. President and then talk to the American people about partisan politics.

When creating our government the framers of the Constitution put in roadblocks to prevent legislative abuse of power. They established a system of government based upon checks and balances with equal powers granted to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. Within the Legislative branch further checks and balances were created with a bicameral legislature. For over two centuries this form of government has been better than any in the history of man in representing the people being governed and preventing run-away abuse of powers by a small cadre of leaders.

Today, because their own bad ideas, their own pushing of policy that is far beyond the desires of members of their own party Obama and Democratic leadership are failing to push through legislation that forever alters the American landscape. Being true partisans they do not put the blame for their failures where they belong, on themselves and members of their own party who are needed to pass any legislation, but instead blame their political opposition for being partisan. I ask again, ignorant, hypocritical or stupid?

When President Bush was unable to get judicial nominees through Senate confirmation because of the cloture rules (filibuster) and needing sixty votes to get to an up or down vote, being blocked by Senate Democrats like Harry Reid and Barack Obama, many Republicans wanted the Senate Majority leadership (then Republican) to engage in the "nuclear" option and change the rules so that judicial confirmations needed only a majority vote and not be subject to filibuster. Led by John McCain on the Republican side, fourteen Senators came together and agreed to a set of judicial nominees and guidelines to enable some Bush appointees, but not all, to be confirmed and seated. Today the same rules apply in the Senate because level heads prevailed.

Now to get around the rules in Congress the troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid are cooking up schemes to push their health care legislation through Congress, avoiding their own party members and forever changing how legislation is done in Congress. A word of warning to the Democrats: you will not be in the majority forever, at some point Republicans will have control of one or both the House and the Senate and may follow any precedents you sent.

DCS 02242010

Did Party of "No" Save Obama From Violating Pledges to American People

In his State of the Union speech last week President Obama sounded like leftist media and political types who have labelled Republicans as the "party of 'No.'" First forgetting the blockage Democrats put on President Bush (remember the Gang of 14 agreement so Bush judicial nominees could get through the Senate? Just one example.), then forgetting that Republicans have stood in the way of nothing since Democrats have had enough votes in the Senate and House of Representatives to pass any legislation they want. So because one or two Republicans would not cross the aisle and join the Democrats in bad legislation, legislation so bad it could not get passed with super majorities in both Houses, the Republicans are the party of "No."

It seems to me that the Democrats are the party of "maybe but only if you bribe me or my constituents or special interest group campaign financers." By sticking together as a party the Republicans have actually been helping President Obama from not violating more campaign pledges than he already has.

Throughout the campaign Obama pledged bi-partisan efforts if he were elected. His first year in office his only attempt at bi-partisanship was practically moving in with GOP Senator Olivia Snowe to get her to support the Senate's version of health care reform--in the Democrats eyes all you need is one vote and they can scream, "we had bi-partisan support!" Again in the State of the Union Obama said bi-partisanship was needed for Washington to work properly. We all know the definition of bi-partisan here means, "they need to put aside their principals and pledges they made to their voters and support our legislation without any changes."

Republicans rightfully rejected this definition of bi-partisanship, and Senator Snowe took back Obama's guest key. As a result the Democrats, if they were going to pass health care would have to do so alone. The bill is theirs for all the credit and all the blame. Because no health care bill has been passed, nor Cap and Trade, Obama still technically has not violated his pledge to voters to be bi-partisan. If Snowe had fallen to Obama's pressures then he, and the Democrats would have falsely screamed "bi-partisan support!" and looked like fools to the American people.

On Friday President Obama made the very unusual, and I believe unique, move of appearing before the Republican Caucus House Retreat in Maryland. He gave a televised address and had a question and answer period. Having just lit the GOP up in his State of the Union it was a political gamble for Obama to make this appearance and he gets plenty of credit for doing so.

At the GOP retreat, Obama admitted that the Republicans opposition to the Senate health care bill, and the subsequent inability of the House to pass the Senate version (thus far) has allowed Obama to keep another of his pledges to the American people (thus far).

Said Obama to the gathering:

We said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your--if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

So had the Senate and House Democrats passed the health care bill that Obama and his Administration were strongly pushing, and denigrating all who opposed it, then they would have passed a bill that was a consistent pledge of the President: no bill would violate the insurance you currently have, no bill would take away your doctor, no bill would get between you and your doctor, and no increase in taxes or fees for your insurance.

So if you hear anyone saying that Obama is doing a decent job of keeping his campaign promises and pledges to the American people you can tell them, "he can thank the Republicans for that because he and the Democrats in Congress wanted to violate those pledges."

But don't expect any credit to be given to the Republicans for making this President stick to any pledges made on the campaign trail, or since taking the oath of office.

Psssst....It's Too Big!

There is much furor among left wing Democrats and the far left over Independent Senator Joe Lieberman standing in the way of the Senate passing the 2,000 page health care bill from Harry Reid. From the beginning Lieberman has said he will oppose any bill that expands MediCare or has a government insurance option. Evidently when Reid sent his minions to write his bill he either did not listen to Lieberman, figured Lieberman would not be able to discern the provisions in 2000 pages of legal gobbly-gook, or did not believe he would stand firm on his position. Playing political poker Reid included the provisions for both expanding MediCare and a public option; calculating Lieberman would not want to tick off Democrats and be the lone vote in the way for passing historic legislation.

Desperately needing Lieberman's vote to reach the magic number of 60 needed to end debate and get a floor vote on his bill, Reid publicly has made no statements regarding Lieberman and his position. Instead Reid has focused his ire on Republicans for blocking the legislation--comparing the Republican position to that held by Democrats in the 1800's who blocked anti-slavery legislation and 1950's Democrats who blocked Civil Rights legislation.

Reid has shown he is not the brightest person in the Senate. Lieberman owes nothing to him nor the Democrats. Reid forgets that in 2006 Democrats ran a candidate against Lieberman in the primary election for his Senate seat and defeated Lieberman. Immediately following the election Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent. Reid quickly announced that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported and endorsed Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont. The campaign was quite heated and vitriolic with Lamont and the Democrats tying Lieberman to President Bush in every speech, every campaign piece, every interview. For the DSCC and Lamont's campaign it was as if the Evil Axis crafting war on the American people was Bush-Cheney-Rove-Lieberman.

Lieberman won quite handily, beating Lamont and the GOP candidate combined. The people of Connecticut spoke, "We like Joe more than we like Harry." Back on Capitol Hill Lieberman received a chilly reception and many Democrats wanted Reid to yank his seniority on committees and any leadership positions he held. When 2008 came around and Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate plus Lieberman who has continued to caucus with Democrats everyone quickly realized that unless a Republican or two jump the aisle, Lieberman is critical to all Senate votes. He therefore needs to be listened to, everyone understands this but the Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

Hence where we find ourselves this morning. In order to get Lieberman's vote Reid needs to scrap, at minimum, the government insurance option and expansion of MediCare. In doing so he upsets the far left Senators and can lose more votes. While that fight goes on the next ones to rear their heads are the abortion provisions and costs. Some Democrats will not support a bill that provides any federal funds to pay for abortions or loosens regulations on abortions, other Democrats say they will not support any bill that does not include abortion assistance nor tightens regulations. Some Democrats actually care what the cost of this legislation is to Americans today and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the day after that.

And on and on the battles within the party continue on this massive legislation. All the while trying to cobble together the 60 votes he needs from within his own caucus, Reid is blaming Republicans for blocking the legislation--such a bold false statement as to be comical. Members of Reid's caucus are balking at the cost, balking at specific provisions and balking at the lack of information, but because the Republican members of the Senate have stayed united thus far in opposition to such a massive bill and its costs it is their fault Reid cannot deliver a bill to President Obama.

This bill is a disaster as written and a disaster if passed. Politically it is guaranteed to cost many Democrats their seats in the 2010 elections, and again in 2012 and more in 2014 when the laws begin to take effect. Because it aims not to reform the health care system in our country but rather to build a brand new one at enormous costs it is destined to end many political careers. Ignoring that almost 60% of Americans oppose the bill, and the more than 45% who strongly oppose it, Reid and the majority of Senate Democrats continue blindly down the path of trying to pass a bill that has not yet been fully released and disclosed and not yet had a full and accurate Congressional Budget Office cost analysis.

From the beginning I have said this bill and effort by Democrats is too big to succeed. Politically the Democrats and the Obama Administration would be better off taking smaller steps in reforming health care. Put forth a legislative time line that goes beyond 2010 that would entice voters to re-elect their Senators and Representatives so they can maintain their majorities. Instead of a legislative mantra and mandate from the White House of "just pass something" it should be "one-step at a time."

Tackle first the biggest external cost to health care delivery: tort reform. Instead of going against the people who voted for you, go against the trial lawyers who contribute to your campaigns. Simple tort reform eliminates billions of dollars in defensive diagnosis, defensive tests and defensive procedures.

Then tackle insurance costs. Allow insurers to compete nationally. Democrats love to tout how the marketplace needs competition but they will not allow insurance companies to compete. The competition is restricted by federal and state laws.

Once these two low hanging fruit have been knocked down then tackle fraud and abuse in MediCare and MediCaid/Cal. Obama has admitted it costs Americans billions and billions of dollars (most estimates are 10% of the total program budgets). So do something about it separate from massive legislation. Instead of paying for the fraud and abuse by lowering payments to health care providers, save the money being wasted and stolen by cracking down on it.

If Obama were to lead a concerted, continuing and successful effort to pass health care reform piece, by piece, by piece, he would fulfill the promise so many put in him in November 2008. He would show leadership, foresight, vision and success. Re-election in 2012 almost guaranteed and poll numbers slipping into the low 40's turning into high 50's or low 60's. Instead he sits on the sidelines until the last minute when it appears his pre-written legacy may need some editing and admonishes, scolds and tries to frighten Legislators to quickly pass a bill. Time being more important than substance or consequence.

Joe Lieberman is taking considerable heat from Democrats and liberals for maintaining his stand, on the other side he is being applauded for sticking by his word--that he gave Reid very early on in this debate. Hopefully his stance and the resulting altering of Reid's bill will derail this current health care reform effort and we can start again. But smaller and in targeted detail that does not obfuscate the provisions nor costs from the American people.

In the meantime why all the heat on Joe for standing by his position and no heat on the other 59 Senators who caved into his position and abandoned theirs?

Voters: Now What?

Now what?


More incumbents? And you know as well as I do in our gerrymandered state state "incumbent" is appropriately tagged to the replacement candidate for any incumbents termed out.


Now what?


Another round of elections installing the same people to make the same votes and pass the same laws and spending bills and budgets that have doubled spending from Sacramento in ten year? Another round of elections installing the same people to complain that the state budget problems have nothing to do with their economic ignorance and over spending but instead has to do with not enough taxes being collected from the citizens of the state?


Now what?


Local voters go to the polls next year and punch the same hole they have punched in every one of the past elections that memory serves? Re-elect the same people who say you aren't taxed enough and then go to Sacramento to increase their spending yet again, except for where you need it?


Now what?


Listen to the politician you elected tell you it is not their fault they have to take another five, ten, twenty million from the school district where you send your child? Listen as they sit their with their majority as they cajole only one, two, or three members of the other party to join them as they pass a budget raising fees, closing parks, and stealing more money from your child's classroom?


Now what?


What are you, the voter in Long Beach, or Lakewood, or Signal Hill, who voted against Measure T going to do? Sanction our elected representatives in Sacramento behavior that took $100 million away from the district in the past five years? Because if you re-elect them that is exactly what you are doing. Same goes for you in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in Marin County, in San Diego. Up and down the state every vote that is caste for a sitting member of the Assembly or Senate that voted to pass the current state budget, or the budget before that, or the budget before that, is a vote sanctioning poor economic decisions, a vote supporting taking funds from local districts and a vote against local control of education.


Now what?


What is going to change so our school district is not forced to cut security officers that patrol football games and hallways? How are you going to vote to ensure more funds aren't stripped from our schools so we can have a nurse even two days a week? What responsibility will you take with your vote so another day of an open library can happen on the campus your child attends?


Voters within the Long Beach Unified School District overwhelmingly defeated the Measure T parcel tax. It was pretty evident that the majority of those voting did not want to pay a couple of more dollars per month to provide some direct funding for operations to our district, funding that could not be stolen by the same people this majority has elected to represent them in every election in the past decade. So now what? What is this majority going to do in next year's primary and general elections to change the cycle of greed and glut in Sacramento that has seen our school district's budgets decimated by the majorities in the Assembly and Senate and abetted by a few members of the opposition and the Governor who ultimately did not veto those budgets.


Now what?


Here's what I think. I think every incumbent in our local elections for state office will get re-elected, those off the ballot because of running for another office or term limits will have their political clones elected. The winners will be supported by campaign donations from public employees unions, both locally and statewide. The winners will run unchallenged in their primaries and win with comfortable majorities in this little corner of California that is cozy for them. The winners will not have their voting records looked at by the voters, nor will the voters consider the ideas and positions of any one else on the ballots. The winners will win despite aiding and abetting the financial decline and ruin of this state as the voters blindly vote for the letter inside the parenthesis next to their name, (D), and ignore their actions in the budget process. The winners will get another term in office from an electorate that voted not to pay an additional $8 per month for education but will vote to support a politician who has raised other fees and taxes a lot more than $8 per month.


In this scenario you can substitute my local area for any area of this gerrymandered state that has protected a substantial majority for the Democrats in Sacramento. A comfortable majority that has bullied and pushed and pulled and whined and screamed through every budget process to get a handful of Republicans and a governor to sign off on their budgets. Budgets that have cut $100 million in revenue from our local school district. Budgets that have included the largest tax increase in American history by a state on its people. Budgets that are sanctified by the electorate every time they re-elect their incumbents.


Message heard loud and clear Long Beach: LBUSD we don't want to provide you any additional revenue, go ahead and make your cuts. Message to Long Beach voters: don't bitch when those cuts affect your child. Don't bitch when you lose a nurse. Lose PE. Lose Art. Lose AP French. Lose Chess Club. Lose security officers. You caused this with your votes electing members of the Assembly and Senate, now accept responsibility.

Now what?

Running To Empty?

If I am a loyal Congressional Democrat I am very ticked off at the White House, and especially President Obama right now. Elected with a 7 point majority but behaving as if handed a mandate, the President has left me holding the bucket on health care. Traipsing around the country raising money for other Democrats he has left me holding the credit card on an exploding federal deficit and federal debt approaching $33 trillion. Waffling on any decision concerning Afghanistan he has left me holding the phone, calling constituents whose son has just been killed in the war. Attacking the most watched cable news station he has left me holding the remote control.

On health care Obama has been quick to give speeches about a broken system. Quick to blame insurance companies. Quick to blame Medicare rife with inefficiencies and fraud. Quick to blame Republicans for any opposition to any of the bills in the Senate and House. Missing from the health care reform process has been any formal input or proposals from the White House. Obama's position on health care reform has been "not my job, it is for Congress to present me with a bill." Technically he is correct, it is the job of the Legislative Branch to present to the Executive Branch legislation to be signed into law. Technically this formal process broke down decades ago with President Franklin Roosevelt who pushed his legislative agenda through a willing Congress. Vacant from the health care reform process has been the President stating clearly and succinctly, "This is my proposal."

Through the tumultuous summer of discontent, with the Town Hall meetings, the Tea Parties and the debates in diners and at neighborhood block parties Congressional Democrats were the targets of angry constituents confused over thousands of pages of proposed legislation, upset over trillions of dollars of federal spending, concerned over future deficits and how they would be paid for. Back in Washington, or in Chicago, or in Martha's Vineyard, or in Copenhagen, President Obama was one day saying the "public option" was an option and the next day saying any legislation to be effective must have some form of public option. Depending on who was in the live audience a different version of the health care reform speech was delivered. As long as the speech was delivered well everyone clapped. "We must not wait. We must reform our broken health care system. Those profiting from the ills of others are conspiring to deprive others. Republicans are to blame." Fill in the rest.

The White House has presented no leadership on this issue. As the leader of the Democratic Party, Obama has left Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in charge of health care reform, in charge of legislation to be voted up or down in Congress, in charge of whipping Democrats into supporting legislation. Democrats who have gotten their hats handed to them over the summer and since are shying away from public option votes and the huge deficits currently proposed legislation will incur. Without a legislative proposal from Obama the Democratic leadership has lost the political card of, "you need to support the President on this." Instead it is "you need to support Speaker Pelosi who has an approval rating of 19 on this." With no leadership there is no cohesion. With no cohesion health care reform legislation is not going to pass in this term of Congress.

Right after taking office Obama declared that the federal government needed to spend almost $1 trillion dollars in stimulus funds to prevent unemployment from rising and restart the economy. Despite a majority of economists saying the economic cycle would run its course and correct by the end of 2009, despite over three-quarters of the stimulus funds in the legislation not being spent until well into 2010, the White House and Obama created a do-or-die urgency and pushed legislation through. As a result Obama's most significant legislative success, that he initiated and pushed, is a huge pile of spending and debt that has had an almost insignificant impact on the national economy and provided members of Congress with pork projects they can use as political capital heading into the November 2010 elections. With no evidence of the spending, but daily evidence of a growing deficit and government debt, members of Congress are being pressed more than ever on the spending of the Federal government and how our children and grandchildren will pay for it. Most of them ran for election or re-election in 2008, as did the President, on the massive spending of President Bush. In 280 days of the Obama Administration they have outspent by vast margins any spending in the eight years of the Bush Administration and the debt being charged up is approaching a greater amount than all the debt of the Bush years combined. Coming home to cities on the verge of bankruptcy, states on the verge of bankruptcy and constituents out of work, members of Congress are being asked to explain how they can be spending more and more and endebting future tax revenues to pay back Chinese investment in Treasury bonds.

In March President Obama was on television with a very patriotic setting, standing on a flag filled stage with his Secretary of State and several senior officers in the military and declared he has a policy for Afghanistan. He stated winning the war in Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban was a top priority. This summer the Taliban gained a few toeholds and key routes from bases in Pakistan into Afghanistan and began an offensive against NATO and American troops. Slowly they regained control over parts of the country and its people. Certain factions of the Democratic Party were upset that Obama was keeping troops in Afghanistan instead of pulling them out. As the general leading the fight in Afghanistan called for more troops to achieve the objective of winning the war and destroying the Taliban, Obama went into decision mode. This has entailed several weeks, months, of consideration. During this period of consideration and no decision Obama has taken the time, several times, to blame his predecessor for Afghanistan and he is trying to find the best way to deal with it. Seemingly forgetting his own pronouncement in March that he has enacted his policy and his objective to win the war, with this policy not working it is convenient to skip over March and instead flip back to his go to target: Bush and Republicans.

No leadership on health care reform that is leaving his party fractionalized, a Treasury that is selling hundreds of billions of dollars in debt weekly, his only major piece of legislation that has had none of the intended impact, inability to make a declarative decision--or stick with a previous one--on a war, have left President Obama very open to criticism. How has he dealt with it? Blame a cable news network, blame radio hosts, blame political opponents and go raise money for the party. By putting targets out there for his ardent supporters, targets at Fox News, targets on Rush Limbaugh, targets on Republican members of Congress, targets on Bush, Obama takes focus off of his lack of leadership to achieve goals.

Lack of leadership is not the reason cohesive health care reform has not passed in Congress, lack of leadership is not the reason we have burgeoning deficits and debt, lack of leadership is not why we are stuck in "what now?" in Afghanistan; no these problems exist because Fox News asks hard questions that other media are not, Rush Limbaugh leads the Republican Party, the Republican Party is evil in the pockets of special interests bent on destroying the Administration and Bush is to blame for Afghanistan and everything else.

Evading responsibility, evading major policy pronouncements and supporting them through Congress, evading making difficult decisions that will upset some within his own party have put a leak in Obama's balloon. What is leaking is his political capital as members of his party are seeing how little support they are getting for their policies and objectives. Like foot soldiers in some 17th Century battle, members of Congress are being sent out to face the enemy, being sacrificed so as to protect the King behind the lines of battle. While sitting in the castle making pronouncements and blaming others, the loyal foot soldiers press on into the arrows, spears and swords. Foot soldiers who can be sacrificed as long as the King remains popular. As President Obama's political capital runs to empty, so to does that of his loyal foot soldiers.

If I'm a Congressional Democrat I'm pissed.

Health Care Reform Questions That Linger

Questions continue in the health care debate across the country. While every weekend I ask "Just Some Questions" for readers, here are some questions on unresolved issues that face Congress when it reconvenes in September.

The 111th Congress reconvenes in a few weeks, gathering its members from across the country as they return to Washington from visiting their Districts and their constituents. This summer has been different than any summer in recent memory as traditional summer townhall meetings and meet and greets staged by members of both the House and Senate have been the focal point of the health care reform debate. At the center is HR 3200, a proposed bill that runs 1,017 pages as currently offered by the government printing office. Typical summer vacation meet and greets and townhall meetings with members of Congress attract thirty or forty people at most, this summer's meetings have seen overflow crowds and Americans speaking directly to their elected representatives for the first time in generations. With almost 24/7 coverage of the health care reform debate, okay argument, in this country, there are many questions and issues that I feel Congress must address when its summer hiatus is over.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin created a mini-storm within the storm when she wrote on her Facebook page about "death panels" staffed by government officials who would determine which citizens would be approved to receive which treatments. Mocked, scorned and scoffed at by many, Palin stood her ground and wrote a follow up post on her Facebook page that provided more details and connecting of the dots from HR 3200 that outlined coverage by government insurance of family doctors having end of life consultations with patients, and ability to introduce no extreme measures authorizations among other issues that could be discussed. President Obama reacted by saying, "we won't be pulling the plug on Grandma." Palin and others countered that the intent and attitude of HR 3200 is to use cost-benefit analysis in determining what care can be administered; between cost-benefit analysis of keeping Grandma alive and her consultation with her doctor whom she trusts she may pull the plug on herself. When looked at rationally the argument makes sense. So much sense that members of the Senate Finance Committee have already stated they are pulling any end-of-life consultations out of any bill before them, "it's too confusing" said one member.

Against this background with the House change, modify or delete the end-of-life language in its current version?

With its new name, or new to me, Pharma, Pharmaceutical companies have long been the bad guy in any health care discussion. The number one argument made about Pharma is the huge profits they make and the incredibly expensive costs of their products--particularly products that are mostly consumed by senior citizens on fixed retirement incomes. Not presented in any of those arguments are how Research and Development costs impact those profits. As outlined in a Congressional Budget Office report Pharma's R&D costs and the number of drugs approved for market have a big impact on their profit numbers. "Adjusted for the value of its R&D assets, the drug industry's actual profitability still appears to be somewhat higher than the average for all U.S. industries, but not two to three times higher, as standard measures of profitability indicate." Pharma pays taxes on its profits and then puts money into the approximately $800 million per drug in R&D for new products. Obviously drug companies make money, otherwise they would not be in business. As obviously the profits they make that allow them to stay in business is beneficial not only for the American public but is a global benefit as Pharma has developed drugs that cure cancer, prevent pregnancies, prevent major illnesses like polio, cure our hangovers and allow better performance in certain parts of our lives. With the long and protracted process of getting a drug from laboratory to pharmacy shelf the overall cost of drug development climbs every year. For many years Pharma has been one of the go to whipping dogs of the Democrats when they jumped on the health care soap box. A few weeks ago it was leaked that the White House made a deal with Pharma without bringing in any members of Congress--yes a secret, backroom deal from the Obama Administration with the Pharma lobbyists. In exchange for $150 million in support for advertising and public relations for the Democrats health care reform, the reform would include caps on drug costs that Pharma could accept to maintain their profitability.

How will the majority in Congress deal with the deal made between the President and Pharma? Will they compromise their desire to cap drug costs at a higher level and respect the President's deal and $150 million cost for the deal to Pharma?

Currently hospitals must treat all who enter their facilities for service. The financial problems often begin after treatment has started or ended. In California if a patient comes into a hospital that is not contracted with MediCal, once the patient is stable for transport the hospital must contact hospitals in the region to see if any have beds available to accept the patient. For both MediCal/Medicaid and Medicare, once a patient leaves a hospital a bill is presented to the appropriate government bureaucracy for payment. The bureaucracy then replies back, often at a much reduced payment and multiple denials of coverage for days in the hospital, treatment, etc. After the patient has been stabilized and sent home or to another hospital, in other words once the sick patient is cured, the government entity responsible for payment denies payment to the hospital for some of the treatment provided. This post-treatment denial of coverage, decisions made by government employees without medical degrees or training, costs hospitals, doctors, laboratories, technicians, billions of dollars every year.

In HR 3200 is a lot of language about cost-benefit decisions on care. Currently those decisions are being made by government health insurance programs after care has been provided and costing our health care system billions of dollars. Expanding this process to even more patients across the country will lead to even more treatment of patients with even less payment. How will you balance the cost-benefit treatment analysis with keeping hospitals open?

HR 3200 is over 1,000 pages in length. It is incredibly detailed and complicated. This has been one of the biggest arguments against HR 3200, because of its length and complexity almost no one who reads it can understand all of it. Of all I have read and seen, the public's questions of their Representatives, the one most often repeated is, "How can you vote for something you do not understand?"

Will members of the House and Senate work to simplify HR 3200 so that most Americans, let's even say most Americans with a college degree, can read and understand the bill? Will members of Congress read the final bill before voting to pass it?

One of the biggest arguments in favor of health care reform is health insurance companies denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. This pre-existing condition denial happens most often when an individual or family moves from one insurance company to another, which happens most often when the primary beneficiary changes employment. With the average American being much more mobile in employment between companies over his/her career than in the past, with the growing number of self-employed or independent contractors in American, more and more Americans every year are in a position where they do not qualify for a company based insurance program, or must go through the expensive COBRA option. Our health care system has evolved, through government encouragement and directive, so that employers have become responsible for the health insurance of their workers and their families. This costs employers, including public entities, billions of dollars every year in costs and at the same time limits the insurance choices now and in the future of its workers--many Americans stay in jobs they hate because of the insurance coverage for their family, especially if they have a child with a specific condition that would prevent them from getting insured from a new company should they change employers.

Will Congress create a plan that would make it more beneficial for Americans to purchase and maintain their health insurance coverage as individuals instead of their having to purchase their insurance through their employers--or the government? Will Congress changes the rules so that insurance companies can offer coverage across state lines without being subject to multiple state rules and allow a family to stay with the same carrier through many jobs, many moves and changes in their conditions?

Many have used the argument for the end of July push to get HR 3200 passed in a couple of weeks that, "we have had over 40 years to fix this, hasn't it been enough time." Or, "the Republicans had eight years to fix the health care system and didn't do it." Well yes, the Republicans had the White House for 8 years under George W. Bush and there was no health care reform, and before that the Democrats had the White House under Bill Clinton with no health care reform, and before that the Republicans had the White House for 12 years between George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and....during this time the Congress was at various times controlled by one party or the other. Just because several Administrations and Congresses have not addressed health care reform seems to be a reason for pushing through lengthy and complex legislation that has been read nor understood by almost no members of Congress, unless you just want reform of any kind without concern as to the consequences of the reform.

Will Congress take a measured approach to health care reform and divide the reform into manageable segments with the agreement of both parties? Will Congress enable thoughtful discussion and debate on a piece by piece basis addressing the current private and public insurance options, reimbursement of health care providers giving care to uninsured, ability to continue insurance with the same carrier and doctors throughout ones career/life, simplifying billing an reimbursement processes, government involvement in health care delivery and approvals?

Finally, can members of Congress, particularly those in leadership positions, quit with the divisive politics and name calling? Can members of Congress accept that most Americans consider government involvement in their health care to be somewhat scary, very unknown as to what it will mean to their future and the future of their families and very personal and as such they do not want political rhetoric, name calling and dismissive remarks and behavior? Can members of Congress do what they have been selected by the American people to do, which is to lead with the consent of their constituents?

Most Americans want our current health care system to undergo some changes and reform, our disagreements are over how those come about and what the total reform needs to be. Can members of Congress understand they can achieve national unity with a clear stated final objectives and then work together for common ground on how to achieve those objectives?

In about fifteen months every member of the House of Representatives and about one-third of the members of the Senate are facing re-election. How these members of Congress perform in the coming months on the health care reform issue will matter greatly in November 2010, for there has not been an issue in the past few decades that has gained the attention of so many Americans with disparate views. Not wars, not economies, not political scandal. Not since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s have so many Americans who are usually silent raised their voices on an issue. Do members of Congress hear those voices? Are they all listening?

.

Labels: What Am I? What Are You?

"He's a solid Democrat." "She's a good social conservative." "That guy is so liberal, he's just a moon bat." "They are very Green, what a good example." "Republicans are all wing nuts." "Liberals are ruining this country." "She's moderate."

Fundamentalist, socialist, hard liner, liberal, conservative, wing-nut, moon bat, extremist, moderate, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Green, and many more are the labels we use to label ourselves and each other. But are they accurate? What do they mean? The saying is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I say ideological and political labelling is in the definition of the labeller.

How often is it that we comment about someone, "Boy that person is so (fill in the blank: liberal, conservative, extremist) only to have a friend or someone say, "Oh I don't think so. I think s/he's rather moderate." Our President is a very good example. Poll the country to place him on the political scale of extreme liberal (far left) to extreme conservative (far right) and the chances are the arrow will rest somewhere just to the left of center. Many of those who voted for him will consider him somewhat moderate--most Americans do not want to be led by someone they consider very liberal or very conservative so they will not identify someone as such that they support. Many of those who did not vote for him will label him liberal or an extreme liberal. Many of those to the far left of the political scale will think he is too conservative--especially since his inauguration with the many policies of President Bush he has continued.

Which label is correct? Are these labels fair? Do they help us in identifying someone and their ideals, opinions and character?

I have been thinking about this idea of labels following the comments made on my post last week on "Lady Justice and SCOTUS" . The discussion, and thank you everyone for your civility, allowed for labels of liberal, conservative, activist, etc. based on the arguments posited. One issue, one opinion, one label. So using this context, one issue, and the prevailing labels of our day, what label do we put on this person:

This person: is in favor of legal abortions with limitations, wants a strong military and international presence, supports gay marriage and the Iraq War, is in favor of very strong border control and repealing the 14th Amendment but feels there is a limited amnesty solution to illegal immigration, strongly opposes higher taxes and big government, supports conservation efforts within reason but agrees with those scientists debunking global warming. Liberal due to stances on gay rights, abortion, amnesty? Conservative due to stances on 14th Amendment, Iraq, taxes and limited government? When voting this person can find issues with which to agree with a Democrat on social issues and with a Republican on economic and political issues.

What am I? How am I labelled? In my own family I am too liberal on many issues. To my friends I am too conservative on issues. Am I a moderate because I move across the political spectrum from issue to issue? Many have said, "You are a Libertarian." And in looking at the party of Libertarians and the candidates they have put forth I cringe.

What about you? Are you in agreement with all the solutions presented for the issues by the political party with which you affiliate? If you are unaffiliated and registered as an Independent what is the filter by which you determine for whom to vote? Is there one issue that presents itself that is your guide? A series of issues?

In 1984 I did my senior thesis on the decline of party identification from Eisenhower's election in 1952 through Reagan's election in 1980. During that period a series of issues came forth that became the primary filter for most Americans. They identified less with the political parties of their parents and through the social discourse and discord of the period found specific issues to claim as their political identity. Without conducting any research, but just based on my observations, readings and listening, if I were to recreate my thesis today covering from 1980 through the Obama election in 2008 my thesis would not be the decline of party identification but the decline of issue oriented identification. Given the rise in Independent registration the thesis seemingly would be disproved, however the rise of electronic media has given rise to so many specific issues that voters have become more attuned to the labels, which connote ideology, which they feel they can more easily identify with or be repelled from.

Back to our labels. Why do we label? Is it because it makes it easier for us to define someone? One argument that is often made, and I find to be true, is that when we label someone it makes it easier for us to dismiss them. If I do not like your position on gay rights I can simply label you a bigot and then because you are a bigot I do not need to listen to you--you are dismissed. But I know many people against gay rights that I know not to be bigots, that I know to be compassionate people with a diverse range of relationships and great moral compasses. But taken on one issue they are easily labelled and dismissed. As in our discussion on SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor, based on the opinion presented we can easily label that person based on our definitions and their arguments. But can we dismiss them?

So what am I? What are you? I am against illegal immigration and the huge financial burden placed on the American tax payer and social services by illegal immigrants--am I a bigot? I supported and still support the decision to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein--am I a war monger? I support personal responsibility and accountability, less government intervention and support in people's lives who have made bad decisions and more feeling of the consequences of those bad decisions--am I lacking compassion?

What difference does your label of me make? None really. I am uncaring of what you label me, as long as you do not use that label to dismiss me. Label me, your neighbor, the columnist and the commentator, label everyone how you will, but do not use the label as an excuse not to listen to what someone has to say and the opinion they present. I often learn more from those with whom I disagree than I learn from those with who I do agree. Were I to label and dismiss this would not be the case--I would never learn anything but what those with whom I agree desire me to learn.

What am I? What are you?

.

Whither the Republican Party?

I was born into a multi-generational Republican family, on both sides. My mother's parents were active in the party in Sacramento for decades. My father's grandfather upon hearing his great grandson, my brother, born in December 1960 just one month after JFK's election said, "what the hell did you name him that for?" when told his name was Michael Kennedy Smith. Upon being told the "Kennedy" was the maiden name of the baby's mother Pa, as he was known, muttered, "I guess that's okay then." Ask my brother and sister what bumper sticker adorned the back left spot on the bumper of our station wagon from 1968 until well into the 1970's and they would tell you "Bellmon" who was governor of Oklahoma. That same year, 1968, our mother was a delegate from the State of Oklahoma to the Republican National Convention in Miami; there to cast her vote for Richard Millhouse Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew. Yes I was reared in the shadow of the elephant. And I'm pissed to see where the once Grand Old Party lies today.

Much is being made of whether the Grand Old Party is dying, and I say to that: I do not think it is dying I think it has been killed. The lethal instrument was the GOP membership in Congress from 2000 through 2008--during President Bush's administration. The lethal means was fiscal imprudence and failure to follow one of the principles listed on the GOP.com website, "I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn." Not only did the Republican majority achieved in 2002 in both houses ignore and abuse the first part of this statement, they ignored and abused their party's leader in the White House. Sure they stood by President Bush on national security matters, and he aided them by signing budgets that increased the size of the Federal Government and spending, but they abandoned him on his efforts to reform Social Security allowing the Democrats to capture the dialogue with the public and never standing up to them. When that occured the Republicans lost control of any positive messages on any issue. They rolled over and the Democrats and press took advantage. The GOP was mortally wounded.

Many registered Republicans like myself started telling the party when they would call for donations or send "how are we doing polls" to quit spending like Democrats and to show some fiscal responsibility--in essence those we helped elect needed to follow their own principles. Once the Republican members of Congress and the Republican President began growing the budget and earmarks and reckless spending they lost countless moderate Republicans across the country. How could someone who believes in limited government, fiscal constraint and less taxes support a politician campaigning on those issues while voting different? Confidence was lost, the message was lost and the Party was truly an elephant; plodding through the new media and it use in campaigns and organizing at the grass roots. Democrats were able to adequately frame the party on strictly social issues: abortion, gay rights, minority rights and women's rights. While poll after poll showed that only a small percentage of voters agreed with the extreme liberal positions on these issues (limited restraint on abortions, gay marriage Constitutional Amendment, maintain affirmative action quotas) the whole Republican Party was framed and presented as supporting the extreme conservative positions on these issues (no abortion under any circumstances, no gay marriage or rights, not only no affirmative action but no consideration to be given based on race/gender). Coupled with the repeating of the lie that Bush's tax cuts only benefited the wealthy and the Repbulican Party let itself be presented by the opposition.

Those who know me in my Long Beach community would often be surprised when they learned I am a registered Republican--not a real common thing in Long Beach anyway--like they expected me to have fangs, horns and a tail. That was the result of consistent demonizing of my party, and therefore my affiliation. Many moderate Republicans grew weary of the association, grew weary of the lack of adherence to basic principles of the Republican Party and left, becoming Independents or in many, many cases registering as Democrats. The middle ground where over 60% of American voters reside politically, was lost. With it went the hopes of the Republican's future.

Here in California it is even worse for the Republicans than it is nationally. In California there are millions of voters who, if they were to ably listen, agree with many of the principles of the Republican Party when it comes to national security, the economy, fiscal responsibility, taxes and the purpose of government. They become lost when the only voices being heard from Republicans are about social issues to which they disagree. Take out the extreme positions of the far right on gay rights and abortion and it is my belief that the Republicans could take the majority in the State of California within two elections--provided their is cohesive organization and strict adherence to a couple of simple principles: lower taxes, shrink the size of the state government. But unfortunately it is easy to defeat the party because those who control it do take the extreme position on social issues thereby minimizing the chances of anyone who is moderate on those issues to receive the needed support to win.

I feel I am a very typical Republican in California, or potential Republican. I am for law and order and abiding by the rules. When in doubt read the Constitution. The lowest tier of government should have the most control on exactly how funds should be spent, no specific mandates from the Federal Government or the State Government---give the money to the local school district and let them spend it how that district needs it spent. The needs in Fresno are not the same as the needs in San Juan Capistrano so do not mandate the same programs. Lower taxes create more jobs and economic growth, it has been proven again, and again, and again. Get rid of the overwhelming influence of the public employees unions on our elections. They dictate who wins primaries and elections and therefore they dictate policy and laws that benefit them and hurt the general public. Protect me and my family. Secure the borders, quit wasting billions on anti- this and pro-that feel good programs that have solved no problems such as gangs, graffitti, truancy, teen pregnancy and other issues that create more waste of public safety, health care and education funds to deal with these costly segments of our communities.

Fiscal prudence, public safety, limited government concentrated at the local level where those who know best what is needed are able to direct resources more efficiently. Individuals and communities need to be responsible and accountable, quit molly-coddling those who are not. Sounds good to many people.

At the same time I am for abortion in many circumstances, but not all. I am for gay marriage; if the state is providing a license, and it is called a "marriage license" then it should be available to hetero- and homo-sexual couples alike. These two issues alone are minor on most people's political decision making process--but unfortunately they are now the litmus test for support from those with the funding and the organizations. Essentially in California a bright young person with views similar to mine, and the majority of Californians according to polls, cannot get elected.

The leadership of the Republican Party, both in the state and nationally, better be pretty darned scared of the future of that which they lead. Rich Galen, a national political writer and commentator, who worked with Newt Gingrich and other high profile Republicans through the years, a staunch Republican and with a huge national following on his thrice-weekly blog Mullings has opined that now may be the time for a third party. And he may be right. If properly formed and organized it certainly tempts me. The current third, fourth, fifth parties are not appealing to moderates like myself due to their history and the looniness of many of their candidates.

How does the GOP recapture registered voters? How does it recapture votes and win elections? Simple. Get on the street. Hold regular face-to-face meetings with voters, and not white voters in Orange County, but with black pastors, hispanic business owners, local community leaders, college and high school students. Sit down with them and show them the principles of the Republican Party. Explain to them the loss of the message, the need to rebuild the party, the desire to work to return hard earned dollars and paid taxes to their pocket and their communities; not through government stimulus packages which are wasteful and inefficient, not through one time programs that have too many restrictions and rules, but in funding of local government with broad guidelines: educate, protect, build.

Unless the Republican Party, and especially those elected under the banner of the elephant, begin acting like Republicans on major issues of defense, public safety, education, fiscal responsibility and the economy no amount of outreach will recapture the passion of those like me. But with demonstrated leadership and consistent votes by those elected it becomes easier to point to them and their commitment when giving a personal message.

Whither the Republican Party? Yes, whithered indeed, but it is possible to have a bright future.

Do The Math On Taxes

Math Problem #1: Tax burden increase on Californians. Remembering all the rhetoric from Democrats the past several years about “the working family” and “saving/protecting the middle class” and the “working poor”, remembering their rhetoric let’s see how their huge tax bill they passed in Sacramento last week (with a few Republican accomplices) helped these families. There are tax calculators all over the web for you to put in your own numbers, here’s one to save you the Google search. If you take a reasonable middle class family, Mom and Dad both work—let’s say they are both teachers and while not new not yet at the average salary and make $45,000 each for a total of $90,000. They each have a car, let’s say a minivan and a small SUV or crossover worth about $25,000 each for a total of $50,000 and they also have two kids. Under the taxes just passed in Sacramento this family’s tax payments will increase by $1227.

Now let’s say there is a hip young professional with no kids, has his master’s degree and works for the state college system as a senior administrator pulling down $140,000 annually and drives a sporty BMW X5. With no kids and a higher salary the tax burden on this young man will increase $966 per year. Making 55% more money that our married family and with no children to support gives a tax advantage of $261 per year to Californians.

So next time you hear anyone from Sacramento talking about budgets and helping America’s or California’s families ask them if they voted for the tax increases in February 2009—if they are in office and a Democrat they did—and then know they could care less about families and “working people” as they are typically defined.

Math Problem #2: President Obama and the Democrats hit the national campaign trail hot and heavy in 2008 giving speeches about how they were going to also help the middle class and unless you were in the top 5% of income earners in the United States you would not see your taxes go up. This past week Obama began the tax talk and has spoken about increasing the marginal tax rate for America’s highest income earners to help pay down the deficit—including the $2 trillion they just added to the deficit with the Porkies I stimulus plan.

A few weeks ago Obama and Congress announced that they were going to cap the pay of individuals who are employed by firms who received TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program—the $750 billion bank and Wall Street bailout from October 2008) to $500,000. This was met with widespread applause and happiness from many in America who feel that if the banks have gotten $350 billion of tax payer money—never mind that it was traded for stock—that those in charge should have their income capped at a “reasonable level.” Given that the former head of Merrill Lynch was seeking a $10 million bonus for leading his company into an $11 billion loss and extinction the sentiment is very understandable. But the universe operates on cause and effect and not every plan is perfect.

This plan has a few flaws however and this is where some math will come in. First the caps also apply to commissioned individuals—those on commission get paid based on what they earn for the company. With the new caps after a very successful broker hits his $500,000 limit with say Chase he can/will quit and go to Citi and earn his next $500k taking his clients with him. What will occur is a huge merry-go-round of talented sales people through Wall Street brokerages as they maximize their personal income under the TARP compensation limits. But this is just part of the flaw. Let’s get to the math.

Under the current tax tables individuals earning over $372,950 are in the 35% tax bracket. So capping income at $500,000 caps the marginal tax amount on earnings over $372,950 at $44,500 to use round numbers ($500,000 – 372,950 = 127,050 x 35% = $44,500). Given the numbers on Wall Street I am going to use for my math problem the number that 200 individuals have earnings over $5,000,000 and work(ed) for TARP companies.
If there are 200 individuals with income of $5 million their marginal tax amount is $1,619,500 (rounded up $32.50) per person, or approximately $324 million collectively. With Obama’s compensation caps these individuals will now pay $9 million in marginal taxes in the 35% bracket, a loss of approximately $315 million to the Treasury. Sniffing around the internet my estimates of 200 individuals and $5 million is very conservative and it is likely the compensation cap imposed by Washington on Wall Street will result in a loss of income tax revenue far greater than $315 million. But at least we all feel good about capping what those greedy b**stards make! Right?

Twit, Twit, Twittering

So I guess I am twittering now, plus the Facebook thing, and the LinkedIn; I am so connected I must be only two degrees from Kevin Bacon at this point. So you can twit me at http://twitter.com/dcslb if you wish to twit me or what ever it is called. My brother sent me a twit and I decided to check it out because I had heard Hugh Hewitt and several guests on his show the past few weeks speaking about twitter. It costs nothing (but time spent setting up, surfing, etc, etc) and if it can enrich my life (literally if anyone needs a mortgage in California who is reading this) there is no harm in being a twit.

What I can see from my first experience and about twenty minutes is that twitter has a long way to go, a very, very long way to go, to be anything near Facebook in terms of connecting people. It appears several applications are down this evening, it is not easy to search for someone and to "link" them (or "follow" in twit terms). From conversations on the Hugh Hewitt radio show it seems a lot of members of the GOP and conservatives are using twitter to try to close the technological gap on the Democrats--which as was seen in the recent election is huge. From my brief experience thus far twitter is about 1998 in terms of technology. If key members of the GOP are counting on this to return to a majority in Congress then I better get used to Madame Speaker Pelosi for at least four more years.

Anyone out there twit? Let me know some tips as to how to navigate and why I should be using twitter.