Truth in Advertising... Please!

This rant brought to you by the Sacramento Bee.

Once again, I went nuts reading this headline in the Sacramento Bee…

Westly: Free tuition for 2-year college

TNSTAAFL!
Free? According to the story, “Westly predicted that it would cost $100 million to $200 million to make community college degree programs free, depending on student enrollment.”

Who’s $100 million to $200 million? That’s right, yours! You, the taxpayer, will have to pay the bill. Not the student who benefits from the college education. Not the parents who want their child succeed in the marketplace. Not an employer who wants a better educated employee. You.

Truth in advertising would require the newspaper headline and Mr. Westly to correctly identify this proposal as a fully taxpayer subsidized community college program. I emphasize fully subsidized because the community college program is already massively subsidized - a student only pays approximatly $1,560 in tuition for a two year degree ($26 per unit x 60 units).

Buying Your Vote
Mr. Westly’s proposal proves one thing – he has already started stumbling over himself to compete with Phil Angelides for the title of big government liberal. As each mighty Lilliputian bids the other up in an effort to win the Democrat nomination, keep your hand on your wallet. After all, somebody has got to pay for all of this free stuff.

Representative Doolittle – Please Explain

According to the Associated Press, published in the San Jose Mercury News, Representative John Doolittle intervened on behalf of two Indian tribes who were clients of Jack Abramoff.

From the Mercury News, “GOP Rep. John Doolittle wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton in June 2003 criticizing the Bush administration's response to a tribal government dispute involving the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. In October 2003, Doolittle appealed in a letter to the secretary for quicker action for a Massachusetts tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoag, that was seeking federal recognition.

“Both tribes signed on with Abramoff's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, that year. Sac & Fox hired the firm in May, the Wampanoags in November. Neither tribe appears tied to Doolittle's rural Northern California district, and Doolittle is not on the House committee that handles Indian issues.”

According to the Sacramento Bee article, “In lodging a complaint against the closing of a casino, Doolittle appeared to contradict a career-long stance against gambling.

“Aides pointed to his opposition to gambling two months ago as an explanation for why Doolittle had signed a separate congressional letter aimed at blocking the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians from opening a casino in Louisiana. Two of Abramoff's tribal clients viewed that casino as competition.

“With scrutiny of Doolittle's ties to Abramoff on the rise, his aides said he had signed the letter not to help Abramoff but because he opposed gambling.

“"It should come as no surprise that Congressman Doolittle would sign a letter opposing Indian gaming, since he has an established 25-year record of fighting against the expansion of all forms of gaming here in California and across the country," said Laura Blackann, Doolittle's communications director.”

I have no problem with candidates accepting money for re-election; and I believe principled people can accept a check from anyone and then go vote their conscience. I have defended Congressman Doolittle to anyone with whom I have discussed this issue because I believe him to be a principled man and a man of conviction. But, the letters cited in the AP article and the Sacramento Bee article are cause for concern. When an elected official does something out of character it raises questions. Those questions will have to be addressed to the public; it is my hope that there is a simple explanation.

This Is a Stickup I’m Running For Office – Give Me Your Money

Today the Assembly passed an “intent” version of Assemblywoman Loni Hancock’s taxpayer funded political campaigns bill, AB 583. The bill was stripped down to state the “intent” of the Legislature and then moved to the Senate by a vote of 47-31.

Rules, We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules
The reason the bill was stripped down to “intent” language was to remove the appropriation necessary to give taxpayer dollars to political candidates and to make the bill no longer an actual amendment to the Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA and an appropriation both require a 2/3 vote; a pesky little constitutional problem as Democrats see it. Realizing they couldn’t move AB 583 out of the Assembly before the “two-year bill” deadline (January 31st), Democrats stripped the bill down to “intent” language (thereby removing the appropriation and effectively no longer amending the PRA) allowing the bill to pass by a simple majority vote. The purpose of moving a bill in this fashion is to bypass those pesky rules and that pesky constitution; nobody believes that the bill will not have its’ language restored in the Senate. The bill will die an appropriate death in the upper house, but moving the “intent” language keeps the bill “in play;” so much for following the rules, or at least the spirit of the rules.

Public Financing is a Bad Idea
I commend your attention to two previous posts in this forum: First, Nurses’ Union - A Shameful and Blatant Political Power Grab; and second, Political and Campaign Finance Reform.

I also found the commentary, Soggy Bucks by Jerry Davis at CaliCapia amusing.

"Windfall" Profit Penalty Killed on Assembly Floor

AB 673 (Klehs), an attempt to punish California’s oil producers, failed today on the Assembly Floor. The final vote is yet to be determined because the bill is currently “on call.” But, given the lack of “aye” votes on the first ballot and the fact that this tax increase requires a 2/3 vote of the Assembly, it is safe to declare that this bad idea is dead… for now.

Where Have All the Children Gone?

The Impact of Liberalism

The recent criticism of Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Mark Leno caused me to think about a story from last year; a story about San Francisco and the dwindling number of children in the city by the bay.

An Exodus of Children
In March of 2005 the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to stem the exodus of families with children from San Francisco. According to the 2000 census San Francisco’s child population is about 14.5% of the city’s population – that is about half of the average for cities across the state and the nation. In response to the dwindling population, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formed a council to address the underlying issues that drive families with children away from the city.

A Digression
The liberal left has an insatiable appetite to answer every problem by forming a government council or commission to "study" the problem and then propose more government spending in an effort to implement "solutions" identified by the government council or commission. I remember when the state of California decided to form a commission on families with the original intent to address issues that were contributing to the breakdown of the nuclear family. It took the commission months to even define what constitutes a family – and the final definition was so broad that it would have included two members of the same college fraternity. Disgusted by the process, Assemblyman Tim Leslie resigned from the state commission.

Of Course Families with Children Are Fleeing
Perhaps if San Francisco wants to better understand why families with children have fled the city and why families with children refuse to move into the city, they could take a moment to meet Assemblyman Mark Leno. It has become fashionable to criticize Mr. Leno for his avid protection of perverts who possess child pornography and criminals in general. The criticism is appropriate and accurate; but my point is a little broader.

Mark Leno is not an aberration; he is typical of those who make up the political class in San Francisco. The same political class that has brought the people of San Francisco (for example) the Bay to Breakers run (pictured on the right) where hundreds (if not thousands) of people run around the city in the nude, and the San Francisco gay rights parade. It is a city where “tolerance” of anything sexual is acceptable, and “intolerance” for the norms of society is celebrated. As a father, I am hesitant to take my children to San Francisco and I can’t even imagine permenantly moving them into the city which, due to its’ extremist political class, has become a cesspool of perversion.

Lois Capps - U.S. Term Limits Headed for a Showdown?

When Rep. Lois Capps Fails to Keep Her Promise Will U.S. Term Limits Care?

Three terms, that’s what she promised in 1998. Of course, when Lois Capps made that promise everyone knew she didn’t mean it; everyone except U.S. Term Limits. It was the financing from U.S. Term Limits that helped Lois Capps defeat Republican Tom Bordonaro.

Tom Bordonaro, a conservative, supported term limits, but refused to sign a pledge to self limit. Lois Capps did not, and does not, believe in term limits, but signed the pledge by U.S. Term Limits stating at the time that she’d likely not run for a fourth term due to her age.

It has been six years - three terms; will Lois Capps keep her promise? If she doesn’t will U.S. Term Limits help defeat her? In 2000 U.S. Term Limits spent some where in the vicinity of $1 million going after Republican George Nethercutt for breaking his pledge. Allowing Lois Capps to slide by after her cynical signing of the term limits pledge will leave a bad taste in the mouth of California Republicans who remember very well how U.S. Term Limits delivered an important victory to the Democrats in 1998.

Political and Campaign Finance Reform

Political reform again in vogue, but history bodes ill for 'clean money'
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist

“The political reformers term their current cause "clean money" - providing public funds to candidates if they agree to limit spending to the amounts provided, modeled after fairly new programs in a couple of other states.

“At least (Assemblymember) Hancock and her allies are sincere, if misguided. The California Nurses Association, however, is being cynical by cherry-picking portions of her measure, and the "clean money" title, for its new ballot initiative… (emphasis added)

“It's been said before, but bears repeating: The only "reform" that makes sense is complete and immediate disclosure of contributions, with draconian penalties for obscuring their amounts or sources, then letting the chips fall where they may as voters are told who's giving to whom.”

Read the full article here.

Dan Walters is correct; I wrote a very similar commentary earlier this week which can be read here.

Getting It Right

From today's Roundup...

Guess who may get involved in California's next clemency hearing? No less than former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, according to the Bee. "Starr could not be reached for comment Thursday. An ACLU press release said Starr is getting involved in the Morales case because the condemned inmate "immediately took responsibility for his actions, was distraught with remorse and has made impressive and consistent efforts to atone for his crime while in prison."

See Bill? All you had to do was take some responsibility.

The Roundup commentary (See Bill?...) is absolutely true - they get it right! Had President Clinton actually just admitted to his affairs and not perjured himself in sworn testimony, he never would have been impeached. I also think that while most people would have been disgusted by the President having sex with an intern in the oval office, they would have probably forgiven a truly repentant President. Bottom line, Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior was not the cause of his impeachment; it was his unwillingness to take responsibility for that behavior that led him to commit felony perjury in a court of law. I don't know if the Roundup staff realized it, but what they wrote is absolutely correct.

Spotted Under the Dome

Former U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in the capitol today - when I saw him he was ducking in the Senate Pro Tempore Don Perata's office. Anybody know what Mr. Gephardt was doing in town? Is he a player in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary? Too bad he moved so far to the left during his years in the House - when he first arrived on Capitol Hill he was a good vote for life.

Battle of the Lilliputians

State Controller Steve Westly is launching his first television ads in his bid for the Democrat nomination for governor. Reportedly, his ads will air in Chico. This is funny, because Chico is home to Jane Dolan's husband Bob Mulholland. Bob Mulholland is also, by the way, a dirty tricks specialist for the California Democrat party and a senior advisor to gubernatorial wannabe Phil Angelides. I am sure the "small market test" of Mr. Westly's campaign message in the back yard of Mr. Angelides' chief advisor was no accident. I give credit to Mr. Westly and Garry South for this stunt. So starts the battle of the Lilliputians.

Torn Between Two Lovers
Having cast himself as a "pro-business moderate" Steve Westly's biggest challenge will be capturing the base of Democrats in the party primary election in June. To emerge victorious, he will have to convince party loyalists that he has not abandoned his very liberal roots without destroying his chances of appealing to moderate voters in the November general election.

Phil Angelides' credentials as a card-carrying leftwing looney are totally in tact. He not only countenanced the abhorrent behavior of Bob Mulholland during his stint as Democrat party chairman, he has brought his buddy "Baghdad" Bob onto the campaign - that alone makes him good with party activists. The challenge Angelides faces is not winning the affection of party loyalists; rather it will be in convincing party financiers that he can actually win in November.

The Remaking of Westly
Make no mistake about the liberal credentials of Steve Westly. His transformation from a leftist Jimmy Carter delegate to "moderate" eBay business executive was one that occurred not by choice, but instead due to the thwarting of Mr. Westly's political ambitions by former governor Jerry Brown.

As a young man, just 24 years old, Steve Westly was elected Treasurer of the California Democrat Party (CDP); he advanced steadily serving as the Northern California party chairman, and later party vice chairman. Westly was in line to be party chairman of the nations' most liberal state Democrat party, and he was counting on his chairmanship to launch his career in elective office.

But, a funny thing happened on the way to the bank; Jerry Brown decided that he needed to reinvent his political career. Joined by the party's moneyed interests, Jerry Brown challenged Westly for control of the CDP. Westly appealed to party activists and ran to the left of Jerry Brown, but with the support of establishment party money Brown beat Westly.

After losing the bid for party chairman Steve Westly retreated to his alma mater Stanford to teach at the graduate business school. Through contacts he was able to be involved in some high tech startups, and eventually landed with a little company called eBay where he made his $100 million fortune.

With money in hand and no longer a need for the gritty work of rubbing elbows with party activists, Westly has been able to jumpstart his dream of running for public office. His independence from the party structure has allowed him to portray himself as a moderate; but, in doing so he also runs the risk of losing his own party nomination.

It is interesting that party moderates defeated Steve Westly in his first path to elective office, and now it appears that liberal party activists might prove to be the roadblock on this new path.

A Constructive Proposal

At 11:00 this morning Assembly Republicans rolled out their plan to substantially meet California's infrastructure needs without incurring mountains of debt. Credit it due to Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy for championing this issue; and praise is due to the hard working policy staff at the Assembly Republican Caucus for developing a positive, constructive and sensible infrastructure proposal.

Credit must also be given to Jon Fleischman at the Flashreport for scooping everyone in California with the full story - here.

I am glad to see constructive proposals introduced to meet the infrastructure needs of the state without incurring billions in debt. This is type of policy discussion that makes the legislature a great deliberative body - that's if there is any discussion; remember, the Democrats will most likely just bury this proposal. I hope I am wrong; it will be interesting to see what the Democrats and the governor do with the Assembly Republican's pay-as-you-go option.

Standing Representative Democracy on Its’ Head

Governor sidesteps assisted suicide
Dan Smith, Sacramento Bee

Dan Smith with the Sacramento Bee writes today about the governor’s comments at the annual Sacramento Press Club luncheon yesterday. When asked about legalizing assisted suicide Governor Schwarzenegger reportedly said, “I have all along never really put my own personal opinions into making policies and making those kind of, you know, especially difficult decisions like that.”

“I personally think that this is a decision that probably should go to the people, like the death penalty or other big issues," Schwarzenegger said. "I think let the people of California make that decision. I don't think that 120 legislators and I should make that decision."

It warms my heart to think that we spend our time voting for and electing people who get paid in excess of $120,000 a year so they can bypass the “hard” decisions and put them to the voters. While I do not support the assisted suicide bill, I do have to give credit to Assemblyman Lloyd Levine who evidently grasps the concept of a representative democracy. Levine reportedly said that voters expect the Legislature and the governor to decide the issue. "We're not going to punt. We're going to do our job," he said.

On Another Note
Does anyone find it odd that the governor doesn’t put his "own personal opinions into making policies”? Is this the same governor who said that his radically liberal Democrat chief of staff would carry out his policies – or implement his agenda? If the governor has no inclination to insert his personal opinions into major policy decisions, then just exactly whose opinions and ideas is Ms. Kennedy implementing?

Nurse’s Union - A Shameful and Blatant Political Power Grab

Nurses Propose Donor Limits
Today in the L.A. Times Dan Morain writes about an effort by the California Nurse’s Association (a labor union) to qualify a ballot initiative to radically change California’s campaign finance system. According to the story the nurse’s union will seek to prohibit corporate donations and establish public financing for candidates seeking office. Assembly candidates who opt for public financing will receive $250,000 for their party primary and an additional $400,000 for the general election. People running for Governor would receive $10 million and $15 million respectively. Here’s the kicker, since corporations will be banned from donating directly to candidates, nurses have decided to keep them “in the system” by paying for the public financing through higher corporate income tax rates. Evidently, the nurse’s union will allow candidates to donate as much of their own personal wealth as they want for their own campaign - how convenient since they would be Constitutionally prohibited from preventing it.

Need a Job? Run for Office.
The idea of public financing of campaigns is repugnant at cannot work. If a candidate qualifies for $250,000 in a party primary and $400,000 in a general election for an Assembly race there will surely be hundreds of candidates filing for each seat. How would taxpayers feel about financing candidates from bizarre political parties, or dozens of independents (DTS) in the general election? A general election for an Assembly seat could regularly cost taxpayers over $3.2 million ($400,000 x Republican, Democrat, American Independent, Libertarian, Green, Reform, and throw in a couple of independents for good measure). And remember, every two years all 80 Assembly candidates must run for election - that would total a mere $256 million on just the Assembly races. How about $15 million for Gary Coleman when he files again to be our Governor? Or worst, porn star Mary Carey? Just for fun, I think I might run for the Assembly and just like Representative Bob Filner, hire my wife as my campaign consultant. We could bilk the taxpayers for at least $250,000 and pocket the bulk of it. Or, what the heck, renounce my political party and we could jump right into the general election for a cool $400,000 - I think we could survive on $200,000 a year. How could you stop me? It would be unconstitutional to fund one candidate and not another if they both meet the qualifications to seek public office.

Donation Limits - Only the Rich Need Apply
Severely limiting the amount an individual or organization can contribute to a candidate diminishes the ability of the “common” person to seek public office. Under the U.S. Constitution it is impossible to limit an individual from spending as much as he wants on his own election. The only equalizer for those who are not personally wealthy is the ability to raise money through donations. The more severe the limit on individual donations, the harder it is to level the financial playing field.

A Better Solution
As long as government has an unfathomable role in regulating the market place - picking business "winners and losers" and promoting the cause of private and public employee unions oodles of money will flow into campaign coffers; no matter how the state attempts to limit that money. The only way to reduce spending on campaigns is to severly reduce the scope of government which would then remove the incentive to invest in elections. Since that won't happen and heaps of money will continue to be spent influencing elections, the best thing to do is to create transparency in our campaign finance system; eliminate limits on contribution levels and provide for full and immediate disclosure of donations. Voters would know who is financing a candidate's campaign and opponents could make an issue of it if a candidate is being "bought" by a particular special interest.

The California Nurse's Association Should Be Ashamed
This initiative is a blatant power grab and vendetta by the nurse’s union. Their claim that they are trying to cure a corrupt political system by prohibiting corporate donations to campaigns and initiatives, while allowing labor unions to donate to candidates (with limits) and initiatives does not pass the giggle test.

Every Twelve Hours

There’s an old saying that even broken clocks are right twice a day. Steve Lopez, a leftist columnist from the L.A. Times, whom I would consider a broken clock, is right in his column today.

Deals So Sweet They'll Kill Us
Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times

...If you hadn't already noticed, while the rest of us watch our retirement benefits shrivel up and blow away, public sector retirement deals are sweeter than ever. And we're footing the bill.

...Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to sound an alert last year. But the big gorilla killed any chance for a serious discussion by bullying cops, teachers and firefighters, making them out to be the bad guys.

Now there's even less of a chance for honest leadership, because it's an election year — a time when no politician dares speak the truth, especially if it means risking donations from public employee unions. Meanwhile, evidence is mounting across the state that we're headed for disaster as the bills come due on all the Cadillac retirement plans out there.

Although Right Twice Per Day, Broken Clocks are Still Broken
Lopez correctly credits the Governor for his effort to reform the public pension system. Where Mr. Lopez goes wrong is in his blaming the failure of that reform on the Governor’s tactics. History tells us that the problem was in a “drafting error” in the pension reform initiative that stripped benefits to widows of firefighters and police officers. When this error was found, the Governor rightly withdrew the initiative and public pension reform died. But, the real story and one that any inquisitive reporter would address, is why did the Governor have to take reform to the initiative process in the first place? Where were the majority Democrats in the legislature? Why did Democrats seek to destroy the public pension reform instead of constructively working on a solution to benefit California?

A Perfect Storm
Eventually, the coming pension crisis is going to hit California like a level 5 hurricane holding hands with a seven point earthquake. When municipalities begin to file bankruptcy the state will have the option of “bailing them out,” but when the state can no longer afford its obligations, where will we turn? Republicans have tried to address the public pension issue, and Democrats will have none of it. But, what can one expect of the majority Democrats when their biggest campaign contributors are public employee unions?

Marjie Lundstrom Lacks Education in Economics and Irony

Marjie Lundstrom: Irony abounds as Gap heir opposes public preschool initiative
Sacramento Bee 1/21/06

For years, the Gap stores have made money on kids, on coaxing parents (especially first-timers) to drop big bucks on trendy little outfits with matching hats and socks and shoes and other perky accessories.

So it's interesting, to say the least, that the son of Gap Inc. founder and chairman emeritus Donald Fisher - whose family fortune was built on outfitting young people - is opposing the new Preschool for All initiative.

There is no irony in a captialist opposing socialism, but for Ms. Lundstrom to understand that she would need to understand the concept of free enterprise. Perhaps if Ms. Lundstrom understood that Gap stores have been successful in a competitive marketplace; that they have provided a product that people choose to purchase over other possibilities, she would understand why Mr. Fisher opposes a state-run preschool monopoly funded by confiscating money from a small number of people.

Perhaps if more people clothed their children in products from Walmart and not from the Gap, they could afford to send their children to one of the many preschool choices they already have available. But, that would require people to value preschool more than fancy brand name clothes. As I have previously written, the only reason the socialized preschool initiative has a chance of passing is because people will vote to get something that they want if they think they do not have to pay for it (see Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL).

On another note, Ms. Lundstom fundamentally misunderstands irony. Irony illustrated: a man is on an airplane that crashes, all passengers parish except him because he was in the bathroom. Two weeks later, while sitting on the commode in his home the same man is killed when an airplane crashes into his house. That is irony. Mr. Fisher’s position on the socialized preschool initiative might be interesting, but it is not ironic. In fact, Mr. Fisher's position on socialized preschool really isn't all that interesting, it actually makes sense.

Death Penalty Moratorium – On Life Support

Soft on crime Democrats prove they are not stupid.

Assembly Bill 1121 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz to place a two year moratorium on the death penalty failed to pass out of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations yesterday which means that the bill is “dead” – or at least on life support.

Election year politics played into the decision by Assembly Democrats to hold the bill in committee. According to the AP, Koretz said, "There are enough Democrats that are worried that this would be misinterpreted - as it intentionally has been - that we made an agreement not to bring it up unless we were sure it would pass." I guess the Democrats don’t mind the idea of snuffing out the death penalty; they just don’t want the voters to hold them accountable for doing it.

Koretz vowed to revive his bill later (evidently, Assemblywoman Patty Berg won’t be administering any treatment). Rest assured though, Democrats will advance their agenda to save killers after the elections.

This reminds me of that oft repeated quote by the statesman Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) who used to say, “We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party."

GOP Party Infighting – Don’t Blame the Right

Restive GOP Activists May Stage Revolt
By Peter Nicholas

Republican activists disenchanted with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that they will try to strip the governor of the party's endorsement unless he fires his new chief of staff, Democrat Susan P. Kennedy.

Restive Republicans said they would rally conservatives behind a resolution, to be offered at the state GOP convention in San Jose next month, that may give Schwarzenegger an ultimatum: Dump Kennedy by March 15 or the party will withdraw its backing of his reelection bid.

Rushing to Endorse Was the Real Mistake
The California Republican Party voted for an early endorsement of Governor Schwarzenegger’s reelection last year. The move was extraordinary because the party usually does not endorse prior to the Primary election, but some felt it was necessary to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to run in 2006. Now that the CRP has put all of its eggs in the Schwarzenegger basket, a number of party delegates are regretting their extraordinary action.

The early endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger was not necessary in the first place, and clamoring about it now makes the party look bad. Perhaps there is a lesson here about jumping into drifting vessels. Maybe the party will learn to be more judicious in the future.

Don’t Blame Conservatives
One regret that I have over this party infighting is that it will be blamed on social conservatives by the mainstream media and later used by the left within the party as an excuse to dismiss social conservatives as destructive to party success.

The truth is, this quarrel is the making of those within the party, both conservatives and liberals, who tossed philosophy to the wind to “get a win.” They never vetted their candidate and now many of them, both liberal and conservative, are upset that their candidate is not who they imagined him to be. Those activists backed Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall and also in urging the early party endorsement, and now they are angry. Blaming Arnold Schwarzenegger for being Arnold Schwarzenegger at this point is a little like cursing the sun for rising in the East.

Welcome to the hotel California!

Challenge From the Left - the Far Left

McCloskey takes challenge to run against Pombo
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen

Former Peninsula Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey Jr., best remembered for his Vietnam War opposition and his speech calling for the impeachment of President Nixon, will announce his candidacy Monday in Lodi as a Republican challenger to Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.

Pombo's response...

"From what I've heard, Mr. McCloskey sounds more like a liberal Democrat candidate than a Republican," said Pombo, who was 11 years old when McCloskey challenged Nixon for president in 1972.

Pete McCloskey speaking at a Kerry rally in Sacramento.

Given that McCloskey is a radical envrionmentalist, Vietnam War protestor, and John Kerry campaign supporter Mr. Pombo is right, he sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican. McCloskey called for the impeachment of Richard Nixon and has campaigned against President Bush - I wonder if he has ever supported a Republican for President? If McCloskey moves into Representative Pombo's district to run, he ought to register as a Democrat - the platform of that party more closely reflects his views than does the platform of the Republican party. Bottom line: Representative Pombo will win and no good will come from the McCloskey challenge.

San Francisco America’s Most Liberal Intolerant City

Another example of leftwing intolerance from the City by the Bay.

Governor's appearance at King breakfast angers city's labor leaders
by Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

Local labor leaders are fuming over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's last-minute appearance at the annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in San Francisco -- and a lot of their anger is directed at former Mayor Willie Brown.

"We've spent a year and a half, and millions of dollars fighting this SOB,'' San Francisco Labor Council head Tim Paulson said of the governor. "For him to come to this breakfast was an absolute insult."

According to Matier and Ross, Paulson said that he “went absolutely crazy” and told MLK organizers that they should tell “him (the Governor) he’s not welcome here.”

Paulson went on to refer to Speaker Willie Brown as a pimp for Arnold Schwarzenegger and he said that Brown has, “gone over to the other side.” In his always classy and disarming way, Mr. Speaker chuckled, “It’s too bad he didn’t say the dark side.”

Is proposing freedom for labor union members to determine how their union dues should be spent a reasonable basis to bar a Republican Governor from speaking about civil rights on a day that honors civil rights advocate Martin Luther King, Jr.? Apparently, in the judgment of leftwing loonies it is.

This story is just one more example of how vitriolic the left is, especially in San Francisco (refer to my recent post The Intolerant Left - Another Example). And, Paulsen used a play from the liberal playbook when he called Speaker Brown a pimp and Governor Schwarzenegger a SOB.

Shameless Self Promotion

It dawns on me that someone might actually be reading OAF Blog on occasion. If you are, and you like what you read, please feel free to let your friends know. Also, just because I get a little lonely - well, not lonely actually, but because I like a healthy discussion, please feel free to leave comments. My rule on comments is that I will not moderate them unless they are inappropriate (foul - after all, my children read this blog sometimes) or an unfounded personal attack on somebody. I also encourage you to use your blog name or choose a name - a quirky or fun name is better than "anonymous." Finally, if you do leave comments, check back - I usually reply.

OK, enough shameless self promotion (actually, this is all about my self esteem).

Socialized Preschool: Where Are the Democrats?

Speaking today at the California Manufacturers & Technology Association luncheon Senate Pro Tempore Don Perata commented that one of his tasks this year is to reign in his caucus. He told the audience that he has informed members of the caucus that “they can be as liberal as they want to be,” but that they would have to restrain some of their big spending ideas for the time being (this was in the context of running up bond debt and still being fiscally responsible).

While I found the comment interesting, what I found truly fascinating was the way in which the Senate leader seemed to bemoan outside spending proposals like the Reiner socialized preschool initiative; it seemed that Senator Perata was genuinely concerned about the impact of the $2.4 billion scheme.

It was then that I began to wonder... will Democrat leaders in this state have the courage to come out in opposition to the Reiner socialized preschool initiative? Or, will they quietly complain about it among Sacramento insiders, and remain silent otherwise to avoid upsetting their leftwing political base?

Socialized Preschool Headed For California Ballot

From the Sacramento Bee

The universal preschool initiative backed by actor-director Rob Reiner has qualified for the June ballot, the Secretary of State's Office said Friday.

The measure would tax individual annual incomes of over $400,000 - $800,000 for couples - to provide public preschool for all California 4-year-olds.

The full story is here.

I have already written on this subject and commend your attention to the two posts:

The first, Econ 101: There is no Such Thing as a Free Lunch addresses the reality that people would choose to send their children to preschool if they thought it was important. The concept is called opportunity cost - loosely defined as what you give up when you choose one item for another. An example, you choose to go to work right out of high school rather than going to college. The immediate benefit of that choice is income - the “opportunity cost” would be the forgone income you might receive by obtaining a higher paying job with a college degree.

The second, Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool. The article provides a thought provoking analysis using comparisons of the universal daycare program implemented in Quebec eight years ago.

Finally, after watching the John Stossel special on ABC’s 20/20 Friday night "Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids," I wonder if we are dooming our children to state-run preschool rather than providing them with the opportunity for early education.

By the way, I call it socialized preschool, well, because it is - take from wealthy (those who have the audacity to earn over $400,000) and redistribute thier wealth to those who earn less - in this case in the form of providing government-run preschool.

The Intolerant Left - Another Example

Two of the most likely places that free speech will be attacked today are on any college campus and in the liberal city of San Francisco. In the most recent display of total contempt for a diversity of thought, leftist abortion advocates are trying to prevent the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church from displaying pro-life advertisements on BART trains and in BART stations.

Are the abortion promoters upset by the violent or grotesque nature of the advertisements? No! (see below) Instead, they are disturbed by any diversity of thought and expression because it might cause someone, anyone, to be persuaded to disagree with them. Some leftists have called for outright removal of the signs; others have complained that BART officials did not call to “warn” them about the ads. Removal? I guess censorship by government agencies (BART) is something the loony left openly supports now. Perhaps they will get WalMart ads off the television too. Warn them? I guess BART should call, for example, Chevy and “warn” them next time Ford purchases ad space – of course, then they’d also have to call Dodge, Toyota, etc.; that might not be practical.

Then there are the more action oriented Bay Area liberals who are not content with trying to use government to censor free speech, so they have destroyed the posters. From the San Francisco Chronicle…

“Critics of the ads also seem to be taking matters into their own hands. Hundreds of the ads have been defaced with markers, had stickers placed over them or have been torn down and ripped up, according to Monika Rodman, coordinator of the group that placed the ads.

"The defacement has taken to religious epithets, profanity, everything you can think of,'' she said. A billboard at the MacArthur station in Oakland was torn to shreds, she said, and mini essays were written on others.” ("Anti-abortion ad on BART angers activists," 1/13/06)

Defacing and destroying the property of those who dare to oppose you – they think that’s okay. But, by all means, do not allow free speech or dissention.



The advertisements placed on BART by the Oakland Diocese are both factual and tasteful – I’ve posted both ad posters above and you can see the full size posters here.

Why is the liberal left so violently opposed to free speech or debate on public policy? Could it be that even the liberal left no longer has faith in the power of its’ own ideas?

LAO Overview of the Governor's Budget

"The 2006-07 Governor's Budget now projects that the state will be able to fund much more than a current-law budget and still maintain fiscal balance in 2006-07. The plan, however, moves the state in the wrong direction in terms of reaching its longer-term goal of getting its fiscal house in order. Given the state's current structural budget shortfall, we believe that the 2006-07 budget should focus more on paying down existing debt before making expansive new commitments." ~ LAO's Overview of the Governor's Budget.

You too can be "in the know" by reading the Legislative Analyst's report here.

Former State Party Chair: Dump Schwarzenegger

Michael Schroeder, former Chairman of the California Republican Party, was published in the Orange County Register today stating that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should not run for re-election and that he should no longer enjoy the endorsement of the California Republican Party if he does so.

Schroeder said, "The Republican Party needs to move on. The focus should be on developing our team with candidates who can win the governor's office and then govern as Republicans. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and State Sen. Tom McClintock (the leading candidate for lieutenant governor) have strong statewide reputations and are rising stars.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is simply a longshot who failed to work out."

You can read the article by clicking here.

A Win for Taxpayers

From the Franchise Tax Board today:

The three-member Franchise Tax Board today named Selvi Stanislaus, 45, a Board of Equalization tax attorney, as the department’s fourth executive officer. Her appointment is effective January 17, 2006. She succeeds Gerald H. Goldberg who retired in August.

The Franchise Tax Board is comprised of State Controller and FTB Chair Steve Westly, Chair of the Board of Equalization John Chiang, and Director of Finance Michael C. Genest.

The appointment requires senate confirmation.

Sources say there will be no difficulty obtaining Senate confirmation, and I am told by insiders that her appointment is a win for taxpayers.

Beating Up On Oil Companies

Assembly Committee Passes Penalty for "Windfall" Profits

The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation passed AB 673 (Klehs) by a vote of 4-3 yesterday. AB 673 will impose a "windfall profits" penalty equal to 2.5% of the so-called "windfall profits" earned by a petroleum producer or petroleum refiner based in California. Voting for the bill was author and committee Chairman Johan Klehs (D-San Leandro) joined by Assemblymembers Judy Chu (D-Montery Park), Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) and Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View); voting against the bill were committee Vice-Chair Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) and Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) who were joined by Democrat Joe Canciamilla (Pittsburg).

I could fully explore the impact of a California-specific "windfall profits" tax and the negative impact on oil production and refining in the Golden State - which is a good reason to vote against AB 673. But, the issues surrounding price controls transcend our local economy (or at least they should). As such, I commend to your attention the Econ 101 post on voluntary exchange which addressed the efficacy of price controls in the marketplace.

Walter Williams wrote, "Economic ignorance is to politicians what idle hands are to the devil. Both provide the workshop for the creation of evil." He is right. Should I email the voluntary exchange post to Assemblyman Klehs (pictured above with his key economic advisor)? Do any of you think it would matter?

Death Penalty Update

Legislative panel votes to suspend executions
by Mark Martin- SF Chronicle

Sacramento -- An effort to suspend the death penalty was narrowly approved by a legislative committee Tuesday as proponents argued the state's legal system could execute an innocent person.

Igniting a legislative debate on capital punishment, Democrats advanced a bill that calls for a death penalty moratorium for two years as a commission studies how best to prevent wrongful convictions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for changes in the legal system to the Legislature by 2008. (Full story here.)

AB 1121 passed with the support of four Democrat Assemblymembers: Mark Leno, Jackie Goldberg, Merv Dymally and Lonnie Hancock.

I commend to your attention the well written analysis by Jerry Davis at CaliCapia. To read the commentary click here.

On the A.G. Race - A Prescription for Victory

It appears likely that Senator Chuck Poochigian (left) will face former Governor Jerry Brown (right) in the contest to be California's Attorney General. On the merits, Senator Poochigian is far better qualified for the job both in temperament and philosophy. Notwithstanding the merits however, a campaign against a well-known former Governor will be an uphill battle. But, liberal Democrats in the legislature are doing thier best to help Senator Poochigian - or, so it appears.

Unable to show any restraint, extremely liberal members of the Democrat Caucus have introduced Assembly Bill 1121 (Koretz and Lieber) which will impose a moratorium on California's death penalty. In the wake of the much publicized execution of gang-leader and vicious murderer Stanley Williams, Democrats are once again attempting to abolish California's death penalty. Assembly Bill 1121, a step toward repeal, will generate a healthy discussion by proponents and opponents about the death penalty, thereby assuring that this issue will be on the mind of voters this year. Such debate will help Senator Poochigian and hurt Jerry Brown.

For those who are too young (or those who suffer memory loss) a little history lesson is in order. It was Governor Jerry Brown who appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Rose Bird had no prior judicial experience, but she did bring to the court a philosophy of liberal judicial activism. Bird personally opposed the death penalty and voted to overturn it in each of the 61 cases that came before her. Public disgust over the activist court headed by Rose Bird, and particularly her opposition to the death penalty led to her removal from the court by voters in November of 1986.

As Jerry Brown attempts to convince voters that he is qualified to be California’s “top cop” his appointment of Rose Bird and his own historical opposition to the death penalty will surely not be his friend, and he can thank fellow liberals in the legislature for drudging up history.

On the merits, Senator Poochigian is better qualified to be California’s Attorney General than is Jerry Brown; if voters compare the two candidates they will know this to be ture. However, given Jerry Brown's high name identification, it will be the process of capturing the attention of voters for a “down-ticket” race that will ail Senator Poochigian. A debate on the death penalty will focus the attention of voters on the race for Attorney General; dispensed by Paul Koretz and Sally Lieber, AB 1121 just may be a prescription for victory.

A Glimpse at the Liberal Playbook

Letterman Blew the Play

As a conservative and political advocate I have been called just about everything imaginable by left-wing political activists and college professors (a distinction without a difference). It used to take a toll on my self esteem, but recently I became aware that the name calling is not really sincere, it is actually nothing more than a well designed play from the liberal playbook. It goes something like this… make an argument and hope that it is not intellectually challenged. If the argument is intellectually challenged do not attempt to reason (you might strain your brain); instead, call the person who offers an alternative view a liar (mean-spirited, jerk, bigot, moron, *&^%$ - you get the idea). If that does not silence your “adversary” then dismiss everything they say as a lie and discredit them as a person of bad character.

If you stay up late at night you may have seen this play attempted by the gap-toothed Indianan, David Letterman. For some reason, and one that I can’t figure out, Letterman invited Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly to appear as his guest. It was clear from the start of the conversation that Letterman wanted to pick an argument with O’Reilly and he succeeded in his goal. Upon questioning O’Reilly about the Christmas controversy, Letterman first denied the controversy exists and then (when presented with examples) said that he did not believe Mr. O’Reilly. (Playbook review: call the person a liar.)

Letterman then engaged O’Reilly on the war in Iraq, and when unable to carry on a civil conversation admitted, “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don’t know that for a fact.”

Letterman then blew the play by disclosing too much. The conversation continued:

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”
Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”
O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”
Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”
O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.” (OAF: generalizations always require an example, without one they are not valid).
Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”
O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”
Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

Let’s dissect the conversation. Letterman admits he is incapable of debating issues with Bill O’Reilly (this is where he blew the play – he’s not supposed to admit to being intellectually outmatched – someone needs to get him to re-education camp), and then goes on to dismiss O’Reilly arguments as lies. Not satisfied with saying O’Reilly lied on any one subject, Letterman just calls him a liar in general (playbbok review: if you can’t dispute the argument intellectually, attack the character of your “adversary”). Letterman also disclosed too much by actually admitting that his opinion about O’Reilly is uninformed (again, re-education camp is needed here).

Final analysis: Don't be too hard on David Letterman – he is an entertainer not a political commentator, and he was out of his league trying to “cross over.” In fact, for me Mr. Letterman’s actions were liberating – he made me plainly see that I am not really a liar (moron, etc.) as I have been accused so many times by the leftists I’ve encountered. To that end, I want to thank David Letterman for allowing the restoration of my self esteem.

One Difference Between the Hypocrite Left and the Right

Kudos to Jon Fleischman for his commentary today on Flashreport, Lou Sheldon: "Rent a Reverand". Jon's commentary is a must read; anyone who has worked in California's conservative movement can probably share a similar story - I was at the CRA endorsing convention mentioned by Jon, and the memory of the Sheldon endorsement is clear in my mind.

But, the purpose of my post is to point out the difference between the left and right on this issue. The left supports and promotes fakes like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, people who use the title Reverand, mix it with politics and make a vault of money off of the propostion. The right, on the other hand, has little tolerance for such behavior - be it on the right or left (reference the Fleischman post linked above).

There are other examples that could be cited (think of Senator Boxer's stunning silence when President Clinton engaged in a textbook case of sexual harassment), but that will be the subject of future conversation - I am confident.

Response to the Governor's Massive Spending Plan

I do not intend to spend a great deal of time and energy here today analyzing the details of the Governor’s plan which calls for massive government borrowing and spending. I will note that the public employee unions should be gleeful - $225 billion in spending on public works will line their pockets well for the next 20 years. And, because Prop. 75 failed, the public employee union bosses (who have undue influence in running this state) will continue to confiscate the earnings of public employees and send their money to extremely liberal Democrats in the legislature. The gravy train departed yesterday evening just after 5:00 pm.

Normally, I find very little common ground with Democrats like the two mighty Lilliputians. But, I think any analysis of the Governor’s plan can start with quotes from the left…

Phil Angelides, “It sounds like George W. Bush to me: spend spend spend, borrow borrow borrow. There are some major problems. He hasn't said how he would pay for it.” (Note: if Phil “partisan hack” Angelides actually reported facts, he’d acknowledge that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio last year only grew by 0.2% – surprisingly low - given the Bush-era spending spree. And, if projections on the federal deficit are correct, the debt-to-GDP ratio will actually decline over the next five years – thanks to the booming economy.)

Steve Westly, "I stood with him two years ago when he said he was going to cut up the credit cards. I think he has just applied for a bunch of new ones. The governor is going to have to explain."

Senate Pro Tempore, Don Perata, “…the governor is proposing a lot more spending than we are; it's unclear how he plans to pay for it.”

Yes, the mighty Lilliputians and Democrat leadership are pretending to balk at the massive spending plan proposed by the Governor. The truth is, they are not really concerned about the enormity of the spending (Democrats love to spend your money). Instead, they are complaining that the Governor hasn’t said how he will pay for the spending. They are setting up the debate to force a tax increase on Californians. If there is any doubt about where they are actually headed, consider this State of the State reaction…

“The Governor's proposal to rebuild California's crumbling infrastructure - highways, roads, ports, hospitals, and schools - is a positive step to grow our economy and improve our quality of life. But, we must diversify and expand our tax base to avoid saddling our children and grandchildren with insurmountable debt.” Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation.

A translation of what Mr. Pulaski said: we must extend (diversify) sales tax to services (that will excite the software community) and increase (expand) taxes on everyone else (or maybe just the “wealthy” again).

We have a problem in California - runaway spending on a social welfare state which has supplanted appropriate spending on infrastructure. We are now in a hole. It might be wise to mix some bonded debt with pay-as-you-go infrastructure spending. Given the growth in revenues that California has experienced at the current rate of taxation, it is apparent that we do not need to raise tax rates or impose new taxes at this time in order to meet our obligations. We can solve the infrastructure problem without incurring massive debt and bootstrapping future generations with higher taxes to pay for that debt. There are options; for starters Assemblyman Chuck DeVore offered some “out of the box” thinking yesterday before the speech.

I am confident that the subject of the state budget, spending, taxes and infrastructure will be a regular subject on OAF Blog over the next few days, weeks, months and years. I welcome the thoughts of OAF Blog readers – let’s be creative, positive and solution oriented.

Are the Wheels Coming Off?

Representative John Doolittle has endorsed liberal billionaire Steve Poizner for Insurance Commission (IC). In making his endorsement Doolittle said, “His competence and knowledge of the issues make him the perfect candidate to defeat Cruz Bustamante in November.”

Could it really be his knowledge of “the issues” that makes Steve Poizner the best qualified Republican to run for IC? Is it believable that Poizner has a better grasp of insurance issues than Dr. Phil Kurzner? Not likely.

It would have been more honest for Representative Doolittle to say that Steve Poizner has the bankroll to defeat Cruz Bustamante, and beyond that can help fund other Republicans (like John Doolittle) across the state. I have to believe that this would more clearly articulate why a long-time conservative like John Doolittle would support the candidacy of Steve Poizner.

But wait, you say, IC is not a position that requires a philosophical conservative – it requires a bright, business-oriented mind and philosophy doesn’t matter. Maybe…well, no. First, it is a given that those who are “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” are the first to capitulate their “fiscal conservatism” for pragmatic fee, tax and regulatory “compromises.” The fact that they are less likely to be grounded in a philosophy allows them to cast aside first principles, well, because they have none. Second, if Mr. Poizner were only going to run for IC then maybe it would be reasobable to support him. But, come on, do you really think that this is the pinnacle of his political ambition? And, are we going to go down the road of supporting very wealthy liberals who register as Republicans just so we can “get the win” - again?

Outside of losing to Ira Ruskin in the 21st Assembly District in 2004, Poizner’s only other public political activity has been playing “point man” for Proposition 77 (redistricting) – a proposition that Representative Doolittle vehemently opposed. Unless of course, you count political contributions as public political activity, and in that case the story for Poizner is not good…He gave $21,000 to Al Gore in 2000 ($1,000 to the election, $10,000 to the Democrat Nat’l Cmte., and $10,000 for the legal fund to challenge the election result), $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004 (Mrs. Poizner also gave $2,000 for a total of $4,000) – that was while he was the Republican nominee for Assembly in the 21st AD. To be fair, Mr. Poizner did manage to get $2,000 to George Bush in 2004, which I guess makes up for the $25,000 he gave against the President.

I have not been surprised by some of the establishment conservatives that have endorsed Mr. Poizner for IC. They have traditionally been seduced by millionaire / billionaire candidates who can throw money around for the Party and other candidates. I am surprised by Representative Doolittle’s endorsement however, because the last time I checked he came from the team of Senator H.L. Richardson, was steeped in the tradition of President Reagan and believed that ideas (and philosophy) matter.

Is this endorsement a sign that the wheels are coming off? Say it aint so, John.

It is NOT a War on Terror!

Today on one cable television news network George Clooney acknowledged and defended the sympathetic treatment of Muslim terrorists in the movie Syriana (I have not seen the movie, but this was the subject of the report). While this is not a direct quote, Mr. Clooney mimicked an argument advanced by liberals and appeasers everywhere by saying that if we are going to fight a "war on terror" we must understand what causes people to become terrorists, and that Syriana helps to advance that "understanding." I guess, as the logic goes, becoming more sympathetic to those who engage in terrorism will cause them to stop blowing people up. I wonder, will Mr. Clooney will next star in a movie encouraging a greater sympathy for Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski so we can better understand the conditions that caused them to engage in acts of terrorism.

I don't want to pick a fight with George Clooney on his comment (it would be unfair to him, and I would feel guilty). My point here is broader - we are not in a war on terrorism! Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. It has recently been used as a euphemism to refer to the current war against radical Muslim jihadists. People, including President Bush, are too uncomfortable to identify the enemy, so they instead identify the tactic used by the enemy and portray it as the enemy. The danger in using the "euphemism" is that it causes a misunderstanding of who our enemy is, and it contributes to a false dialogue on the war.

We are at war with radical Muslim jihadists who use terrorism as a tactic. Calling the current war with radical Muslim jihadists a "war on terror" is a little like calling WWI a "war on trenches."

A Worthy Standard for Governance

“I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And If I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
~ U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater

As the legislature reconvenes this week all elected officials should consider the standard set by Senator Goldwater. The U.S. Constitution was designed to restrain the power of government, and while primarily aimed at the national level, those limitations should nonetheless be heeded by state legislators when considering new laws.

One recent example demonstrates how easily the Goldwater Standard can be cast aside under the pressure of passing “needed” legislation: AB 1179 authored by Assemblyman Leland Yee. Assembly Bill 1179 requires violent video games to be labeled and prohibits the sale or rental of those video games to minors. A person who violates the act will be fined up to $1,000 for each violation.

Ignoring the responsibility of parents in this picture, one might argue that a law is “needed” to prevent minor children from playing particularly violent videogames. After all, violent video games might lead to violent and anti-social behavior. But, before voting on such a law a representative must ask the first question “Is it constitutional?” The answer in this case is not likely.

(Only) The Republican analysis in the Assembly clearly called into question the constitutionality of AB 1179, but the subject of constitutionality was raised in debate in both Houses. As such, even though some would prefer to ignore the “first question” they were forced to confront the issue of constitutionality.

The result…Members caved in and voted for what they believed to be popular (often the operational definition of what is “needed”). They decided to vote for AB 1179 and thus do damage to the U.S. Constitution. In the Assembly, only six members had the courage to vote “no” and in the Senate nine stood up for the Constitution (all Republicans). When it came to defending liberty and upholding the Constitution versus the “need” to regulate video games only 13% of California’s state legislators passed the test (broken down along partisan lines: 2.5% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans passed).

As thousands of bills are pushed through legislative committees in Sacramento this year, one can only hope that more members will have the courage to first ask, “is it constitutional?” and then ask “is it needed?”

The Case for Judeo-Christian Values

If you are a regular visitor to OAF Blog, it is likely that you are a "political" person or are at least interested in public policy (or you are really, really bored and need to get a life). If you are interested in politics and public policy it is important to determine from where your values are derived. After all, any political position is only as important as the thought by which it is derived. It is with this in mind that I took the time to link a series of twenty-four articles written by Dennis Prager making the case for Judeo-Christian values. Please take the time to read these essays, and then consider for a moment: from where do you derive your values?

Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values

The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part II

Judeo-Christian values: part III

The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part IV

The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part V

Liberal feeling vs. Judeo-Christian values: Part VI

Hate evil: Case for Judeo-Christian values, part VII

Part VIII: Judeo-Christian values are larger than Judaism or Christianity

Choose life: The case for Judeo-Christian values: IX

The Left's battle to restore chaos: Judeo-Christian values: Part X

Moral absolutes: Judeo-Christian values: Part XI

The Jews have a mission: Judeo-Christian values: Part XII

Secularism and the meaningless life: Judeo-Christian values: Part XIII

The arrogance of values: Judeo-Christian values, Part XIV

We are not just animals: Judeo-Christian values part XV

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

Without man, the environment is insignificant (Part XVII)

Murderers must die: Judeo-Christian values: Part XVIII

The challenge of the transgendered: Judeo-Christian values, part XIX

There is no viable alternative: Judeo-Christian values Part XX

The rejection of materialism (Part XXI)

The feminization of society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXII

First fight yourself, then society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXIII

Who believes in American Exceptionalism? Judeo-Christian values part XXIV

I hold Mr. Pager in very high esteem, both for his reasoned approach to public policy and the manner in which he conducts his radio talk show. I hope you have found these essays interesting and instructive.