Socialized Preschool Losing Support

Perata has second thoughts on preschool initiative
By Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee 2/28/06

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, one of the state's leading Democrats, said Tuesday he is reconsidering his support for a June universal preschool ballot proposal in another blow to Rob Reiner's initiative campaign.

The full story here.

I had previously asked if Democrats would have the courage to openly oppose Rob Reiner's socialized preschool initiative (now Prop. 82). I am glad to see that Senate Pro Tem Don Perata is moving in that direction. I can’t say that Senator Perata’s reasoning is sound; he thinks that a lack of means testing is the problem. Translated… he thinks that it is unfair to take from the “rich” and give to the middle class; after all, real socialism calls for more extreme redistribution of wealth. Perhaps concerns raised by many in the education community that dumping billions into preschool is not good for a struggling K-12 system is the real reason driving some common sense into elected Democrats, and now they are scrambling for reasons to run away from Prop. 82.

Hiatus...

Hiatus - an interruption in the intensity or amount of something.

Please forgive the hiatus, it will continue for the unforeseeable future or until I can't handle life without this outlet to vent. Seriously though, with some changes afoot and an extremely busy time, I will be out for a short while.

Please, if you are one of the two or three people who actually visit here regularly, check in and see when the hiatus is over. If you would like me to email you when I do start adding content, please send me an email so I know.

Until then, my friends...

Keep fighting for freedom and having fun!

Kennedy and Ethics

For Republican Party activists the appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger of leftwing political activist Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff was a philosophical problem. She has worked her entire life to defeat and destroy candidates and public policies that we have embraced and promoted.

With the volume of noise focused on philosophy and party loyalty; the concern about Kennedy’s ethics was nearly drowned out. Questions about Kennedy’s ethics were raised here and in other sources, but mostly complaints have been focused on her role as a political operative.

It has been less than three months since Susan Kennedy took the reins of leadership in the Governor’s office and questions about her ethics are now drowning out the issue of her radical leftist philosophy.

The following two stories provide insight into why Susan Kennedy was wrong for the chief of staff job, regardless of whether she is serving Arnold Schwarzenegger or her old boss Phil Angelides.

Water Firm Awash in Political Influence
Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

(Keith) Brackpool is the chairman and chief executive of Cadiz Inc. For years, Cadiz tried to entice the Metropolitan Water District into a $150-million scheme to store surplus water from the Colorado in the Mojave Desert. The skeptical MWD, which serves most of Southern California, finally nixed the project in 2002.

But Brackpool has never gone away, possibly because he hopes to exploit his political connections to revive the plan. Over the years, he has hobnobbed with Democratic politicians ranging from former Gov. Gray Davis to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The latest moth caught circling his flame is Susan Kennedy, Gov. Schwarzenegger's chief of staff. As my colleague Robert Salladay reported last week, Kennedy, a Democrat, received $120,000 from Cadiz as a "consultant" in 2005 while serving on the state Public Utilities Commission. The PUC doesn't directly regulate Cadiz, but it has a considerable voice in water policy, a topic that also falls within Kennedy's current portfolio.

Read the full story here.

Kennedy May Be More of a Liability Than Help to Gov.
George Skelton, Los Angeles Times

This probably was not what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had in mind when he signed up Democrat Susan Kennedy to be his chief of staff.

…The last thing Schwarzenegger needed was for his and her ethics to be questioned. And that's what is happening.

To recap: Since her appointment, it has been reported and acknowledged that Schwarzenegger is supplementing Kennedy's $131,000-per-year public salary with $7,500 a month in political money. That's supposed to pay for her political advice (which she should be offering as chief of staff anyway) and for explaining the governor's agenda to donor groups (that she shouldn't be going near).

Turns out, in December, while still a California Public Utilities commissioner — a $114,000 job — Kennedy was slipped $25,000 from Schwarzenegger's campaign account for political advice. That came three weeks after AT&T donated $25,000 to Schwarzenegger. The donation was made four days before Kennedy voted to approve AT&T's merger with SBC. Nobody is alleging a quid pro quo, but it's a putrid perception.

Read the full story here.

How 'bout some Dom Perignon with that pork?

The following are two stories to highlight a commonly-known reality; people are willing to spend big when somebody else is paying the check. When that occurs on the company credit card, it is an issue between the executive, the company comptroller and the employee. When it happens with your tax dollars; hmmm, well, everyone screams about it - and nothing gets done!

There are hundreds of stories like the two below; they can be found regularly in newspapers across the state. Stories highlighting the unjustifiable spending of taxpayer dollars by public officials who love living large; meanwhile Democrats are demanding more of your money through tax increases to fund even more largesse. Huh? How about managing the money already in the bank with some integrity before confiscating more or ours!

Never forget; when the government spends money somebody else is always paying the check.






Florez questions First 5 spending
By SHELLIE BRANCO, Bakersfield Californian

Can one man eat $400 worth of food in three and a half days?

How about when his lunches and breakfasts are already provided?

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is once again grilling First 5 Kern on its spending habits. The commission, which uses state tobacco-tax money for programs to help children through age 5, approved on Feb. 1 a plan to bring in a consultant for a county training session on curbing prenatal alcohol and drug use.

...The Kern commission has been criticized in the past for spending millions of dollars on consultants and out-of-town travel and meals, and added on "cost-of-living" salary boosts.

First 5 Kern plans to fly, lodge and feed a Chicago consultant and his assistant at a price tag of over $26,000 for a few days.

Read the full story here.

Schools chief's credit conflict
Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive
by Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle

Outgoing San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman racked up $45,625 in credit card charges in 2005 -- mostly in meals, airplane tickets and hotels -- which have been reimbursed by the San Francisco Unified School District at taxpayer expense.

Ackerman, a member of many national education organizations, took 32 work-related trips around the country last year, often staying in luxury hotels and eating at high-priced restaurants.

While in San Francisco, she paid for scores of working lunches and dinners -- frequently at such well-known restaurants as Jardiniere, Hayes Street Grill, Palomino and Morton's.

...Ackerman was blunt on Wednesday: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. People can nitpick if they want to, but I didn't do anything I think was wrong."

Read the full story here.

Oaff: On the Arlene Ackerman story; three quick observations:

1. She spent about $10,000 more on travel and food than I earned in a year as a teacher.
2. Her arrogance, when her spending is called into question, is typical.
3. In the headline, Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive - SOME? That's incredible! How could there not be universal agreement that a school superintendent does not need to eat at Mortons on the school district dime? How about a reasonable agreement that school district money should never be spent in a restaurant where they don't print the prices on the menu? Seem reasonable? Hmmmm?

Batteries Not Included

Heard about the e-waste recycling deadline? (Didn't think so)
by By Marjie Lundstrom, Sacramento Bee

Beginning today, anyone with a used battery*, fluorescent light tube, old cell phone - the list goes on and on - can no longer toss the thing into the trash, bound for the landfill. (emphasis added)

...From now on, we Californians are responsible for laying to rest our kids' oh-so-last-year iPods, light-up sneakers and singing greeting cards. We're in charge of funeral arrangements for that closet full of old oven cleaner, dead VCRs and iffy AA batteries.

Read the full story here.

*Yes, we’re talking about that AAA in your television remote control. And, under the law fines for violations can be as high as $25,000! Of course, "officials" say they won't be going door-to-door to enforce the law; their focus will be on small businesses. So, I guess that means you can all rest easy that the enviro police won't be shutting down your household, instead they'll be going after your job - what a comfort.

I suspect, once they realize that most people will not store household batteries, etc. until they have enough to justify a trip to the hazardous waste disposal center (located somewhere in their city or county), they will implement a curbside pickup procedure - a bonus to your local labor union!

The following legislators were authors of this law:

Senator Byron Sher (retired)
Senator Gloria Romero
Senator Sheila Kuehl
Senator Liz Figueroa
Assembly Member Hannah-Beth Jackson (retired)
Assembly Member Patty Berg
Assembly Member Judy Chu
Assembly Member Paul Koretz
Assembly Member John Laird
Assembly Member Mark Leno
Assembly Member Lloyd Levine
Assembly Member Sally Lieber
Assembly Member Fran Pavley
Assembly Member Lois Wolk

I have an idea. As you gather your AAA, AA, C, D and 9-volt batteries to take them to the city or county hazardous waste collection center (where you will be charged a fee); deliver them, instead, to the authors of this law. Heck, just to be an honest person, find out what the fee is and send it along (in pennies) so they won’t get stuck paying the tab.

A Super (Bowl) Message

Among all of the hype about which Super Bowl ad was the best (ususally the funniest), I think one ad was overlooked. It was not funny, but it communicated an important message.



In the commercial (advertising a hybrid Toyota Camry) the conversation starts when the son asks, “Papa, why do we have a hybrid?”

The father replies, “For your future.” He then goes on to explain that the hybrid is “good for the air” and that it saves them money by using both electricity and gasoline.

The boy then says, “Like you with English and Spanish.”

(Smiling) Papa says, “Si.”

His son then asks, “Why did you learn English?”

Papa says, “For your future.”

Given the attitude of so many in the “bilingual” movement which seeks to preserve Spanish as the primary language and advocates for long-term instruction in Spanish thereby depriving many youngsters the opportunity to become proficient in English, I was surprised that Toyota was willing to weigh in on the issue. Their statement, promoting the idea that learning English is in the best interest of one’s future is both a correct and, in my opinion, bold statement. It is bold only because those who oppose the idea of English as a primary language almost always engage in labeling any dissenters as racists and xenophobes. Usually, corporations like Toyota seek to avoid any circumstance that might be deemed offensive.

I encourage you to watch the advertisement yourself.

An Essential Read for Republican Partisans

I commend to your attention this article, A Party With the Courage of no Convictions, by John Kurzweil who is the editor of the California Political Review.

An excerpt...

"California Republicans have spent most of the past decade trying to bring about a revolutionary reversal of direction in the political culture of one of the world's most powerful and influential political entities with less clear thinking, research, preparation, and attention to detail in execution - and, indeed, with little evidence even of realizing the magnitude of the job they have undertaken - than one typical small businessman would employ in opening a single hamburger stand. This Republican approach might somehow prove adequate if the opposition were similarly trifling, but not when the other side is willing and able to spend and to do whatever it takes to win, as California Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be."

The full article can - and should - be read here.

Cal Races Provides a Great Service

For those who can't get to the SOS's office, or would rather spend their time doing something else... Cal Races has posted a downloadable spreadsheet of the year end campaign finance totals for candidates from Gov to Assembly. Excellent work MPI!

Reiner Initiative Will Damage Preschools

Reiner initiative bad for preschoolers
By Alan Bonsteel, OC Register 2/6/06

It's now official: Californians will see a Preschool for All Act initiative on the June ballot sponsored by Hollywood personality Rob Reiner. Unfortunately, while the evidence for the benefit of preschool is strong, even those who favor publicly financed preschool will want to see Reiner's bungled effort defeated.

Just as director Reiner's latest film, "Rumor Has It," was a box-office flop ($42 million domestically) despite the talents of Jennifer Anniston because of an incoherent screenplay, Reiner's initiative is similarly fatally flawed by his incoherent drafting and ignorance of educational policy.

... Even voters who passionately support publicly funded preschool will want to turn thumbs-down on this turkey and wait for a high-quality and thoughtful initiative.

Read the full story here.

Dr. Alan Bonsteel is the President of California Parents for Educational Choice.

Ethics Reform in Congress

Following a Little Advice from Davy Crockett Would Solve the Problem

Congress in Crisis
It is not news that Congress is embroiled in a number of ethical troubles; the biggest problem has been bribery and the perception of influence peddling. As members of Congress rush to address the problem they are dancing all around the issue; they have stopped access by members-turned-lobbyists to the House floor, they are proposing to stop gifts to members from lobbyists (including buying a meal), they have and will again propose forms of campaign finance reform, and they are addressing the practice of earmarking.

All of the issues revolve around limiting the ability to grant financial favors to member of Congress by those who seek government funding for their pet project or program and limiting the ability of members of Congress to reward favored constituents by earmarking federal funds. Most of the proposals will do nothing – nothing – to stop the practice because there is too much at stake not to influence outcomes. Today President Bush released his budget; it proposes to spend $2.7 trillion! How could you expect interested parties not to do everything they can to make sure they get their piece of the pie?

It happens at every level of government. In California the Governor has proposed a massive $68 billion infrastructure spending plan. Shortly after the release I had several conversations with major lobbyists about the prospects for the 2006 legislative session; all of them said the same thing, “This year the game is all about getting in on the governor’s bond package.” These lobbyists are not bad people; in fact they are generally honest people doing exactly what they get paid to do – get government to take your money and give it to their clients (or association members, e.g. the California Teachers’ Association or the California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association).

The Best Solution
Limit the role of government. If Congress were not throwing $2.7 trillion around, there would be a lot less interest in courting members of Congress. I realize that rolling the federal government back to a manageable size; or more appropriately to its Constitutional role is a monumental task. But, I submit, no more monumental than trying to stop the lobbyists from influencing the now-oversized government. The bottom line is, if you want to limit corruption and influence pedding in Congress you have to limit the size and scope of government.

Learning from History
Below is the text of a speech delivered by Tennessee Representative David Crockett about the proper role of the federal government. If we were to learn from his remarks and demand that our Congress adheres to the limits placed upon it by our Constitution, we would do away with almost all of the need for lobbyists; as such we would do away with the need for the Byzantine type reforms proposed to address the problem today.

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the emblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in ernest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Susan Kennedy A Look at the Left's Response

For those who think that only Republicans are upset about Governor Schwarzenegger appointing a pro-abortion zealot and the former Executive Director of the California Democrat Party as his chief of staff, take a moment to read this little tidbit from the left.

Here's an exceprt from Phoblographer*

I certainly don't agree with calls for law banning anyone paid with taxpayer money from campaign work on the side. For most people lower than Kennedy, it's a necessary way to supplement meager salaries. And, frankly, a certain level of shared experience between the two sides of public service is necessary.

But on a substantive level, Kennedy doing this work? Please. She's a lifelong Democrat who has chosen to play for the wrong team. A team with a proven record of failure. How can it be worth it? For any of us?

Read the full post here.

John Madden Elected to Football Hall of Fame

Madden living a dream
Ex-coach expected a call but learned of Hall of Fame selection from TV
Ira Miller, Chronicle Staff Writer

John Madden is never at a loss for words, but he was close Saturday. He stood on a podium in a hotel ballroom, arms flying, waving, gesturing, talking not in complete thoughts but in stream of consciousness.

This was the essential Madden, the Everyman to football fans, trying to keep from losing it while explaining what it meant to be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, 27 years after he coached his final game with the Oakland Raiders.

"I know as a coach that it's all about players," Madden said. "I firmly believe that. The game isn't about a lot of stuff on the outside. It's about players, and I had great players. ... They all made this possible. As a coach, if you ever start to think any other way than that, you're off base."

The Hall of Fame induction is scheduled for Aug. 6 in Canton, Ohio. Madden said he probably would choose Raiders' owner Al Davis or Madden's son, Mike, to make his presentation introduction. When Davis was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1992, Madden made the presentation, but Davis may not be up to it physically to reciprocate.

Read the full story here.

John Madden was a great coach and all around super person; his focus and his attention was always on his players. I hope Al Davis will be healthy enough to do the induction presentation; it would be appropriate. As a Raiders fan, this about the only good thing that happened this year.

More Proof...

...Social liberals are usually just that, liberal.

Those who so often claim to be "moderate" Republicans, meaning they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative more often than not turn out to just be liberals. They will "hold the line" on fiscal matters for a while, but they are almost always the first to "compromise" when push comes to shove. Below is a letter written in 1998 signed by then-Brea Mayor Lynn Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax. Two years later, by taking advantage of the blanket primary and seeking Democrat votes to win the Republican nomination, Ms. Daucher won an Orange County Assembly seat in 2000. Termed out at the end of 2006, Ms. Daucher is seeking the Republican nomination for the 34th Senate District. This time she will have to run in a closed primary and she will face Assemblyman Van Tran, a stalwart Republican and popular conservative. The letter by Ms. Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax will not help her.

Even The Left Questions Reiner’s Socialized Preschool Scheme

Preschool Initiative's Misguided Approach
By Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

Considering how hard it is to find prominent individuals with a selfless impulse toward public service, we shouldn't begrudge the film director Rob Reiner his efforts to expand preschool education in California.

But that's not to say that Reiner's Preschool for All initiative, which will appear on the June ballot as a constitutional amendment, is a good idea. On the contrary, it's another attempt at ballot-box budgeting featuring misleading PR and misguided pied-piper appeal.

I’ve posted several columns on OAF Blog concerning the socialized preschool initiative, for your reference they are:

Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL
Cal Chamber Opposes Preschool Initiative
Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool
Socialized Preschool Headed for California Ballot
Socialized Preschool: Where are the Democrats?
Marjie Lundstrom Lacks Education in Economics and Irony

There's Nothing Humane About This Abusive Law Suit

The Humane Society of the United States, a $99 million tax exempt organization, is suing the State of California in an attempt to deny chicken farmers the state sales tax exemption for the purchase farm equipment; an exemption that is available to all farmers in California (and should be extended to all forms of manufacturing). Bear in mind, unlike the Humane Society, poultry farmers do pay plenty in income and property taxes.

The Humane Society claims that the sales tax exemption should be denied to poultry farmers because state Board of Equalization regulations prohibit the sales tax exemption to those engaged in illegal activity - in this case the Humane Society claims animal abuse. Fair enough, if poultry farmers are breaking the law then charge them with a crime. But, the Humane Society knows better and instead they turn to the San Francisco Superior Court, seeking a liberal judge and hoping that judicial activism will trump the law so they can strike a blow to the poultry industry.

If They Don't Like It, They Should Compete in the Marketplace
The truth is poultry farmers are not breaking the law; the Humane Society simply does not approve of their legal farming operations. Given their assets and income of nearly $100 million the Humane Society could get into the business of chicken farming and compete, providing consumers a choice between their more costly "humane" eggs and other eggs. I suspect they know that the bulk of consumers do not care, and would buy the cheaper (and actually equally humane) eggs. Further, it would not make sense for the Humane Society to enter the poultry business because it is not what they do; I understand. But then, get the heck out of the business of telling those who actually farm poultry how to do their business.

Fighting the Battle on Multiple Fronts
I suspect it won't be long until some Democrat in the state Legislature introduces a bill at the request of the Humane Society to refuse the sales tax exemption to poultry farmers. The good news is that such an effort would require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature as a tax increase. Farmers should be happy to have Republicans in the Legislature to protect them from such heavy-handed tactics.

Harvesting Support From the Faaaaaar Left

Phil Angelides cleverly planned an announcement of support from a plethora a Chico’s Mayors and City Council members to coincide with the day that Steve Westly cleverly planned to campaign in the “backyard” of Mr. Angelides’ chief political hack Bob Mulholland. I applaud Mr. Angelides and his team for their adroit political maneuver.

However, I noticed among those listed as Angelides supporters were former Chico Mayor Michael McGinnis and former Council Member David Guzzetti. McGinnis and Guzzetti are the two comrades who organized fundraisers for the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) at Guzzetti’s old restaurant the Kramore Inn.

What next Mr. Angelides; endorsements from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?

California Teachers’ Association June Primary Endorsements

On January 28th the California Teachers’ Association, a labor union, released its’ endorsement list for the June Primary election in California. The labor union endorsed the following candidates:

Democrat Primary
Governor – Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor – John Garamendi
Attorney General – Rocky Delgadillo
Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Board of Equalization Dist. 1 – Betty Yee
Board of Equalization Dist. 4 - Judy Chu

Republican Primary

Woops, there was no mention of any endorsements in the Republican primary election. Hmmm, I wonder… is that because the teachers’ union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party? Their decision to only endorse in Democrat primaries is evidence that they behave more like an affiliate of the Democrat party than an organization that represents teachers of all political philosophies and party affiliations. Shameful!

Woolsey a Shameful Representative – Sheehan a Shameful Megalomaniac

One More Reason to Support Joe Nation

I do not live in the Bay Area, nor am I a Democrat. But, I would love to see center-left Assemblyman Joe Nation (right) defeat radical anti-American leftist Representative Lynn Woolsey in the Democrat primary for California's sixth congressional district.


Yesterday, Woolsey gave the disgraceful Cindy Sheehan (left) a ticket to sit in the gallery of House of Representatives during the President's State of the Union address. In her "look at me, look at me" fashion, Ms. Sheehan managed to get herself arrested for violating the House rules. Don't think for a moment that this megalomaniac didn't know she was creating a scene; or that she didn't know that she would be arrested if she refused to abide by the rules. That was her goal.

I have been blessed with three children, all of whom have at one time or another tried to gain attention by acting out in inappropriate ways (commonly called "child-like behavior"). I disciplined them and taught them better ways to gain attention. I have been rewarded by watching my three children grow into healthy and delightful people. Perhaps, Ms. Sheehan could benefit from a little old fashioned parenting.

(Pictured on the left) Woolsey's hatred of the Bush Administration and her left wing anger toward America has caused her to behave in disgraceful ways. Giving Ms. Sheehan her one ticket to the House gallery so that Sheehan could make a fool out of herself is just one more example. It is also one more reason why I hope Joe Nation wins that Democrat primary.