|
|
|
So much has happened since March 3rd it is unbelievable that now it is almost time for our April 15 meeting. But that meeting will be important because of the May 19th election. Yes, this time the State has many propositions for us to vote down or approve, And there will also be run-offs for city offices from the March 3 primary,
Susan Murphy is presenting the propositions and also any other information we need to know. Many changes to the tax plans are proposed. All candidates are invited.
After lunch, Glenn Forsch, Chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, will present his ideas of how we can change the image of the Republican Party for the voters. Especially so because we have lost the November, 2006 and 2008 elections and so lost the balance of power in the Congress and the Presidency. We are not losers.
It will be our usual interesting meeting so I know you will want to invite a friend or two and don't forget to let Andria Page know.
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
I am pleased and gratified as you all should be as well, from the wonderful meeting, attendance and participation we had from the last general meeting of March 18 2009. Our guest speakers were very interesting, and we got quite a bit accomplished on several issues of importance.
So much is happening during the year, and certainly during the early months. We are there now, and as we are all helping each other in harmony, so much gets accomplished and ultimately gives us the sense of fulfillment and more.
We all have had a lovely time and fun at the Bunco on March 19, 2009, at Pril Sullivan’s home. Thank you Pril for preparing everything, offering your beautiful home, as well as to your husband Bill Sullivan, and thank you to all of you who have attended.
I encourage you all to attend the events coming up. The Tea Fundraiser is on April 7th, followed by the regular General Meeting on Wednesday, April 15, 2009.
And following that is the first time Evening General Meeting on April 29, 2009, at 7: 30 PM at , Barbara Cirk’s home in Porter Ranch. Potential speaker is a Republican filmmaker!
Barbara has graciously offered to hold this meeting at her home , so that we can welcome everyone and surely new guests and students who may not be able to make our day general meetings otherwise. Thank you Barbara, and I encourage all of you to take this opportunity and come to meet us.
Come May 3-5th, is the yearly Advocacy Workshop in Sacramento.
On a different thought, I invite all of you to learn more about our honored winner from the recent elections, Senator Tony Strickland Assistant Minority Leader, State Senator proudly Serving the 19th District of our State of California, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Please take a moment to read about what he is fighting for on behalf of his constituents, by visiting his website www.senate.ca.gov/strickland.
Ultimately, in this issue it is with a sad feeling that I must announce that one of our long time and favored member, Irma Smith is deceased. Irma has been, for many who have known her even better than me, a lovely lady with a wonderful personality and had always words of encouragement and great spirit. I will always think of her so dearly and remember long and great conversations on the phone and during the meetings.
May god rest her in peace, and condolences to her family.
I also wish to let you know that Diane Newton who has undergone surgery is still at the holy cross hospital, and has now started rehabilitation. Doctors are pleased with the outcome of her surgery, and she is waiting word as to when she will be able to go home. As she always said to me, “it takes good genes” to recover. Well Diane, you are that and we wish you courage and safety in that process so that we can have you back with us, as we miss you.
With love, warm thoughts and in good health to all of you.
|
|
|
|
We currently have 63 members and 15 Associate members.
More MEMBERS : Rayola Calvert, Sylvia Cary, Barbara Healy, Pat Hicks, Alberta Mosier, Judy Washburn and Helen Williams
NEW MEMBER: Janet McCaman
ASSOCIATES: Robert Bender, Nancy Eisenhart, Gail Schroeder, Paul Weisman
Sign up on this website if you with t join. The dues is $30 for Members and $15 for Associate Members.
|
|
|
|
The Measuring Stick of the First 100 Days
|
A presidential term lasts 1,460 days. So what’s so important about the first 100?
Immediately upon taking office in 1933, President Roosevelt set the U.S. on a 100-day course to recovery from the Great Depression. An unprecedented period of experimentation, FDR passed record amounts of legislation during that period. That round number stuck, and every president since has been analyzed and criticized on the basis of that early period. Here is a very (very!) brief overview of some of our presidents’ first 100 days.
Having been left out of the loop with many critical decisions as FDR’s VP, Truman had a lot of catching up to do when he assumed the presidency on April 12, 1945. Organizing the first U.N conference and ordering the atomic bomb drop on Hiroshima marked his first 100 days.
Eisenhower had no “First 100 Days” program, and in fact, garnered no significant domestic achievement for the first two years, as he instead developed the new concept of “deterrence” in the new Cold War era.
Kennedy’s inexperience surfaced in foreign affairs early on, like his disastrous meeting with Krushchev that precipitated the erection of the Berlin Wall, as well as the Bay of Pigs debacle. When Johnson assumed the presidency, his first priority was to carry out Kennedy’s domestic programs.
Nixon’s stated priorities were ending Vietnam, and dealing with inflation and crime. But he considered himself an executive president, as opposed to a legislative one, so his first 100 days were uneventful.
Ford’s first 100 days was characterized by his intention to provide healing for a disillusioned country with the pardon of Nixon, which turned out to be an unpopular decision by many on both sides. Carter was judged as trying to do too much in an unfocused way and without many friends in Congress.
Reagan began with a whirl of activity, but his priorities were clear and, unlike FDR, he did not load up Congress with a a plethora of bills. He passed some of the most sweeping revisions of budget and tax policy ever attempted.
George H.W. Bush attended to foreign affairs over domestic policy in his first 100 days, and was the first president to visit an Asian country (China) before visiting Europe.
Clinton’s first 100 days were rocky ones. With his “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy to naming his wife head of healthcare reform, Clinton was judged for not choosing his early battles wisely.
George W. Bush dealt with environment, taxes and education, and made some controversial decisions like blocking funding to certain family planning clinics and creating an office to distribute government money to certain religious groups that provide social services.
April 30, 2009 marks the end of President Obama’s first 100 days. How would you grade his performance so far?
|
|
|
|
TEA, GOODIES AND ENTERTAINMENT
April 7, 2009
At the Canoga Park Women’s Club, 7401 Jordan Avenue, Canoga Park
$45
Dress for fun. Dress in an elegant, crazy, mod, or old fashioned way – any way you want. Make a statement!
Or not, as you choose. And don’t forget your hat. It’s Easter Bonnet time, or, perhaps, Mad Hatter time. Let’s see who can be the most creative.
It’s 2 For the Show! Enjoy the high octane style of variety entertainment by Tricia and Tracy Henry, Southern California’s very own premiere song & dance duo. This couple has knocked the socks off crowds from San Francisco to to San Diego. Their performance includes clever vocal arrangements and inventive choreography set to the best of popular music from past to and present. Get ready and enjoy the party………
Bring your friends and make your reservation now for our major fundraising event of the year.
Contact Jackie through the website to make you reservation.
|
|
|
|
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
Want to make a local telephone call? As of Aptil 18th, you will need to dial 1 818 and then the local number.. And, as of May 16th, all new numbers in the 818 area will have a 747 area code. Daily News, March25, 2009
|
|
|
|
Last month we had important City issues. Next month we have important State issues. The following are analyses and recommendations from The California Federation of Republican Women (CFRW) Capitol Update March 14 & March 20, 2009
Proposition 1A - State Budget. Changes California budget process, Limits State Spending, Increases “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund.
CFRW has taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 1A Analysis by Cathy Ritch
Proposition 1A would make changes to the way the state sets aside money in one of its rainy day accounts. The Governor could suspend the transfer when there are no surpluses in a given year. The measure would also continue for one to 2 years tax increases put in place earlier this year to balance the state budget—including a 1 cent increase in the sales tax, an increase in the car tax and a reduction of the dependent credit on personal income tax—netting the state an additional $16 BILLION from 2010-2012. The money would be spent on retiring bonds ($5 billion) and new funding for K-14 ($9.3 billion a year ongoing).
The Legislature has made similar promises over the past 20 years to cap or curb state spending, but legislators have always found a way to ignore former legislative efforts when they chose. Remember the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties created in 1980, the Gann Limit created in 1987, or the Budget Stabilization Account/Budget Stabilization Fund created in 2004? Well, neither does the Legislature. These purported to do much the same thing as this year’s promise.
This time, in exchange for yet another promise to curb state spending, the measure allows what was supposed to be temporary tax hikes continue for another one to two years. While part of the funding ($5 billion) is to be used to pay down existing state debt, the bulk of the additional funding goes to the schools. Why? See Proposition 1B.
Prop 1B - Education Funding. Payment Plan
CFRW has taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 1B Analysis by Cathy Ritch
Proposition 1B is tied to Proposition 1A (if one goes down, they both do) and was proposed by the California Teachers Association as a way of compensating them for not opposing Prop 1A. This measure requires the state to make a total of $9.3 billion in supplemental payments to K-14 education. The payments would be made in annual installments beginning in 2011-12 and become part of the base budget when calculating the following year’s Proposition 98 minimum guarantee.
The measure might create savings in the near term as some argue that it would postpone “maintenance factor” payments that otherwise would have been made in these years. Whether it does or not would have to be decided in court. On the other hand, starting in 2011-2012, $9.3 billion would be paid over a 5-6 year period and would become part of the Prop 98 base requiring continued funding in the years to come.
The real reduction in K-12 spending this year was 6.1 percent, at a time when K-12 has also seen a real decrease in enrollment of 60,000 students. The $9.3 billion funding increase without a guarantee by the unions that the state would not be sued for “maintenance factor” payments is a bad deal for the state and for the taxpayers. Even with the guarantee, the LAO analysis states that “costs for K-14 education likely would be higher than under current law —potentially by billions of dollars each year.” We are in effect promising to pay much much more in the future for budget relief today. It is an expensive budget trick.
Prop 1C - Lottery Modernization Act
CFRW has taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 1C Analysis by Ann Blake
Proposition 1C would allow the state to borrow $5 billion from projected lottery profits. In fact, 1C is one of the major components of the plan to balance the state budget. 1C would also allow the state to borrow an unlimited amount from future lottery profits. Repayment, with interest, of the debts would come from lottery profits.
If 1C passes, annual debt-service payments to investors for $5 billion would total between $350-450 million for 20 to 30 years. Additional borrowings would increase debt-service costs even more. 1C also changes the lottery rules. Profits would no longer be dedicated to education. Payments to education would instead be increased from the General Fund.
Lottery ticket sales dropped 10 percent during the first four months of the current fiscal year beginning July 1. Even though officials blame the economic downturn for the drop in sales, 1C assumes a modernized lottery will increase in revenue. California should not be depending on borrowing from future unknown gambling receipts to revitalize our economy.
Proposition 1D - Children's Services Funding (Based on AB3X3 17, Evans, D) Analysis by Margaret Brown
CFRW makes NO RECOMMENDATION on Proposition 1D.
In November of 1998, voters approved Proposition 10, the California Children and Families Act, and now commonly referred to as the "First 5" program. The purpose of "First 5" was to expand early development programs for children up to age five and would be funded by a 50 cents per pack excise tax on cigarettes.
If passed, Proposition 1D would transfer approximately $340 billion from Proposition 10 unspent reserves available as of July 31, 2009. It would annually transfer $268 million in Proposition 10 unspent reserves from 2009-10 through 2013-14 from the state commission ($54 million) and from county commissions ($214 million). Proposition 1D also makes some permanent structural changes to Proposition 10.
Supporters of 1D argue that there is over $2 billion dollars in unspent reserves in the state and local commissions created by the California Children and Families Act. Without accessing these unused funds, existing state programs would have to be cut. Legislators contend the funds are needed now in order to mitigate California’s budget crisis and continue important programs for children.
Those who oppose 1D argue that borrowing and other temporary “fixes” have not remedied California ’s structural deficit, which will recur as soon as the Proposition 1D funds (and those derived from Proposition 1E) have been depleted. "First 5" funds were approved by voters for a specific purpose and were never intended to be borrowed for the general fund expenditures, including Health and Human Services programs for children. Proposition 1D will not help solve California’s budget problems, which analysts are finding continue to grow day by day. Instead, counties could lose some funding for programs created by First 5.
Prop 1E - Mental Health Services Funding
(Based on SBX3 10, Ducheny, D) Analysis by Margaret Brown
CFRW has taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 1E.
Voters passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, in 2004, to be supported by a surcharge of 1% levied on taxpayers who earn more than $1 million per year. The funds would be used to expand and create new mental health programs. The funds could not be used for other purposes unless the Governor declared a fiscal emergency.
This measure, if approved by voters, would redirect $227 million from MHS programs in 2009-10 and $226 million in 2010-11. Those funds would be used to offset a portion of the federally-mandated program for Medi-Cal patients under the age of 21 and free up a corresponding amount to be used by general fund mental health services and would use surplus funds to help alleviate the current budget crisis. Using these funds may help prevent future tax increases.
Mental health services have been provided to an estimated 200,000 people who would otherwise not have been able to afford them, including 50,000 children since the voters approved Proposition 63 in 2004. By transferring funds, there is a risk of losing a portion of federal funding. Additionally, counties, which are responsible for providing these services, will be faced with the choice of cutting services or trying to find other funding sources to maintain mental health services. There is little advantage to approving a temporary fix.
It appears that the budget gap, even after the legislature’s latest balanced-budget attempt, has grown by an additional $8 billion. Finally, when the voters approve funding for a designated purpose, there needs to be some measure of assurance that the legislature will not simply attempt to confiscate the funds for the current crisis of the moment.
Prop 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries
(Based on SCA 8, Maldonado-R) alysis by Edelweiss Geary and Murriel Oles
CFRW has taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 1F.
The Secretary of State's description of this measure states: "This measure would prohibit the commission from adopting in a fiscal year a resolution that would increase the salary of members of the legislature or other state officers if the Director of Finance determines that there will be a negative balance in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties at the end of that fiscal year." The "commission" referred to in this description is the California Citizens Compensation Commission created in 1990 under Prop 112 which amended the State Constitution by creating this commission.
This proposition appears to demand accountability from legislators and deny them a raise when there is a deficit. However, the deficit referred to is not in the state budget but the Fund for Economic Uncertainties, otherwise known as the "rainy day fund." The Constitution of the State of California, Article XVI, Section 20(b)(3), requires the State Controller to transfer three (3) percent of the estimated amount of the General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year to the Budget Stabilization Account, with fifty (50) percent of that amount into a sinking fund sub-account for the purpose of retiring state bonds. In reality, there should never be a deficit in this rainy day fund.
The State Constitution already requires the legislature and the governor to adopt a balanced budget each year. When that budget falls substantially out of balance (as was the case this year) the Constitution allows the governor to declare a fiscal emergency. By Executive Order S-05-08, Governor Schwarzenegger declared an economic emergency suspending that transfer for the current fiscal year.
Since 2000, the Commission has raised the pay of elected officials four times. Over this period, the total pay increases for each official have been equal to or less than the rate of inflation. For the sake of argument, a one (1) percent increase would amount to an approximate total of $160,000 per year. If the Commission were to grant a three (3) percent increase but was prevented from doing so by the passage of this measure, the state would save less than $500,000. Considering a budget of somewhere in the neighborhood of $115 billion, that amount is a .0004 percent (four ten thousandths of a per cent) savings.
This is another example of convoluted legalese and "smoke and mirrors" making it appear as though the legislators will have to pay attention to fiscal issues when in reality it will have virtually no effect on how the state spends OUR monies.
While at first blush this may seem to be a step in the right direction toward penalizing legislators when the perception is that they are not doing what we elected them to do, we must remember that under Prop 6, approved by the voters in 1972, there is a prohibition against reducing the salary of any elected state official during his or her term of office. In addition, there is a different commission that sets the rate of per diem for legislators and this measure has no bearing on those per diem payments.
|
|
|
|
We will be registering voters at Topanga Plaza on the weekend of May 2 & 3. Please call me to volunteer to do a two hour shift. Sign up through this website. I do appreciate all your help.
|
|
|
|
Our club voted in March to send $25 each to the national scholarship funds, the State scholarship funds, the Charlotte Mousel Southern Division scholarship fund and the Los Angeles County scholarship fund. Thank you ladies.
|
|
|
|
April is our month for collecting and delivering items for battered women and their children temporarily residing in "safe" private apartments supplied by Haven Hills.
Please bring any of the following items to the April General Meeting:
Non-perishable foods such as spaghetti sauce, pasta, canned tuna and meats, packaged macaroni and cheese, crackers and cookies,dry cereal, canned vegetables,fruit, and soup -- enough to make an entire meal for 3 - 5 people. Other things needed include cleaning items, toilet paper and paper towels.
If you like, you may donate money to be used in adding to these items.
Keep in mind that good, used bed sheets (twin and queen size), bath towels and used suitcases are needed throughout the year.
Pat Hicks reports that she took over a car full of soaps and toiletries, so those items are not needed at this time.
We will be collecting donations for Operation Gratitude at our May General Meeting.
.
Join the group volunteering at the My Stuff Bag Program on Wednesday, APRIL 11th. Meet at Cheryl’s at 8:45 a.m. They volunteer until noon and then go out to lunch. Call Cheryl Sullivan to let her know you will be coming.
|
|
|
|
Congressional plan for education isn't the change America needs
By Dan Lips & Robert C. Enlow—
Dan Lips is senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Robert C. Enlow is president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
Any doubts about congressional leaders' priorities on education were erased last Monday with the release of the new $450 billion omnibus bill. It includes a provision to eliminate the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which is currently helping low-income children attend private schools in the nation's capital.
If adopted, the measure will basically ensure that 1,700 of the poorest children in D.C. are forced to leave their private schools and transfer back into the District's low-performing and often dangerous public schools. Angered scholarship parents may wonder why Congress is moving so quickly to end this $14 million program just as the federal government is showering money on Wall Street and the auto companies.
But anyone who followed the recent debate over the so-called stimulus package isn't surprised. That plan included $100 billion in new funding for the Department of Education--a one-time increase that's more than the department currently spends in a year. Buried in the bill's thousands of pages was a rule that not a dollar could be used to give children scholarships to attend private school.
The message was clear: Special-interest groups, not parents, still come first in the education debate. For years, blocking school choice and ending the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program has been a priority for the teachers' unions and their advocates on Capitol Hill.
The harsh truth is that American education urgently needs the kind of reform that $100 billion just won't buy. Millions of children continue to pass through our nation's public schools without receiving an education that prepares them to succeed and take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st-century economy.
Whether we deliver on the promise that all children have equal access to a quality education depends on whether elected officials have the courage to stand up to entrenched interest groups. This isn't about spending more money. This is about setting high standards and holding students and schools accountable for results. It's about changing the way we train, hire, and compensate our teachers.
Most of all, it's about transferring power from government bureaucracy to parents and school leaders, who are better positioned to determine how children can best learn. Parents should be free to choose the educational environment that works best for their children, and school leaders should be empowered to pick the curriculum and personnel that get the job done.
Unfortunately, instead of embracing the change American education needs, the congressional majority appears intent on continuing to support the failed status quo. That's bad news for all American children. But it's especially bad news for 1,700 poor kids in Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
|
The present 1,800 acre Camulos Ranch was established by Ygnacio del Valle in 1853. Rancho Camulos is the only National Historical Landmark in Ventura County.
It is also the only early Rancho in California in its original rural setting and the "Home of Ramona" from Helen Hunt Jackson's famous novel. Camulos was the home of the early Californio del Valle family, obtained as a Mexican land grant in 1839 until 1924 when it was acquired by the current owners, the Rubel family. Both families have preserved this slice of early California history for the public.
Tour Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009
Time: bus to leave promptly at 9:00 a.m.so get there a little earlier to check in
Meet at: - Parking lot behind City Councilman Dennis Zine's office, 19040 Vanowen St., Reseda.
Cost: $25 per person
The Rancho consists of a number of buildings, a separate kitchen building called a “cocina”, chapel, barn, winery, schoolhouse, bell structure, fountain, aviary, grape arbor, fishpond, etc. We will have a docent tour of some of the buildings and gardens and view a 10 minute silent film version of "Ramona." There is an interesting gift shop that includes books of and about the featured subject.
Lunch included: Picnic box lunch on the grounds. Choice of sandwich includes: roast beef, ham, or turkey
Return to Valley: around 4 – 4:30 p.m.
RSVP: Use the "contact us" section of the website to make your reservation
|
|
|
|
The question mark is from the editor
Dale Gieringer is California coordinator for NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)
03/07/2009
With the state out of money and its the prisons overflowing, California's laws against marijuana make no economic sense. Every year, the state shells out millions in taxpayers' dollars to arrest, prosecute and imprison marijuana offenders in a vain attempt to stamp out its use. Meanwhile, legal and more dangerous drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are generating billions in revenues for the state.
California taxpayers would benefit from a new bill by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, AB 390, that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana for adult use. The bill would establish a state-licensing system for producers and distributors, who could sell to adults over 21.
Producers would pay an excise tax of $50 per ounce, or about $1 per joint. Additional revenues would be generated from sales taxes. Altogether, tax revenues would be on the order of $1 billion, comparable to the cigarette tax.
This is a common sense, fiscally conservative policy that would regulate cannabis in a manner similar to other legal intoxicants and raise much-needed revenue for state and county governments.
At the same time, this policy would eliminate marijuana-related crime and law enforcement expenses, which include an estimated $170 million annually for the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. It would likewise put an end to such prohibition-related problems as the proliferation of black market dealers, grow houses, smugglers and pirate gardeners on public lands.
Finally, a legal marijuana industry could generate substantial additional economic benefits in legal employment, business and payroll taxes, and spin-off industries - like the wine industry, which currently contributes $50 billion to California's economy.
History shows that California's laws against marijuana have failed. The state first prohibited marijuana or "Indian hemp" in 1913 over concerns that "Hindoo" immigrants might spread its use to whites. Only after being outlawed did marijuana become widely popular, eventually spreading to millions of Californians.
By 1975, enforcement costs had become so high that the Legislature decriminalized possession of small quantities in the Moscone Act, saving the state $100 million each year.
In 1990, the California Research Advisory Panel urged further decriminalization, noting that "an objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."
In 1996, California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana in Proposition 215 (though neglecting to establish a legally regulated supply system). Contrary to the predictions of opponents, marijuana use by youth actually declined after Proposition 215, but arrests continued unabated.
Because medical users are only a small fraction of the marijuana market, law enforcement costs have continued to be a drain on the state.
Marijuana accounts for 61 percent of the illicit drug traffic from Mexico, where prohibition-fueled gang wars have killed more than 6,800 people.
Ammiano deserves credit for recognizing that the only way to solve the marijuana problem is to legalize, tax and regulate it. Although politicians have been chary of mentioning the "L-word," public attitudes are changing.
A new Zogby poll shows that 44 percent of voters now support taxing and regulating marijuana - and as many as 58 percent in the western states back legalization. As usual, California is ahead of the rest of the nation. Ammiano's bill provides a path-breaking blueprint for change that would benefit our economy, safety and freedom by making marijuana a winning proposition for California.
|
|
|
|
, March 22, 2009 President Obama, who never ran any organization of any size before being elected to be the chief executive of the United States, continues to underwhelm as crisis after crisis reveals his lack of experience, judgment, and character.
He and his handpicked Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, are trying to lay blame anywhere but upon themselves for not limiting compensation payouts as a condition for receiving public funds.
But the truth is that the Obama Administration requested the exemption for AIG bonuses. Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, inserted an amendment in the $787 billion boondoggle at the urging of the Obama team.
Can you guess who received the most in campaign contributions from AIG in 2008? That's right -- Chris Dodd, who received over $103,000 in 2008, and almost a quarter of a million dollars since 2003.
Second on that list? Barack Obama, who also received over $100,000 in campaign cash...
The problem is that nobody read the bill!!!!
|
|
|
|
BEFORE THERE’S ANOTHER AIG
|
www.JewishWorldReview.com and
The Daily News, March 24, 2009
Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.
Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses— which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.
Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us— especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."
What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.
No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership. Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages.
Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.
Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.
This political theater is in one sense cheap beyond words. In another sense, it is costly beyond words.
It is cheap because the politicians who are creating this distraction from their own role also voted for the very legislation that enabled contracted bonuses to be paid by companies like AIG that received government bailout money. If members of Congress can't be bothered to read the laws they pass, then they have no basis for whipping up lynch mob outrage against people who did read the law and acted within the law.
Just as everyone seemed to be a military expert a couple of years ago, when it was chic to say that the "surge" in Iraq would not work, so today everyone seems to be an expert on executive pay.
Whether the particular executives who received bonuses were the ones responsible for AIG's problems, or were among those who warned against those problems, is something that those of us on the outside don't know. That includes those in politics and the media who are making the loudest noise.
The politicians claim to be protecting the taxpayers' money. But having politicians trying to micro-manage any business is far more likely to make those businesses lose more money, including the taxpayers' money.
Securities based on risky mortgages are what toppled financial institutions but it was the government that made the mortgages risky in the first place, by making home-ownership statistics the holy grail, for which everything else was to be sacrificed, including commonsense standards for making home loans.
Politicians and bureaucrats micro-managing the mortgage sector of the economy is precisely how today's economic disaster began. Why anyone would think that their micro-managing the automobile industry, or executive pay across a wide sweep of other industries, is likely to make things better in the economy is a mystery.
The real point is to pander to envy and resentment against people who make a lot of money. Envy is always referred to by its political alias, "social justice." But to put the lives of the wives and children of executives at risk for the sake of Beltway grandstanding shows how low our political saviors have sunk.
|
|
|
|
—Then Signs $410 Billion Bill
|
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Washington, D.C. - President Barack Obama, sounding weary of criticism over federal earmarks, defended Congress' pet projects Wednesday as he signed an "imperfect" $410 billion measure.
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
But he said the spending does need tighter restraint and listed guidelines to do it.
On another potentially controversial matter, the president also issued a "signing statement" with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He raised the issue of earmarks in public remarks playing down their scope and possible harm in the measure. They comprise about 1 percent of the spending package, which will keep the government running through September, he told reporters.
"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said.
Proposing new safeguards, he asked Congress to require that any earmark for a for-profit company be subject to competitive bids. He also said he would work with Congress to eliminate earmarks or other specific items in spending bills that he believes serve no legitimate purpose. But he did not specify how.
|
|
|
|
Now we have Obama’s $3.55 trillion budget to OPPOSE!
On April 1, 2009, all Americans are asked to send a TEA BAG to Washington, D.C. ( New information is to send an empty teabag or just the tag from one.) Add a note if you would like. Send to
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
|
|
|
|
We want you all to come out to a rally on tax night to protest both the State and Federal Tax increase bills. We will meet at 7:00 pm at the Van Nuys Civic Center Plaza on April 15th.
For more information, go to the Facebook Event Page here:http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=75210421920&ref=mf or just SHOW UP.
Bring signs and American flags.
Arline Fiorito is organizing carpools. Contact her via the "Contact us" section of this website.
|
|
|
|
March 19, 2009
They will serve as a "national partner" with the United States Census Bureau. ACORN's role will be to hire nearly 1.4 million workers to canvass for the 2010 census. Why should we be alarmed?
ACORN has a long history of voter fraud charges and now they are going to be a part of the 2010 census! Republicans are already leading the fight against ACORN's illegitimate role in the census.
"ACORN has been accused of voter fraud, embezzlement, and more... and yet this is a group that the federal government wants helping with the census?" asks Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA.
"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep.. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."
Why should we be further alarmed?
The census count not only determines congressional allocation, but it also provides the raw data by which government allocates spending on everything from roads to schools. Fraudulent or invalid data could skew congressional redistricting and enable public policy decisions that would unfairly favor the Democratic Party.
|
|
|
|
