California Chronicle Blog

Friday, August 27, 2010

Many politicians and pundits pin the economic travails of the State of California upon our tax rates. However, my experience leads me to believe that the number one cause for the economic malaise of our once great State emanates from our regulatory climate. Here is but one example.

    It is most unfortunate that few Californians are aware of the scandal surrounding the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB has been in the process of establishing a Diesel Engine Rule that will require all engines in the State of CA to be replaced twice in the next ten years. The fiscal impact of this rule can easily cost the California economy in excess of $40 billion. It will impact trucking, construction, and farming, as these industries rely heavily upon diesel engines. Is the expense for this rule justified?

    CARB has been arguing that the particulate emissions from diesel engine exhaust causes premature deaths in the State of California. However, Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA, has proven there is no such health impact and his research has been peer reviewed and replicated by other scholars. Dr. Enstrom has a PhD in Physics from Stanford, and he has been a research scientist in the University of Ca. for nearly 40 years!

    Additionally, Dr. Enstrom discovered that the lead researcher working for CARB on this project, Hien T. Tran, faked his Ph.D, having purchased it on-line! Further, the Chair of CARB, Mary Nichols help conceal this fraud from her fellow board members!

    Yet, after all this, the person being fired is Dr. Enstrom! Despite the fact that he has been with UCLA for some 34 years, he has been slated for termination simply because his colleagues don’t like the effects of his research.

    This episode mirrors the international Climategate scandal. As you recall, the leaders of the movement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions were caught in email exchanges discussing how to squelch and punish any researchers who dared challenge their scientific findings.

    These efforts to squelch debate and silence opposition are an affront to the honesty and integrity of academia and undermine the very foundation of the regulatory efforts underway.

    Dr. Enstrom is a fine gentlemen having had the courage to been one of the only scientists out there who has been willing to go against the current of politically correct junk science. His research has been a great help to the business community as they attempt to resist the onslaught of regulations threatening to overrun our economy. He was fired by fellow staff members in a closed meeting. Some of these fellow staff members have a grudge against him for his work associated with this scandal at CARB!

    We are asking the Chancellor of UCLA to give Dr. Enstrom the due process of a fair hearing that will enable him to hear the charges against him and the opportunity to defend himself.

Please email the Chancellor and ask him to hold a FAIR Hearing on this matter.

The contact for UCLA Chancellor Gene Block is chancellor@conet.ucla.edu

To hear an interview with Dr. Enstrom follow this link: http://www.colabsbc.org/radioshow.aspx

Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB, The Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Andy also hosts a daily radio show on the Central Coast. For more information, contact Andy at andy@colabsbc.org

Posted at 15:27 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, August 20, 2010

Small Businesses Can Be Leaders In Changing Washington

By Janet Cronick

Tomorrow, I and other women business owners from the Southern California area will gather at the Anaheim Sheraton Park Hotel to discuss the challenges we face, and the issues that impact our businesses’ bottom line. Government spending and our nation’s fiscal crisis played a big role in this discussion.

Daily, troubling economic news has left anxious Americans wondering if the worst of the economic crisis is truly behind us. All Americans have been effected by the financial crisis and ensuing recession, but small business owners have faced particularly tough challenges. Unfortunately, counter-productive policy and the government's fiscal recklessness have only added to the problems..

The collapse of the housing market destroyed the assets of millions of Americans. With less savings, consumers reduced their spending, which affected the bottom lines of businesses everywhere. Employers that planned to expand instead laid off valued employees. Companies and would-be entrepreneurs today find it difficult to obtain loans from a skittish financial sector.

Companies have been doing more with less as a result of these hard economic times. Families also have been cutting back. In contrast, our federal government has been on an unprecedented spending spree with our tax dollars, and the future tax dollars of our children and grandchildren.

This year alone, the federal government will add $1.5 trillion to the national debt. While politicians try to justify this borrowing as necessary to bolster the economy, Americans know all to well that too many of our tax dollars are simply being wasted. Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn recently published a disturbing report highlighting 100 of the most wasteful projects funded by the so-called “economic stimulus” bill. The examples are jaw dropping: $89,298 for a new sidewalk leading to a ditch; $554,763 for new windows for a closed-down building.

Such waste is infuriating, but it isn't unexpected. This is the way that Washington has run for decades. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have grown accustomed to using taxpayer money as if it was Monopoly money, to be distributed to favored constituents and interest groups, for projects that would never receive support from the private sector. Many leaders in Washington have found it more politically expedient to run up debt, while ignoring warning signs about the long-term consequences of their fiscal recklessness.

The consequences of this profligacy are catching up with us quickly. Our national debt is currently $13.3 trillion, which is equivalent to more than 90 percent of our gross domestic product.

Economists warn that countries with debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP retard their economic growth. The United States has already surpassed that threshold. How much worse might our economic problem be down the road?

And far from reining in spending, just last week Washington passed yet another round of bailouts – this time, $26 billion for states still mired in their own fiscal messes.

As a nation, we must ask ourselves: how can we reverse course so our economy won't drown in a tidal wave of debt?

The answer is simple: the American people must demand those we elect to Congress make getting the nation’s fiscal house in order. We must hold them accountable. Small business owners have enough problems without the confidence-crushing uncertainty that is coming out of Washington. Elected officials must commit to focusing on this bigger picture of our overall economic health. Terry Neese, a small business advocate, has a saying, “If you run a business and you’re not involved in public policy, then public policy will run your business.”

Small business owners can serve as leaders in demanding greater responsibility from Washington. Every day we are making tough decisions, balancing our companies' budgets, economizing, and making prudent investments. Washington politicians should have to do no less.

Janet Cronick is owner and CEO of Ultimate Gifts, a promotional products logo merchandise company located in the Orange County, California area.

Posted at 14:48 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, August 20, 2010

The challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda

By Andy Caldwell

I would like to share some observations pertaining to the following quote from the late Michael Crichton, “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.”

First, with respect to an assault on our national sovereignty, I would like to discuss the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama has couched his support of the project in the name of freedom of religion. Unfortunately, our President is not living in the reality of a post 9/11 world. In the political and historical world view of some radical followers of Islam, the building of a mosque is akin to our army raising the American flag in a territory conquered by our army. In fact the name of the project, Cordoba, was borrowed from just such a mosque erected in Europe in the aftermath of a military conflict centuries ago. To some, the Muslim faith is not just a religion, it is a political ideology, a call to arms and a constitution, and the mosque represents the establishment of the same. President Obama and the fools running the City of New York are in essence rolling out the red carpet to conquerors who are not here in the name of peace, goodwill or international understanding.

My next points have to do with the assault on our economy. Our State government and three regulatory enforcement agencies it has vested with authority to promulgate and enforce State law are creating a whirlwind of destruction as they ravage our economy in the name of saving the environment. The Water Quality Control Board, the California Air Resources Board and the California Coastal Commission are all in the midst of a regulatory pogrom that seeks to give their agencies control of land use and zoning authority as they usurp the same from local government.

In essence, these agencies are trying to eliminate any and all impacts to water, air and land regardless of the cost to our economy and our rights. They are issuing standards that will make it impossible to build homes, grow food, raise livestock and manufacture goods as they prohibit the most negligible impacts to the environment arising from the same. The standards of environmental impact that will trigger prohibitions, fines and penalties are so low that they are technologically and fiscally impossible to achieve. We need to be able to use energy, water, and land to produce food and goods. As these agencies try to eliminate impacts arising from the use of our natural resources, the only way to oblige the regulators is to quit doing business!

My final related observation has to do with unions. I am actually a fan of unions because my own experience having worked in an industrial setting for over 11 years is that some employers will always pay the absolute minimum they can in terms of wages and benefits. If it were not for unions, we would not have many of the benefits and protections afforded us all in the workplace today. Having said that, too much of a “good thing” can itself become a problem. And in the case of at least some sectors of organized labor, the greed and importunity is now on the other foot. To any union member that will listen, please consider the fact that the politicians you keep helping to get elected are anti-business and anti-growth, even as they promise you everything you ask for. Well, they can no longer deliver! Politicians and government have nothing to give you that they didn’t first take from someone else. The sad fact is they are now incapacitating the very source of plunder!

Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB and a 42 year resident of the Central Coast. For contact information, visit the COLAB website at www.colabsbc.org

Posted at 09:29 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Monday, August 16, 2010

Tolerant To A Fault

By Harris Sherline

Just how tolerant should we be? Are we, that is, we Americans, tolerant enough toward others? When do or should we draw the line between tolerance and allowing ourselves to be manipulated?

The issue of the mosque at Ground Zero has evolved into a national discussion about our tolerance toward the Islamic faith, and as people line up on both sides, the schism between many of our political leaders and the general population has become increasingly pronounced.

The latest shot from the bow of our government’s ship of state has been leveled by none other than the president himself, who declared that Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” It’s especially interesting that he made this statement last Friday at an Iftar meal at the White House, which observed the end of the Muslims’ Ramadan fast. Obama further stated that they have “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.”

Those who favor construction of a mosque just a stone’s throw from the World Trade Center (WTC) have based their argument on property rights, which presumably allows the Muslims to do anything they want on their own land.

But they are wrong.

If their property rights are unlimited, why do we have zoning laws, and why are some properties designated as Historical Sites, in addition to being required to conform to a plethora of building codes and labor laws that exist in abundance in every jurisdiction in the nation. Not just in New York City, but in every city, county, borough and state in America. Every community has limitations on what an owner can do with their real property, as well as when and how.

The assertion that because the site of the proposed mosque is “private property” as the rationale for allowing the Muslims to build the mosque they are proposing at Ground Zero is absolute nonsense. It’s a sophistry, “a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.”

Think about the community where you live. Can you build anything you want on your own land? Of course you can’t. So, I believe it’s time we stop those who favor the mosque at Ground Zero from using a false argument in an effort to buttress their case.

But, there’s more. How about religious tolerance? If we are supposed to be tolerant of the concerns of Islamic believers in America by respecting their desire for a mosque at a particular location, how about also expecting the Muslims to reciprocate, perhaps by allowing a Jewish Temple to be built next door or across the street from their own place of worship?

Unfortunately, considering that one of the basic tenets of Islam is the total destruction and/or domination of the Jews, it’s highly unlikely that the Muslims would tolerate a Synagogue next door to their site at the WTC. Case in point: Try building a Christian church of any denomination or a Jewish temple anywhere in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get.

Furthermore, has anyone thought about the daily calls to prayer that are sometimes broadcast from the towers of mosques, calling the Muslim faithful to prayer five times a day? How about laws that limit noise levels in many communities? Should they be waived on the grounds that this mosque is exempt because it’s an integral part of the Islamic faith?

So, where does tolerance start and end? Is it just one-way? Should those Americans who disagree with building a mosque at Ground Zero cool it and stop raising objections, or should their concerns also be “tolerated” by others, including the Muslims?

And how about the families and friends of the thousands of people who were killed by Muslims on 9/11? They, along with many other Americans, see a mosque at Ground Zero as an insensitive, in-your-face act by those Muslims who support the construction of the mosque and Muslim cultural center at that location.

So, which side should be challenged to be “tolerant” and respect the rights and concerns of others? Just those who believe tolerance should be limited to the people who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero or both sides? A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 68% of Americans oppose the plans for construction of the mosque at Ground Zero, while only 29% favored it. So, who should be admonished to be “tolerant”?

The resolution of this problem is really quite easy. Why not just move the mosque to another location that everyone can find acceptable? Or is that too much to ask of the Muslims?

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Posted at 08:52 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Health Care Reform and Doctors – Part II

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t learn something new about the negative impacts that Obama’s health care plan is having or holds in store for the sick and elderly in America.

Speaking to the American Medical Association in Chicago on June 15, 2009, Barack Obama made the following statement: “So let me begin by saying that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broke and build on what works.”

So, what happened on the way to implementing Obamacare?

For one thing, we certainly did not get a health care plan that is acceptable to the American people. Rasmussen reports that 58% of the public want the president’s health care plan repealed.

So, did we simply lose our way? Was it deliberate, a part of the plan all along? Or, was it just legislative overkill that most legislators didn’t expect or foresee? Or, all of the above?

Whatever the case, each new step in the process of implementing Obamacaare exposes more information about the unanticipated or unintended consequences of the president’s health care plan. And, they aren’t good.

For example, a recent AP (Associated Press) headlined, “Senate fails to spare doctors from Medicare cuts,” reported that, although the Senate passed legislation to avoid a 21% cut in Medicare payments to doctors, their action was too late to prevent Medicare from implementing fee reductions for the month of June because the House was unable to act on the bill in time. The president of the American Medical Association said, “This is no way to run a major health coverage program.”

But, this situation was just the tip of the iceberg. Offering further insight to the potential disaster that is now unfolding in America’s health care system, a blogger, Joseph Scherzer, M.D., recently noted: “There is hardly a week that goes by without some new concern or demand, none of which have to do with learning about Medicine. We are caught up in a torrential whirlwind of bureaucratic regulations admixed with a flood of threats.”

Dr. Scherzer further commented: “If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!”, warning: “Because of government meddling in the practice of medicine and unreasonable, excessive rules, regulations and reimbursement that does not keep up with the actual cost of living, doctors nationwide are already decreasing the number of new Medicare patients they will take. Eventually, all across the country, and already in some states, there will not be enough doctors for all the baby boomers. I predict that because of the expected severe shortage of Medicare providers under Obamacare, our intrusive government will then force the doctors they are abusing to take on new Medicare patients or risk horrific fines if they refuse. And, with the appalling fines discussed below, consider how many physicians are just going to say "to hell with it" and throw in the towel and shut their doors so they won't have to put up with government's new socialist, terror tactics. Not only are the president and the Dems bankrupting the country and scaring off doctors, they are ensuring rationing of health care to seniors. Can you imagine what healthcare will be like for seniors in 10 years after Obamacare destroys the best health care system in the world?”

Some of the fines that Dr. Scherzer refers to range from $11,000 to $50,000 for such transgressions as making an error in Medicare billings, noting also that the government’s burden of proof is very light. In addition, the definition of “fraud” has been expanded to include “unnecessary” or “ineffective” services, or services that don’t “comply with Medicare requirements.”

Having run a hospital, I can tell you from firsthand experience that dealing with the bureaucratic overkill of Medicare and other government agencies can be enough to make many doctors decide to quit.

Put yourself in the position of your doctor, who must now practice medicine under the continuous threat of financial ruin for such simple mistakes as billing errors. Keep in mind that doctors do not actually do the billing themselves. It’s done by office staff.

The cumulative effect of all this regulation and financial risk can only result in increasing numbers of doctors giving up the practice of medicine.

Don’t be surprised if you call for an appointment to see your doctor one of these days, only to learn that he or she has retired or otherwise given up the practice of medicine.

You can count on it. And, who will be there to look after you?

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Posted at 15:03 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

I have great respect for Sam Blakeslee

By Andy Caldwell

I have great respect for Sam Blakeslee. John Laird on the other hand scares me to death.

The organization I represent and work for is the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business. We are a coalition of organizations and individuals. Our organization does not endorse candidates, except under rare circumstances. However, the organizations that make up the coalition do endorse, such as various organizations that represent farmers and manufacturers. Further, COLAB is a member itself of organizations such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses that publish legislative report cards.

Without a single exception that I am aware of, every single business, manufacturing and taxpayer advocacy organization that are part of COLAB or that we belong to, gave John Laird straight F’s when he was in the State Legislature. Further, family values advocacy organizations rated Laird as a zero when it came to promoting family values.

Laird was described by one political observer as the person behind the wheel when the California economy was driven off a cliff, as he was the Chairman of the Assembly Budget committee when California was being driven to the brink of insolvency.

Laird has taken out ads and put up billboards with a focus on Blakeslee’s career in the oil industry. Sam does have a PhD and he did work for Exxon some years ago as a scientist. However, if you watch the Laird ads, you will get the distinct impression that Blakeslee is guilty by association with the likes of BP and that if elected he represents a threat of a similar oil spill in California waters.

Well, the reality is, this election is not about BP or oil for that matter. This election is about the future of the California economy and the ability to keep our state from going bankrupt. As indicated, part of the burden of the debt lies squarely on the shoulders of Laird. Moreover, obstacles in the way of our recovery can also be laid at his feet. For the biggest obstacle to economic recovery in the State is the existence of a bill, AB32, California’s version of Cap and Trade. If this legislation is not suspended by voters in November, it could cost the California economy nearly $200 billion in regulatory costs every year. Do I need to indicate that John Laird was actually one of the co-authors of the bill?

Laird also supported other bills that even made his fellow democrats nervous! Special privileges for illegal aliens such as drivers licenses and free college tuition. This lists goes on and on!

Knowing these things, do you want Laird to be part of a super-majority in the State Senate?

Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB and a 42 year resident of the Central Coast. For contact information visit the COLAB website at www.colabsbc.org

Posted at 09:26 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, June 25, 2010

Take Prudent Action to Reduce the Debt or Pay More Later

By Gretchen Hamel

Procrastination isn't one of the seven deadly sins, but if one were making a list of deadly economic behaviors, it would surely be near the top of the list. As the U.S. heads into the G-20 meeting, it should heed the advice it will receive from other countries regarding our fiscal fiasco.

Last week the world learned that European political leaders failed to act when they first became aware of the magnitude of the debt crisis. As early as February, officials from the U.S. government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned European leaders that the debt problems in countries like Greece had the potential to impact the world economy. European leaders stalled, hoping that Greece's problems would be contained.

Unfortunately, their problems became more severe.

Analysts estimate that the cost of rescuing Greece from bankruptcy would have been $35 billion if measures had been taken when initial warnings were issued. Instead, Europe’s leaders fiddled while Athens burned and now the cost of bailing out Greece is $140 billion. That additional $105 billion is just a small portion of the total cost of the delayed response to Greece's meltdown.

Investor confidence in European debt has been profoundly shaken by the Greek crisis, leading to a precipitous drop in the value of the Euro currency, and contributing to stock market declines worldwide. Europe and the IMF are now creating a $1 trillion fund that can be used to stabilize countries facing potential default.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that the Greeks ought to have made changes long ago to bring their country's accounts closer to balance. Similarly, European nations, whose economic futures are wedded to Greece's because of their shared currency and interlocking debt relationships, should have taken action to stabilize Greece before the problem became a crisis.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20, but it seems like Congress is refusing to learn from the stark example Europe has provided.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office offered this bleak assessment of U.S. economic prospects: “Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.... CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental questions about economic sustainability.”

President Obama has heard this grim prognosis. At a townhall meeting last summer, the President himself said: “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China...We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Congress, like Europe, has been warmed.

But they’re fiddling while Washington, and all 50 of the U.S. states, burn. Congressional leaders are currently debating another stimulus, and the debate is about whether to spend $50 billion or a $100 billion, not whether any billions are needed, or, if they are, where to find cuts to make up for the new spending.

Congress has decided to forgo the budget preparation entirely, with Majority Leader Hoyer explaining that it would be useless to try to budget without hearing the recommendations of the fiscal commission. Yet one hardly needs a commission to know that the first solution to debt problems is to stop overspending immediately.

The CBO now expects our debt to reach 90 percent of GDP (more than $20 trillion) by 2020. By then, our interest payments will have quadrupled. By 2020—that's just ten years from now, when today's first graders are getting driver's licenses—interest payments and our entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, will require 9 out of every 10 dollars in the federal budget.

Policymakers know the numbers. They have heard the warnings. They know our present course is unsustainable. The question is are they going to do anything about it before it's too late?

Gretchen Hamel is the executive director of Public Notice, an independent, bipartisan, non-profit organization dedicated to providing facts and insights on the effect public policy has on Americans’ financial well being. For more information please visit www.thepublicnotice.org.

Posted at 10:36 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Monday, June 21, 2010

Obama’s Blowout

By Harris Sherline

The BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of America’s anti-drilling crowd, including president Obama, who have blocked drilling for oil in safer locales, most of which have been put off limits by their efforts to force us to develop alternative sources of energy.

Obama has seized on the situation as just another opportunity to push his “Cap and Trade” proposal. With Obama, it’s always about politics and the “change” he promised to bring to America, most of which the American public has rejected.

After essentially ignoring the oil spill for 57 days, Obama finally took to the air waves on June 15. Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office, he attempted to assure us that he had the situation under control and that he is in charge. In his effort to convince the public that he is actively dealing with the problem, Obama made his now infamous comment on the NBC Today Show, saying: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

What a classy guy our president is. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was personally offended by his remark. Not because I don’t fault British Petroleum for this disaster, but because I just don’t think our political leaders should make public statements about major issues using street language. I believe it demeans both the office and the individual. The president of the United States is not and should not try to be just one of the guys.

But, talking tough or pushing BP into creating a $20 billion slush fund, presumably to cover the cost of cleaning up the oil mess, does not solve the long-term problem of risk in deepwater drilling. Obama responded by simply declaring a moratorium on all such drilling, at least for now, as if that will accomplish anything except to make us more dependent on other countries, where many people hate us.

It will also drive up the cost of oil, gasoline and many other oil based products. Some sources are predicting that the price of gasoline could go as high as $7.00 a gallon. The impact of an increase of this magnitude will affect everything from food to power, manufacturing and transportation, all of which will force most people to reorder their budgets for such basics as food, heating and air conditioning, their personal use of power, driving to and from work, trucking, just about anything and everything Americans use and do. This in turn will make the U.S. less competitive in world markets and induce many businesses to relocate operations overseas, which will cost jobs in the U.S.

Almost every nation throughout the world will continue drilling for oil, such as (in no particular order): 17 nations in Africa; Australia; New Zealand; 15 nations in Europe (including the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Russia); the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen); 31 of the 50 U.S. states; Canada and Mexico; 15 South American countries, including Brazil (which the U.S. recently helped finance).

You can be sure none of these countries will stop offshore or deepwater drilling simply because the U.S. has shut down any or all of its own drilling activity. Furthermore, none of them regulate oil drilling nearly as strictly as the U.S. So, what we will get for this trade-off will be far more pollution in other parts of the world, much of which will drift to other areas, to say nothing of the loss of some $6 billion in annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from oil drilling royalties that are currently being paid by the oil companies.

Obama can talk as tough as he wants, threaten or cajole BP and the other oil companies, but his statements are more about PR than accomplishing anything, other than using the situation as another opportunity to push for something he wants, which in this case is to have Congress pass his Cap and Trade bill. Once again, Obama followed the admonition of his chief-of-staff, Rham Emanuel, that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

Never mind that Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation, Obama pressed on, suggesting that passage of Cap and Trade would take us to “a new future that will benefit us all.”

Obama wants Americans to end their “addiction” to oil, and offers to replace it with wind and solar power, along with other embryonic technologies, none of which are anywhere close to being developed to the point where they are not only practical but economically feasible, including automobiles that will run on electricity.

For Obama, the blowout is about more than oil, it’s about his ability to lead. And, once again he has chosen to play politics rather than lead.

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Posted at 15:34 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Apology Not Accepted

by Harris R. Sherline

People misspeak all the time, then try to retract or modify their statements because their comments cause a public furor that puts them in an unfavorable light. And, sometimes, as in the case of politicians, it can kill their chances of being elected, or reelected.

So, just how effective is it to try to retract or modify some foot-in-the mouth misstatement?

The latest example of a well known person offending a particular individual or group is journalist Helen Thomas who, when she was asked by Rabbi David Nesenoff of RabbiLive.com if she had “any comments on Israel,” the Hearst Newspapers columnist said (on camera), “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” adding that the Palestinians “are occupied and it’s their land” and that Israelis should “go home” to Poland, Germany, America “and everywhere else.”

Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress, said: "Shame on Helen Thomas. She is certainly old enough to remember the Holocaust and the Second World War. She owes an apology to all victims of the Nazis…"

Ms. Thomas subsequently apologized on her personal Web site, posting: "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

However, her original remarks not only revealed her biased mindset but also exposed an abysmal ignorance of history in general and of the Jews in particular.

For Helen Thomas to think that the Jews in the Middle East originally came from Poland, Germany and America is beyond belief, especially for someone who, given her age (89), was obviously around during WWII and the Holocaust. Does she think Hitler was right and that the Jews should have been exterminated at Auschwitz? Or that the Poles should have succeeded in keeping them in the Ghettos and turning them all over to Hitler? Or that the Arabs should have wiped them out when they attacked Israel on the first day the new nation was formed? It appears that she does.

It’s important to keep in mind the fact that there are only about five million Jews in Israel and around 250 million Arabs in 22 states, all clamoring for the destruction of Israel. Yet, in spite of such overwhelming odds, Israel has managed to survive since it became the Jewish state in 1948.

Thomas obviously believes the territory that is now called Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, without any understanding of the fact that Israel was the home of the Jews and was called Palestine for two thousand years. Before the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no “Palestinians.”

Helen Thomas’ prejudice is clearly based on blind adherence to the propaganda of Hamas, which is openly and implacably dedicated to the destruction of Israel and “driving the Jews into the sea.”

So, Helen Thomas’ attempt to extricate her foot from her mouth is not acceptable. She meant what she said, and no amount of backtracking can obliterate her words or cover her bigotry.

That’s OK with me. As a matter of fact, I probably prefer it. At least I know where she stands, no ifs, ands or buts, and I can deal with that.

It has been said that if the Jews laid down their arms tomorrow, Israel would cease to exist, whereas, if the Arabs were to give up their arms, there would be peace.

One final point: As Dennis Miller commented, “Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves?...Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea?...Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents?...Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children?...No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.”

Think about it.

Helen Thomas’ apology is not accepted, at least not by me. Not now, not ever.

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Posted at 09:19 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, May 28, 2010

VOTERS REJECT SLUSH FUND POLITICS

By Matt Kokkonen

All over America, voters are rejecting the lies and half-truths of politicians.

They are rejecting “business-as-usual” politics, secret political agendas, and

the influence of Big Money on our elections. They are demanding greater

transparency and accountability from public officials. They rightly believe

that America’s legislative chambers are controlled by special interests –

be they Big Business or Big Labor or any number of others -- which demand

favors in return for campaign contributions. They truly believe America’s

political leaders are up for auction to the highest bidder.

This corruption of our political system is being played out right here in the

33^rd Assembly District, although the local media tries to ignore it.

One candidate has received over $86,000 in funding from a dummy political

committee ( which until a few days ago was not even registered with the

California Secretary of State! ) established primarily for the purpose of

evading campaign contribution limits ( limiting contributions to Assembly

candidates to $3,900 per person ) and pumping tens of thousands of dollars

into his campaign indirectly to pay for slick television ads.

The group in question calls itself the “California Taxpayers Advocate” and

the candidate involved is 33^rd Assembly District candidate Katcho Achadjian.

There is no information on the Internet about “California Taxpayers Advocate.”

Nor does this “organization” have a website. Its address is a UPS Store in

San Diego. Its media buyer is an ex-California State Senator.

Sound fishy? Certainly.

By law, committees such as this must legally file paperwork with the Secretary

of State when they spend money in support of or in opposition to a political

candidate. This is the only way we can determine who is paying for “California

Taxpayers Advocate.” The most recent filing deadline was May 27 and this

is what we find:

Among the contributions to this group is $31,000 from the California Dental

Association PAC, $25,000 from the California Medical Association PAC, $10,000

from PG&E, $15,000 from the California Building Industry Association, and

$20,000 from the giant grocery chain, Food4Less.

Why exactly do these special interests want to elect Katcho to the Assembly?

Why do Big Medicine, Big Utilities, Big Developers, and Big Grocers need

Katcho in the Assembly? Why do they need to be funneling tens of thousands

of dollars into his campaign through surreptitious means? Sure, it may be legal

( if everything is properly reported ), but that isn’t the point.

Do Big Business interests, public employee unions, and other entities -- which

spend millions of dollars every year lobbying our legislators -- make large

political contributions simply out of charity or because they have nothing better to

do with their money?

Of course not. They are buying access. They are seeking special consideration.

Frankly, they are buying votes. It has not been unprecedented to hear of

legislators who actually skimmed through their contributor lists to determine

which visitors to their hallowed offices they would choose to meet with. This

is simply wrong and it is unethical. Our legislators are elected to represent

the voters of their districts, not PG&E, the CMA, or Food4Less.

Katcho Achadjian has been a county Supervisor for a decade. He is an expert

politician and the master of the kind of closed-door, back-room deal-making

that the people are increasingly fed up with. In this campaign, he had an

opportunity to break with his long-standing image as a political wheeler-

dealer and opt instead for a fully transparent campaign. He has chosen not

to do so and the voters of the 33^rd Assembly District are undoubtedly the

losers.

Posted at 15:57 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

1

2

3

4