Hillary's Presidential Message- Reading Between The Lines (Video)

I came accross this video post by Red Square where he tries to help us read between the lines of Sen. Clinton's presidential anouncement.



Highlights:

• Every American deserves a free rationing coupon
• One sack of beets and potatoes a month for the middle class
• It's not your money, it's the government's
• The Constitution doesn't cut it anymore
• Put an end to Bush's economic boom
• We need Central Planning and one-party rule
• You will love my five year plans
• Terrorists? Let's chat
  Reduce dependence on foreign oil by making domestic pixie juice
• I'll do all the thinking for you
• I'll tax you into prosperity
• I'll be respected abroad and feared at home
• Send me CA$H and get Bill Clinton as your next co-president ABSOLUTELY FREE!
• Power to the Proper People!

Spock & Sulu Comment on Klingons in the Whitehouse (Video)

California Legislature to mandate STD vaccination for 6th grade girls

The childless author of the now infamous “anti-spanking bill” California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, has introduced yet another bill intruding on the rights of parents to raise their children. Lieber’s AB 16 would mandate that all female students be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) before being allowed to enter the sixth grade.

Let’s begin with a few facts. First, 70% of cervical cancer cases are caused by the four strains of HPV targeted by the newly approved vaccine best known as Gardasil. But it is also important to note that all four strains are transmitted only through sexual contact; protected or not.

So the first question we should be asking is whether or not we should be mandating a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease to children who should not be sexually active. Unlike other diseases for which we mandate vaccination (i.e. Tuberculosis and Small Pox) HPV is not highly communicable. Furthermore, the ONLY method of transmitting the HPV strains targeted by this vaccination is sexual contact.

We should also question the wisdom of mandating a vaccination that has been on the market for such a short period of time. Gardasil was just approved by the Food and Drug Administration back in June 2006, less than a year ago. And while it did go through extensive trials, does it really make sense to mandate it be given to children when we have so little history upon which to determine the long-term safety of the product? What’s the rush?

Finally, the hypocrisy of the “choice movement” on the left never ceases to amaze me. Explain to me how a twelve year old girl is mature enough to “choose” to be taken from a school campus and given birth control or even an abortion without her parents’ even knowing about it, but isn’t mature enough to “choose” whether or not the want to receive a vaccine for a disease that is only transmitted through sexual contact? Why can’t she simply “choose” not to have sex until she is in a faithful, committed marriage relationship?

Dick Cheney vs. Nancy Pelosi: The Blink-Off (Video)

What's the only standing committee in the Senate without any members? Senate Ethics!

That figures!

During my short tenure as a legislative staffer, I have come to realize that ethics is sort of an enigma in the California Legislature. We talk a lot about them and how important they are. They even go as far as to provide us ethics training, so that we can know what is appropriate and what is not.

But when it comes down to putting these rules into practice, one rule trumps them all. It’s kind of the Golden Rule of Politics “He who has the gold, makes the rules!”

That is why it doesn’t surprise me to learn that the only standing committee in the California Senate with no members assigned to it is the Senate Ethics Committee.

The Capitol Weekly wrote the following on this subject:

Snicker no more. The Senate Ethics Committee is back after nearly a decade--thanks to Don Perata.

It's not that Senate Ethics went away, exactly. The committee has been staffed with attorneys since its creation in 1991.

But after Senator John Burton took over as Senate president pro tem in 1998, legislators were no longer assigned to it.

The committee carried on with the bulk of its work without them: giving ethics training to members and lobbyists, fielding questions from members offices and--occasionally--investigating complaints of ethical violations. It was less of a bona fide standing committee than an arm of the Senate Rules Committee.

But that wasn't the intent of the legislators who created the committee.

Senate Ethics was born in 1991 partly out of frustration with a Joint Ethics Committee, which was seen as ineffective. "It was hard to get people to show up, especially on the Assembly side," said David Roberti, the Senate president pro tem from 1980 to 1994. Roberti authored the Senate resolution that created the Senate Ethics Committee.

But the committee also owed its existence to a real ethical crisis in the Legislature, which occurred on Roberti's watch: The FBI's "Shrimpscam" sting of the late '80s, which caught some state legislators on tape taking bribes.
"That wasn't the only element, but it was certainly fresh in my mind at the time," said Roberti.

But over the last 10 years, the committee has kept a low profile. "It doesn't really do anything, unless a complaint it made," said Gregory Schmidt, secretary of the Senate.

The New Underground Railroad is looking for conductors

The New Underground Railroad started as the result of numerous conversations that have taken place with Black leaders from across the country. It was started with the goal of
dispelling the Myth that Blacks are incapable of being success without government programs. It will expose the Democrat Party’s legacy of bigotry and hatred.

Over time we have invited several likeminded black thinkers from across the nation to contribute to the discussion. Well, now the time has come for us to expand our reach and ask you, our loyal readers to join the fight to free our people from the psychological slavery of liberalism.

If you would like to be considered to be added as an official Conductor for the New Underground Railroad (Click Here)

Please be sure to include the following information for consideration:

1. The name and url of your blog or website.
2. Your name and email address
3. Your city and state of residence
4. A brief description of you political leanings ( Moderate to conservative commentators welcome. Liberals need not apply!)

Abortion = Modern Day Genocide!

While many celebrate the passage of Row v. Wade they ignore the silent genocide that has killed twice as many African Americans as AIDS, Violent Crime, Accidents, Cancer and Heart Disease combined.

Consider the following facts taken from abortion providers themselves:

• Abortion has killed more than 13 million African American babies, making it the number one cause of death for Blacks.

• Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

• Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

• A black baby is more than three times as likely to be killed in the womb than a white baby.

• Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

• About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

And while many will refute the claim that these facts point to an organized effort at genocide, the intent of these efforts are revealed in the words of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

• It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. (From Margaret Sanger’s Early Writings 1922)

• Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan..." (Margaret Sanger’s Autobiography)

• The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members (November 1939 memorandum entitled "Suggestions for the Negro Project,”).


THE FACTS DON’T LIE!

The Celebration the passage of Roe vs. Wade is a celebration of the modern day genocide of African Americans. Through abortion, Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood have accomplished what the Klu Klux Klan could have only dreamed of… GOVERNMENT FUNDED GENOCIDE!

For more information on this issue, visit BlackGenocide.org

California Legislature to Ban Spanking? Welcome to the Nanny State!

Liberals are truly turning California into the Nanny State! State Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D) will be introducing a bill that would make it illegal for parents to spank their children. This from a woman who has no children.

Media News Service Sacramento Bureau released the following story:

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

``Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?'' asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. ``Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence.''

It's unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3 aren't capable of reporting it.

Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either case, said Lieber, the law ``would allow people who view a beating to say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''

Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse.

``If it's used in a limited way,'' the Oklahoma State University professor said, ``it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.'' He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's happening.

As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.''

But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a kid.''

I guess this would put Irma Brown's A** Whuppin Academy out of business

(Click Here to See Video)

Lawmaker Tells Blacks To 'Get Over' Slavery

During debate on a state resolution formally apologizing to African Americans for slavery, a Virginia state legislator suggested that Blacks should simply “Get Over” slavery.

The Associated Press reported:

RICHMOND, Va. -- A state legislator said black people "should get over" slavery and questioned whether Jews should apologize "for killing Christ," drawing denunciations Tuesday from stunned colleagues.

Del. Frank D. Hargrove, 79, made his remarks in opposition to a measure that would apologize on the state's behalf to the descendants of slaves.

In an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville, Hargrove said slavery ended nearly 140 years ago with the Civil War and added that "our black citizens should get over it."

The newspaper also quoted him as saying, "are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"

Black lawmakers swiftly denounced Hargrove's comments.

"When somebody tells me I should just get over slavery, I can only express my emotion by projecting that I am appalled, absolutely appalled," said Del. Dwight C. Jones, head of the Legislative Black Caucus.

Del. David L. Englin also criticized Hargrove's remarks, recalling that his grandparents were driven from their homes in Poland "by people who believed that as Jews, we killed Christ."
When Hargrove rose to speak, he told Englin he didn't care about Englin's religion. "I think your skin was a little too thin," Hargrove said as lawmakers gasped and groaned.

Now while I will agree that many black leaders spend way too much time encouraging our people to play the “Victim” role. This guy went a bit too far.

While slavery did end 140 years ago, segregation and Jim Crowe laws continues well into the lat 1960s and early 70s. In fact, I am part of the first generation to grow up “equal under the law.” And so the stigma of past discrimination still lingers with many in my generation, as it was passed down form our parents to us.

So it is easy to say “Get over it”, but actually getting over it is not that easy. I put it this way in another piece that I wrote:

At 36 years old, I am a part of the first generation to grow up after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So unlike my father, or his father before him, I was born “Equal under the law.” But that did not mean that I was born in a system that promoted equality. 400 years of slavery, the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow and the liberal lead welfare/entitlement state did much to weaken the black man and destroy his family and community. These systems were designed to keep blacks down and that is exactly what they did. The reason many blacks have a victim mentality is that not too long ago, they were victims.

Take my father for example. He left the Air force after World War II a fully trained and certified electrician. But he could only get a job washing cars. You see, the unions would not let him join their ranks because his father was not a union member. Never mind the fact that at the time my grandfather was working, they did not allow blacks to join the union. My mother experienced Whites only drinking fountains and lunch counters. She remembers “Bull” Conner turning police dogs and fire hoses on innocent blacks like it was yesterday. These experiences are not easily dismissed by those who experience them. They play a major role in shaping one’s world view. For my parents, everything in society told them that it was was government and whites who were in control…not them. And this is the world view that they have passed on to us, their children. It was their reality.

My reality is somewhat different. I can eat where I want. I can go where I want. The law states that I can not be denied any opportunity because of the color of my skin. And there are teams of lawyers, judges and politicians willing to fight to protect these rights. There are no laws preventing me from starting a business, getting a good education or supporting the political candidate of my choosing. This is part of my reality; the only part that many conservatives are willing to acknowledge.

I also realize that there are those whom I will encounter that will prejudge me based on the color of my skin, whether they admit it or not. Racism is not dead, just diminished. I also must acknowledge that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not undo the 500 years of indoctrination and brain washing black Americans underwent. Nor did it create a level playing field in regards to asset wealth.

There were “The Haves” and “The Have Nots” and nothing happened to change the fact that blacks would be overwhelmingly in the category of “The Have Nots.” This meant that they would have much less capitol to start businesses, purchase homes or to pass on to future generations. As hard as my parents worked and as much they tried, they did not have a home or any other significant assets to pass on to their children. This is too often the norm in black America. But this is also part of my reality; the only part that many liberals are willing to acknowledge.

I don’t believe that we will ever truly address the issue of race in America until blacks and whites; liberals and conservatives are willing to accept the truth about where we have come from and where we are now. Whites cannot celebrate creating equality in the rules of the game after attempting to knee-cap the other team’s players and spotting themselves 20 points. Along the same lines, we cannot be so preoccupied with the unfairness of how things started that we spend all our time complaining to referees, thus letting the other team run up the score. This is exactly what has been taking place the last 40 years.
Not that Jessie Jackson and Jesse Lee Peterson haven't offered considerable subtance in dealing with the very serious issue of race and racism in America, but acting as race-baiting cheerleaders for their respective teams detracts from all the good w0rk in which they are involved. How can America have a frank and honest discussion about race as long as people are willing to feed into the hatred and resentment that is so deeply rooted in our society on both sides?

As for my perspective; I will say this. Being black is part of who I am. But it does not dictate who I am or who I will become. And while I cannot control the fairness of the circumstances around me, I can control how I react to those circumstances. I can choose to learn from them or whine about them. As I approach each challenge I can choose see it as a stumbling block or a stepping stone; as an obstacle or a building block. I can choose to fight the fight of ignorance and poverty or I can pawn in off on my children for them to fight it. These are my choices.

Social Insecurity- A Bad Investment For Black America

The most misrepresented government program in modern history is the social welfare retirement program, better known as Social Security. Originally set up as a program to care for single widows with children, it has become nothing more than the worlds largest pyramid scheme. And little do we realize, the average Black family is at the bottom of the pyramid!

A 2004 study done by the Heritage Foundation points out that because life expectancies and incomes differ for varying segments of society, so does the amount each group can expect to receive from Social Security. And what group has proven to be the biggest victim of the Social Security Scam... African Americans.

"…the most tragic examples of Social Security's reverse-Robin Hood effect occur in congressional districts heavily populated by African-American workers. Here we see negative rates of return so high that one wonders how a hard-working young man in an inner-city neighborhood in Baltimore, New Orleans, Atlanta or New York City can ever move up the socio-economic ladder."

For example:

"The most senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the vociferous Charles Rangel (Harlem), and his thoughtful colleague, William Jefferson (New Orleans) , will have to defend this arrangement in spite of near-confiscatory rates of return of negative 4.5% for young male workers in their districts."

Now this is not to say that this negative return is caused by their being Black. However, there are many factors that go into determining how much one will actually get back from Social Security. And those factors tend to work against the average African American.

Take income for example. One’s lifetime earnings (at least that portion that SSI taxes are levied against) is probably the biggest factor in determining one’s monthly SSI payment upon retirement. This tends to work against Blacks because our average lifetime income is much less than that of whites. Higher unemployment in the Black community also contributes to decreased lifetime income and thus, decreased SSI benefit levels.

Another factor that is working against Blacks has to do with retirement age. On average, Blacks are more likely to have jobs requiring physical labor. This type of work places additional stress on one’s body. Often requiring them to retire earlier or go on disability. This means that they are less likely to work until the statutory age at which one receives full SSI retirement benefits. How often have you seen a 65 year old carpenter, garbage man or welder? Not often, I’ll bet.

A similar factor that results in Blacks getting less is average life expectancy. Blacks, Black males in particular, have a much shorter life expectancy than do whites. With an average life expectancy of only 62 years old, the average Black male won’t even make it to the statutory retirement age of 65. So what happens to the money he puts into the system? You’re gonna love this!

If he is unmarried, all the money he paid into the system becomes a windfall to the government. And if he is married, his wife must choose between his SSI benefits and her own, which ever is more. You see, she cannot get both! Even if both she and her husband had been paying into the system for 40 years, she must choose the greater of the two benefit amounts and the rest is a windfall to the government spending. And that is what Democrats are fighting to protect… their spending.

For years, Democrats and Republicans have taken money from Social Security to pay for their precious pork barrel programs and have left nothing more than a worthless IOU in its place. The “Lock Box” that Democrats speak of, does not exist. It has never existed. The money you are paying in today is going to pay for those who are on SSI today, plus a few bloated government programs.

Democrats are in complete denial. But Republicans have seen the writing on the wall. As the “Baby Boomers” prepare to retire, the chickens are coming home to roost. Because there will be a dramatic increase in the number of retirees and it is anticipated that they will live much longer than their parents, it is projected that by 2042 Social Security will be bankrupt. That is why Republicans are proposing a partial privatization of Social Security. It is the best way to end this absurd practice and restore equity to the system for all Americans.

How does it end the government shell game? By creating individual lock boxes. Each worker who pays into the system will have an account that belongs to him/her. It will no longer be a part of the general fund and thus will not be available for congress to spend. No more IOUs!

How does it help Blacks? It will take the money once was unlikely to ever be seen again, and place it into lock box, so that they can pass that money on to their children. For many, this will constitute most of the wealth that they will have to pass on to future generations. Additionally, because this money will be invested it will earn far greater return what they are paying into the current failing system.

Retirement protection, wealth accumulation and forcing the government to live within its means are all byproducts of privatization. No one will be forced to pay into a system that won’t be there for them and all people would be able to retire in dignity. This will make for a stronger Social Security System and a stronger America.

Kids kicked off bus for speaking english

This story is from Chanel 5, Eyewitnes news in Minneapolis.

Imagine sending your kids off to school, but when they get to the bus they are told they can't get on because they speak English.

That's right, English.

It happened to a few children in St. Paul and now the school district is apologizing.

Rachel Armstrong sent her kids to pick up the bus as usual Monday, but after the driver let the kids on, he told them he would not pick them up again. He even said he wouldn't take them home that afternoon.

Armstrong left work early Tuesday, forced to pick up her kids from Phalen Lake Elementary School.

Her twin girls, 10, and her son, 8, were kicked off their regular school bus. They were told by the bus driver the route is for non-English speaking students only.

"I was furious. I was at work and I was just mad." Armstrong said. "I felt like we were being discriminated because we speak English. Just because they speak English, they can't ride the school bus. I mean, this is America, right?"

Administrators at St. Paul Public Schools admit the district made a mistake when it stranded the kids at school Monday.

However, the district points out, that particular bus route serves one of three language academies. The one at Phalen Lake is for Hmong students learning English.

The academies all have separate bus routes to keep its students together.

The district decided to enforce the separate routes beginning Monday, but it did not tell the Armstrong family.

"It is our responsibility to ensure the safety of these kids and we made a mistake. The kids should have gotten home that day," Dayna Kennedy, public relations representative.

The district also discovered the Armstrongs no longer live in the Phalen Lake School boundary because they moved last year.

So even though the district apologized, if they want to still go to Phalen, they are going to have to get their own ride.

(Click Here for Video)

The Culture of Christ (Uncommon Sense Radio)

One of the great things about growing up in the United States is the wonderful diversity of cultures here. And we can often identify one’s culture by their traditions and how they live their lives.

In this edition of Uncommon Sense, we ask whether or not others could look at your life and identify you with the Culture of Christ.

Click Here to Listen

Study shows that one third of American kids are out of control

According to a recent study, about one third of parents polled don’t believe their method of disciplining their children is working. The most commonly used method of disciple was putting the child in timeout (45%) and the least common was spanking (8%). And they wonder why their children are out of control? As the Bible says, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

Reuters reports:

About one in three parents in the United States and Canada do not think their methods of disciplining their children work well, according to a U.S. study.

Dr. Shari Barkin, chief of general pediatrics at Tennessee's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt found 31 percent of about 5,000 parents surveyed said they "never" or "sometimes" perceived their methods to be effective.

Many of those reported turning into their own parents when it came to discipline, with 38 percent using the same methods their own parents used on them as children.
"It was surprising to see how many parents feel that disciplining their children is ineffective," Barkin said in a telephone interview.

"Many are using the same techniques their parents used on them but don't think they really work."

The study, based on a survey of parents through community based doctors in 32 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Canada, found the most common form of discipline was using time-outs, with 45 percent of parents using this method.

It found 41.5 percent of parents removed privileges, while 13 percent reported yelling at their children, and 8.5 percent reported the use of spanking "often or always."

"But we strongly suspect that both yelling and spanking might be underreported," said Barkin, whose study is published in the January issue of the journal Clinical Pediatrics.

"We know when parents perceive their methods are not working. As a third reported, then emotions can quickly escalate."

She said by the time children reached the six to 11-year-old age range, parents were about 25 percent less likely to report using time-outs and spanking as they were with younger children.

When children reached school age, parents reported a heavier use of taking away privileges and yelling.

But even in the older age range, perception that the discipline might not be working persisted.

"Disciplining is something we do daily as parents but if this many parents think it is ineffective, it highlights the need to discuss other way to teach children how to resolve conflicts," she said.

Truth be told, more than 1/3 of all children are out of control. I would that at second 1/3 of parents are ineffective at disciplining their children, but won’t admit it.

I have always said that from birth until the age of three, either parents are training their children or the children are raising their parents. Either way at age three, someone has been trained. Unfortunately in today’s world, it’s usually the parents.

Bipartisanship means working with Republicans too!

By definition “Bipartisanship” includes two parties. But despite all the talk of willingness to work together to solve California’s problems, recent history has proven that the Democrat’s definition of “Bipartisanship” is doing exactly what they want.

Sacramento Bee Columnist, Dan Walters puts it best when he writes:

The Republican governor's deals with Democratic legislators were on issues that they held dear -- such as global warming, borrowing more money for public works and raising the minimum wage -- and anything broadly controversial -- such as building more reservoirs -- was bypassed because he was eager to build a re-election record.

No conservative issues, such as reducing business regulation or reforming public employee pensions, were allowed on the table, and Republican lawmakers were largely excluded from the process. Thus, what happened in 2006 was scarcely a model of bipartisan policymaking, much less the "post-partisanship" that the governor now embraces.

So in looking to this new legislative year one can expect one of two scenarios. Either bipartisanship will continue to be the “Republican Governor” working with Democrat legislators to implement Democrat ideas. Or because re-election is behind him, the governor will work to include legislative Republicans and their ideas in the debate about how to fix California.

Only time will tell. But I’m hoping it’s the later. Walters does not seem so optimistic.

The enduring message from that experience isn't that California is entering a new, golden era of centrist and cooperative politics, but that Schwarzenegger may be able to extend his record only if he deals with matters that the Democrats value, such as increasing health coverage.

Were Schwarzenegger to expand his horizons and approach the broader array of knotty issues facing the state, not merely those favored by Democrats, he would not only have to overcome the realpolitik dynamics of the Capitol but overcome the divisions within California itself that flow from its incredible socioeconomic complexity.

Congressional Black Caucus gives Jefferson standing ovation

The following article was posted on the CNN Political Ticker:

Congressional Black Caucus gives Jefferson standing ovation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.

"The haters... and negative nabobs...the people who spoke against him couldn't prevail against the people who spoke for him," Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, master of ceremonies for the CBC's celebratory event, said Thursday morning.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, led the charge to remove Jefferson from the House Ways and Means Committee last spring and has said she will not consider reinstating him to the powerful post until he is cleared of all allegations.

The FBI is currently conducting an investigation that alleges Jefferson accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman -- $90,000 of which was later recovered in the congressman's freezer.


-- CNN Congressional Producer Evan Glass

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.....

Ted Kennedy Barack Obama Bin Laden (Video)

I thought you would enjoy this...

Employer mandate would subsidized broken healthcare system

A recent poll shows that 78% of respondents would like to have employers forced to provide health insurance for their employees. Let me see… 78% of people want someone else to pay their insurance bill… Why not their car insurance? Or Home owners insurance? Heck! Why not their mortgage payment?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

A poll shows that voters from both major political parties overwhelmingly favor requiring employers to provide health insurance to full-time workers or pay into a state fund that would provide insurance, a signal that lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could receive strong public support if they can agree on such a plan.

The state's two top Democrats have already proposed a health care overhaul that would require employers to "pay or play" -- either provide health insurance or pay the state to do it. Schwarzenegger is set to release his health care reform plan on Monday.

In a Field Poll released today, 78 percent of voters said they support requiring employers to provide insurance for their employees. Also, 76 percent support expanding government programs to cover more of the uninsured, and 75 percent believe part-time workers should be offered health care through a program in which costs are shared by employers, government and individuals.

Why wouldn't employees want someone else to pay for their health insurance? It's expensive! But is the problem that health insurance rates are to high or that the cost healthcare providers is too high? Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California gets it right when he eludes to the fact that fixing the system must start with reducing what hospitals and doctors are charging.
While small businesses might agree to pay something, cost savings first must be accomplished in the health care system, said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California.

"I think the cart is before the horse," he said. "We have to talk about driving down costs. Small businesses are not willing to pay into the system as it exists right now."

This issue is reminiscent of the debate over energy deregulation a decade ago. When a deal was finally fleshed out we wound up with a system that restricted what energy companies could charge consumers, but had no control over what wholesale energy producers could charge the energy companies. As a result, you had energy companies paying exponentially more to purchase energy than they were able to charge the end user. And a you recall, things got so bad for the energy companies that Gov. Gray Davis actually borrowed money to buy energy for them to provide to the public.

One of the biggest mistakes made in the energy deregulation deal was that they never addressed the issue of the fundamental cost of energy. And if we are not to repeat history, we must address the fundamental cost of health care before we do anything else.

But rather than fix the broken system, it looks as though Legislative Democrats plan to force employers to subsidize the cost of this broken system.

"You have to have an employer mandate," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. "If you're going to require an employee to pay for a percentage of the health care, the employer has to do their share." State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, also has proposed an employer mandate system.

It is incumbent upon those in the legislature who understand that mandating employers to pay into a broken system will only make matters worse to hold the line in this issue and not give in to the media pressure. It would be a huge mistake to simply pass the buck (or rather the bill) on to small business or the taxpayers.