Friday, January 5, 2007

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...

Thursday, January 4, 2007

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.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Imprisoned felons get to vote?

A California appeals court has ruled that some of those who have been convicted of felonies, including: drug sales, grand theft or auto theft must be allowed to vote while they are imprisoned. Huh?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

…last year, McPherson, following a new opinion by Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office, said the ban would apply to another group of convicts: those who had been convicted of felonies -- crimes punishable by more than a year in prison -- but who had been granted probation by the sentencing judge with conditions that included up to a year in a local jail.

Lockyer's opinion said any convicted felon behind bars should be considered "imprisoned'' and thus ineligible to vote. Thoma said McPherson had sought the opinion at the request of an unnamed county election official and was required to follow it.

The ACLU sued on behalf of the League of Women Voters, other voting-rights groups and three San Francisco jail inmates who were put on probation after felony convictions for drug sale or transportation, auto theft and grand theft. They were among 145,000 inmates placed on felony probation in California each year, of whom at least 100,000 are in jail at any one time, their lawyers said.

In a ruling last Thursday, the Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the disqualification of imprisoned felons from voting applies only to those who are sent to prison under the terms prescribed by law for their felonies. Inmates on probation are not serving sentences for felony crimes, but instead are under court supervision and subjected to various restrictions, including a period in jail, the court said

I can’t believe that I am agreeing with Bill Lockyer! These inmates are in jail for felony convictions. Thus, they should loose their right to vote until they have been released from prison and are no longer under the supervision for the crime of which they were convicted.

But leave it to the ACLU to provide legal aid to those who have no respect for the law.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Are you walking funny? (Uncommon Sense Radio)

Are you walking funny?



"If you are going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk."

How often do we question those who's deeds are inconsistant with the values they proclaim to hold? In this edition of Uncommon Sense we will help you anwer the key question, "Are you walking funny?"

Enjoy! -- Craig DeLuz

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Rally Addresses Upcoming Election

It is rare that a Republican urges the overthrowing of the government, but Craig DeLuz did just that recently when he spoke during a voter awareness drive hosted by the Sacramento NAACP.

Voting is a form of non-violent revolution, said DeLuz, former chairman of the California Black Republican Council and brother of former chapter president David DeLuz.

“You can overthrow the government," he said. "If you’re not doing your job, we will vote you out.”

(Click Here for More)

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Are employers actually recruiting illegal immigrants?

Studies have shown that most illegal immigrants are working at jobs that American citizens would do. As a matter of fact, only about three percent of those who are here illegally are working in agriculture. Most are working in construction, transportation and service industry jobs. And reports are that these employers are actually going into the fields and recruiting employees!

MSNBC is reporting the following:

"Frequently you hear, especially from California, complaints about construction companies actually recruiting workers from the sides of the fields," said Craig Regelbrugge, co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform. Other industries that depend on immigrant labor, such as landscaping and construction, "are also concerned about the overall availability of labor given demographic trends," he said, adding: "But agriculture is the warning sign, if you will, of structural changes in the economy."

I don’t know that these employers are knowingly recruiting illegal immigrants. But they have to know that a high percentage of these folks are here illegally. Why else would they believe that they could offer them salaries that are drastically below what they should be for these jobs?

One of the major effects of illegal immigration is to depress wages. It is simple supply an demand. Because they are here illegally, these folks are willing to take jobs at wages far below what the market wage rate really is.

These employers are complaining that they can’t find Americans to do the work. But the truth is, Americans will do the work. They just won’t accept slave wages to do the work.