Public humiliation for mail thief. 9th Circuit gets it right for once!

A man who was convicted in 2003 of stealing mail was sentenced to, among other things, 100 hours of standing outside the post office wearing a sandwich board that says “I have stolen mail. This is my punishment.” It doesn’t look like the Supreme Court will be overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on this one.

The Chicago Sun Times is reporting:

The Supreme Court is making sure that Shawn Gementera will be wearing his punishment for stealing mail. Literally.

The high court rejected Gementera's appeal Monday of a lower court's sentence that the San Francisco resident stand outside a post office for 100 hours wearing a sandwich board that reads: ''I have stolen mail. This is my punishment.''

In February 2003, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco added the sandwich-board penalty to Gementera's sentence of two months in prison and three years of supervised release.

And needless to say Gementera’s attorney petitioned the Supreme Court to throw out the sentence, claiming that it is cruel and unusual. I’ll give him this… It is unusual!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Ballot Box Budgeting…Tax hikes & increased govt. spending coming to a ballot near you!

As the California Legislature proves itself to be more and more irrelevant, liberals have decided to take their tax and spend agenda to the ballot box. Unfortunately, recent history has proven that voters are willing to approve increased government spending as long as they believe that someone else is footing the bill.

The LA Times is reporting:

Actor and director Rob Reiner has collected more than 1 million signatures for a proposition that would increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for universal preschool. If validated by elections officials, the names would be more than enough to place the measure on the June primary ballot.

"We're building a very broad coalition and we're going about this in a very responsible way and we're not trying to shove something down people's throats by fiat," Reiner said, contrasting his proposal with the ones Schwarzenegger and his allies devised this year.

Meanwhile, two groups are gathering signatures for competing initiatives that would raise the state's cigarette tax by $1.50 a pack, to $2.37. That would be higher than in any other state except Rhode Island ($2.46) and New Jersey ($2.40), according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. A spokesman for Philip Morris USA said such an increase in California would be excessive.

But the potential revenue from such a tax — about $1.5 billion a year — is being eyed.

But Democrats are not alone in their desire to take increased spending to the voters. In and effort to increase the investment in the state’s deteriorating infrastructure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is hoping to put a massive infrastructure bond on the 2006 ballot.

Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders also hope to place on the ballot a gigantic public works project bond to repair the state's sagging infrastructure. The measure would probably be the largest in California history — totaling in the tens of billions of dollars — and could lead lawmakers to put off for the second time a $10-billion bond for a high-speed rail line that is slated for the November general election. A $600-million library improvement bond initiative scheduled for the June primary is less likely to be affected.

While I agree that we must increase our investment infrastructure, I am always leery about going into debt to do so; especially considering that we are in this mess because the legislature has repeatedly taken the revenues from the gas tax (which is supposed to fund roads and transportation) and spent it on a host of other programs (for which the revenues were not intended.)

But even more distressing, I believe, is this fast moving trend toward ballot box budgeting. It is an outcropping of three key dysfunctions that exists in our governing process in California.

1. The current legislative districts promote partisanship and discourage true governance. Compromise on substantive legislation has taken a back seat to partisan rancor and divisive rhetoric.

2. The sizable contributions of public employee labor unions have given them a sizable amount of undo influence over Democrat policymakers. The result has been a dangerous conflict of interest that has representatives of public employee labor unions sitting on both sides the negotiating table when it comes to government spending on their salaries and benefits.

3. Points 1 & 2 combined with the advent of technology and increased political spending has made the initiative process a much more attractive option for interest groups who would rather play on the emotional fears of a relatively under-informed and seemingly unengaged electorate.

I wish I could say that these trends were changing. But the recent failure of initiatives in the special election that would have addressed some of these issues demonstrates that the electorate is at least for the time being, not willing to address these issues. Instead, we have chosen to continue allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Happy Day After Thanksgiving!

Ok... Am I the only one who got dragged from the bed at 4:30 am to hit the 5 am sales? I admitt that I do like to shop. But I usually prefer to wake up first!

let's hear your most interesting post turkey day sales stories!

Craig DeLuz

Mobile Messaging via Treo
(Please forgive the typos!)

Red States give generously. Blue States give generously of other people's money!

Liberals would have us believe that they are much more caring and giving than conservatives. Well the recently released 2005 Generosity Index blows that theory out of the water. As a matter of fact, the top ranking for a Blue State in this survey is 26th!

The Gay Patriot writes:

Well, well, well….

The 2005 Generosity Index is out from the Catalogue for Philanthropy (h/t - Polipundit)
Turns out the states with the least amount to give are the ones that give the most. Topping the list are three of our poorest states in “having” but richest in “giving.”

Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee
You have to get to #22 in the Generosity Index to find your first Blue State — New York.. all the way down at # 26.

Where are our the most affluent (and Blue-est) states of the USA in the Generosity Index?

Connecticut - 45th, New Jersey - 48th, Massachusetts - 49th, Maryland - 32nd, and New York - 26th.

When you ask me what I mean by “limousine liberals”…. this is what I mean. The same people that want to keep their private beaches to themselves and their ocean views without windmills for energy conservation. Do as I say, not as I do.

Conservatives do believe the society has a responsibility to aid elderly, care for our children, protect the environment and provide a helping hand to the less fortunate. But over time we have allowed liberal “feel good” programs to be put in place that have slowly but surely heaped society’s responsibility upon government.

This has summarily relieved Democrats of any guilt over the fact that they have done nothing to fulfill their responsibility to their fellow man and the world in which they live. As long they have lobbied for the government to do it, they feel that they have done their part.

Why give should I feed the homeless when the government can do it? Why help my neighbor find a job when the government can do it? Why should I do anything to help others when the government can do it? But who winds up paying for these programs? The middle-class tax payer… That means me and you!

And despite the recent liberal wave of tax initiatives aimed at fleecing high income earners to pay for their “feel good” social programs; we will still wind up paying the bill. Why? Because as California Assemblyman, Ray Haynes once put it- There is nothing more portable than a rich man and his money. And when their henchmen get through rewriting their financial books (ala John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry) they wind up paying close to nothing in taxes.

Then they have the nerve to say that THE RICH AREN’T PAYING ENOUGH!!!!!!! And they accuse conservatives of not caring about children, the elderly, the poor or the environment. Well I think this study shows that this is simply not the case.

This study just goes to show that Liberal’s generosity begins and ends with other people’s money!

Memo to Blue States: How about you start putting YOUR money where your mouth is instead of MINE?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Conservative kids are healthy kids!

Three out of four school age children in California are out of shape. this according to a statewide physical fitness report card just released. Interestingly, the local counties with the healthiest students are the most conservative politically.

So much for conservatives being "Fat-Cats".

According to the Sacramento Bee:

Locally, Sacramento County scored below the state averages; Placer and El Dorado counties exceeded the state norms; and Yolo and Yuba counties were above average in two grades but slightly below in one.

Statewide, 1.37 million students in fifth, seventh and ninth grades were tested on body fat, flexibility, upper-body strength, aerobic capacity, abdominal strength and trunk extension.

First of all, it is sad that our children are unable to meet these very minimum standards of physical fitness. It is symptomatic of a culture that uses the computer, video games and the television to baby sit their children. It is also the result of public school system educrats who have been scaling down on physical education instruction for years.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Should California Republicans Become "Democrat-Lite"?

Everyone has a take on why Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reform initiatives took such a beating at the poles during the recent special election. At the center of the discussion seems to be the age old debate as to how the Republican Party can attract non-traditional Republican voters and expand the party’s base.

Many Republican leaders in California are guided by the belief that the only way to win is to abandon our socially conservative principles. Others like myself, believe that it is not our principles that must change, but how we message our values and the sincerity of our efforts to work with and for those who traditionally have not voted Republican.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman puts it best in this overlooked article in the San Francisco Chronicle back on August 7, 2005 :

"We don't have to choose between motivating our base and bringing new faces and new voices into the party,'' said GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was elevated to the post after successfully managing President Bush's 2004 re- election campaign.

"We talk about a compassionate conservative philosophy that not only unites Republicans, but attracts support among discerning Democrats and among independents.''

Meeting in this traditionally Democratic, working-class city, Republicans spent hours talking about how to reach out to new constituents: blacks, Latinos, Asians, Catholics and women.

Rather than conceal their conservative extremes, party leaders heartily embraced Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the guest of honor, who told fellow Republicans that his traditional values message "is a good solid message for every community in America.''

As Democrats struggle with their positions on guns, gays and God in order to satisfy disparate wings of their party and lure swing voters, Republicans are promoting conservative values as a way to enhance their electoral standing.

Looking to expand what already is its strongest hold on power in nearly eight decades, the Republican Party sees its strong traditional values message, coupled with the failures of the welfare state and the Democratic Party's rigidity, as the keys to attracting minorities and other new members.

"We're not asking Republicans to become more liberal to lure new voters into the party,'' Mehlman told the delegates.

This is the strategy that helped Republicans re-elect a President with dropping approval numbers, expand their majorities in both the House and the Senate, as well as increase the number of Republican governors across the country.

The discussion about the party's future came at a time of historic strength for Republicans.

The GOP has more seats in Congress than at any time since 1929, when Herbert Hoover was president. Republicans hold the governor's seat in 28 states, including the nation's four largest. And for the first time since pollsters began asking party affiliations, roughly the same number of people identify themselves as Republicans as Democrats.

In Pennsylvania this strategy has resulted in the election of Senator Rick Santorum, who has been one of the most consistent conservative voices in the upper house. It has also been a key influence in the candidacy of former NFL great Lynn Swan for Governor of this swing state.

In Ohio, it is conservative messaging to broad audiences that helped Republicans pass a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, elect a Black Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who is also the leading candidate for Governor in the 2006 election. An let us not forget that it was Ohio that was the key win that put President Bush over the top in his re-election bid.

The fact is, conservative values reach across racial and cultural lines. It transcends socio-economic status and even political parties. And the reason we are having problems expanding our base here in California is because party leadership has decided that conservatism won’t work here.

Santorum's politics are not popular with all Republicans, particularly in more socially moderate states such as California.

Duf Sundheim, chairman of the California Republican Party, acknowledged that Santorum's brand of conservatism differs from his own. At the same time, he said Santorum's prominence has no effect in California.

"Our fortunes between now and '06 are more tied to (Republican) Gov. (Arnold) Schwarzenegger than any external factor,'' Sundheim said.

Unfortunately, what Sundheim doesn’t understand is that our success at the ballot box will not be determined by “Star Power” . It is not the popularity of Senator Santorum or Governor Schwarzenegger that will determine our part’s success, but it is our values, how we communicate them and how we translate them into public policy that will be the key to winning at the ballot box.

One only need look at the special election to realize that basing our strategy on the popularity of any one man is a bad idea. I wrote in a recent post “Are Conservatives to Blame?”

From the very beginning, Republicans and Democrats made it clear that this election was a referendum on Governor Schwarzenegger. Republicans were hoping to ride popularity and “star power” to victory, just as they had in the 2003 Recall and the 2004 elections. Democrats on the other hand used it as an opportunity to get away from discussing the actual merits of the Governor’s reforms and instead make his personal integrity the issue. Needless to say the Democrat’s plan was much more effective.

Those of us who have been working in the grass roots trying to expand the base of the Republican Party understand that it will take more than a high profile media campaign to expand our party.

"I don't go into the community with a big 'R' on my chest, because the door will be slammed in my face,'' said David Morgan, president of the California Black Republican Council. Instead, Morgan described a GOP event with hip-hop music and free hot dogs and hamburgers, in which he registered 40 new African American voters.

Pam Olsen, a Florida pastor, said she resisted telling her congregants "vote for George W. Bush.'' But she felt comfortable telling them that "God is pro-life,'' and said she saw many black pastors get involved in helping Bush because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

What is attracting these new Republican voters is the willingness of Republicans to come to where they are; understand their issues; and communicate how our common conservative values can produce societal and public policy solutions to the challenges they face.

We have a lot of heavy lifting to do to expand our party here in California. And if we are to be successful, it will not be as some sort of "Democrat-Lite" party. "All the liberal values without the annoying tax increases." It will be because we have committed the resources necessary to build relationships with diverse voters and have focused our message on shared values of family, opportunity and freedom as it applies to all Californians.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Sacto Dan was wrong. But Senator Dave Cox was out of line.

Normally, I am not one to get in the mix of someone else’s Kool-Aide. But I could not let this unwarranted personal attack on my good friend and fellow Western Alliance member go without comment.

In his post Republican State Senator Cox Backs Mileage Tax Sacto Dan incorrectly states that the Senator is in support of an effort to impliment a new tax on Californians based on the number of miles they drive each year. He uses as the basis for his assertion the following article published inSenator Cox’s November monthly newsletter.

Financing Transportation Infrastructure

For several years now, experts in transportation finance have been talking about the antiquated way we finance transportation infrastructure, both roads and transit. Basically the problem is that we rely on a combination of sales and gasoline taxes to provide funds, but the taxes do not keep up with inflation -- especially in the cost of construction of transportation facilities -- or with the increased fuel efficiency of cars. It also makes no sense if we decide that we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as gasoline to improve our air quality.

I recently read an interview with Professor Martin Wachs of U.C Berkeley, a respected expert on transportation issues. He is the former Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies. Professor Wachs points out that in order to increase transportation funds, we currently are in the position of advocating for increased sales of gasoline. He advocates a switch to a more direct user fee based on the number of vehicle miles driven by each vehicle registered in the state. There are technologies being tested which would report a vehicle's miles driven and collect a fee while not maintaining a record of overall usage. This would satisfy privacy concerns. He also advocates the use of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, which would create additional highway lanes and charge for their usage based on the time of day.

The leaders in the Legislature are talking about ways to increase funds for our state's infrastructure needs. There will be large bond proposals introduced in the Legislature early next year.

I am interested in your reaction to these types of proposals. Should we sell more bonds? Should we raise gas or sales taxes? Or should we consider more innovative approaches? Send me your thoughts on the different methods of financing this critical need.

Now in the Senator’s defense, nowhere in the article does it state that he is in support of such a tax. However, it is important to note that the article offers only one side of the argument on this issue. If the Senator was truly seeking the opinion of his constitutents on this matter, shouldn’t he have presented a more balanced view?

What I appreciate about Sacto Dan’s blog is that he is not a political insider or profesional public policy commentator. He is your average Joe, working stiff who shares his views from that very same perspective. And I am willing to bet that if what Dan got from this article is that Dave Cox was in support of the Mileage Tax, he is not alone.

After reading this article, I can see how Dan would summize that the Senator would be insupport of the Mileage Tax. But it was wrong to state that the Senator was in favor of such a tax without facts to back it up. Perhaps a better title for the post would have been “Does Republican State Senator Cox Back a Mileage Tax?”

Keeping in mind that Senator Dave Cox has a fairly well established record as taxpayer advocate, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this question. But the obvious lack of divergent viewpoints in the article is enough to warrant asking the question. And Dan should have done just that... asked the question instead of stating an assumption.

But to personally attack Sacto Dan the way the Senator did on the Eric Houge show was petty and beneath him. He could have offered clarification without the insults. Just as Dan should have given the Senator the benefit of the doubt, I believe that the Senator should have offered the same deference Sacto Dan corrected his error and as President of the Western Alliance, I feel it is my place to state for the record that I believe it is time for the Senator to do the same by publically appoligizing for his persnal attack on a faithful Republican who made an honest mistake.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com