American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Poet/Philosopher George Santayana is credited with saying: “Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.”
Many, perhaps most people are disinterested and bored by history and consider it a waste of time. Yet, sports enthusiasts devote hours of their time and grey matter to memorizing the records of their favorite football, basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball players and teams. Baseball, for example, is a game in which statistics are meticulously maintained, compared and quoted. But talk about history in human events and they couldn’t be less interested.
However, history does repeat itself, and we would do well to pay attention to the mistakes of the past in order to avoid making them again, or at least try. Case in point: Obama’s health care bill that was recently passed by Congress. In the run-up to the Congressional vote, the issue was hotly debated, and both sides trotted out statistics and projections to buttress their arguments, both pro and con.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against Obama’s health care bill is the federal government’s own record in managing the various major social programs that have been adopted in the past. The following summary (circulated on the Internet) highlights the gap between government promises and delivery:
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. The government has had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. The government has had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. The government has had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964. The government has had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. The government has had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. The government has had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. The government has had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
Every “government service” that has ever been shoved down our throats has failed. Three additional examples illustrate the point:
The Post Office lost $3.8 TRILLION in the 2009-10 fiscal year.
Social Security and Medicare have a combined unfunded liability (deficit) of $107 trillion. That’s seven times the size of the entire U.S. economy and ten times the amount of the nation’s outstanding national debt.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out that “welfare spending today is 13 times greater than it was …(when the War on Poverty was initiated). Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1964; by 2008, it had reached 5 percent of GDP.”
AND PEOPLE WANT US TO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE TRUSTED TO RUN THE NATION’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT’S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT.
No government program ever operates on or under budget and none ever will.
Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, sheer guts, plus arrogance and, as Leo Rosten has written, no other word, and no other language, can do it justice. The following example is better than 1,000 words…
THE ESSENCE OF CHUTZPAH…
A little old lady sold pretzels on a street corner for 25 cents each.
Every day a young man would leave his office building at lunch time, and as he passed the pretzel stand, he would leave her a quarter, but never take a pretzel.
This went on for more than 3 years. The two of them never spoke.
One day, as the young man passed the old lady’s stand and left his quarter as usual, but the pretzel lady finally spoke to him.
Without blinking an eye she said: “They’re now 35 cents.”
That’s Chutzpah!
Another example of Chutzpah is readily apparent in President Obama’s statement: “In the long run we can’t continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences, as if waste doesn’t matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that’s what we’ve seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation.”
The unbelievable gall of the man! After opening the spigot of government spending to the extent that in less than one year he has spent more money than the past four presidents combined, he has obligated the nation’s children and grandchildren to repay the debt created by the current generation, and now he tells us that tax dollars should not be treated like Monopoly money.
What is most astounding to me is the brazen chutzpah that Obama so frequently displays, saying one thing yet doing the exact opposite himself, while at the same time lecturing the American people on right and wrong.
On December 8, 2009, speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., President Obama said that his administration is, “taking responsibility for every dollar” it spends, and, “We’ve done what some said was impossible: preventing wasteful spending on outdated weapons systems that even the Pentagon said it didn’t want. We’ve combed the budget, cutting waste and excess wherever we could.”
These claims are so outrageous that they literally take one’s breath away.
Other examples of Obama’s chutzpah include, among many others:
“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.” (June 22, 2007 at Manchester, N.H.). After receiving the $787 billion, 1,027-page stimulus bill, and allowing members of Congress just a few hours to read it, it was made available online in a form that could not be readily searched.
Obama promised that he would reduce and/or eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington: “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on the lobbyists – and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
“We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” When Obama signed the $410 billion omnibus bill for 2009, it contained more than 9,000 earmarks, amounting to some &.7 billion.
“My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration…Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing…”
Participating with the Democrat controlled Congress, president Obama has been a willing participant in hiding the health care initiative from the American public, including meeting with Congressional Democrat leaders in his office without allowing any Republicans to participate. Another glaring example of the president’s outright duplicity and chutzpah.
In a recorded video during the campaign, Obama said that it was a violation of the Constitution for the president to attach “signing statements” to bills at the time they are signed into law. Yet he attached his own “signing statement” to a $410 billion spending bill as he signed it.
This president is a virtual personification of the word, Chutzpah. He can always be counted on to say one thing and do the opposite. At least he’s consistent.
Watching the latest T.V. promotions about some of the programs that seem to be among the most popular fare, I find myself wondering just how inane and shallow our society has become. For example, “The Bachelor” has been celebrating the final choice of this season’s hero and his courtship of some 25 women, all salivating to become his bride.
At the risk of offending, I ask you, just how real can that be?” The show is obviously very successful, having just closed out its fourteenth season, so am I the one who’s out of step when I ponder the reality of finding a mate among 25 contestants who have been selected by the producers of a T.V. program?
Perhaps so, but color me skeptical anyway. I think it’s not only silly but completely unrealistic. Do any of these matchups develop into a mature relationship? Is there a real, honest-to-goodness marriage after the glare of the lights have faded and the happy couple presumably settle into the hard work of developing and maintaining a long-term relationship?
Courting under the watchful eye of the show’s staff, who stage manage every aspect of the process for maximum viewer appeal, the program’s website notes: “The Bachelor finale 2010 may have been the biggest in show history. After all, The Bachelor The Finale followed one of the more contentious seasons in the show’s history. Most of that revolved around one finalist, Vienna Giraldi, who divided the fanbase like few others before her. Yet Jake Pavelka saw part that to put her in the finals, against Tenley Milzahn. In the end, the final rose of the Bachelor finale did go to Vienna – who will get to cheer Jake on when he goes Dancing With The Stars.”
If The Bachelor were the only “reality” show on the T.V., there probably wouldn’t be much reason to comment on the silly, unrealistic character of our entertainment these days. However, it’s not. We’re routinely assailed by other inane programs, such as “The Housewives of Orange County,” New York, Atlanta, New Jersey, D.C. and other parts unknown, Orange County Tamara, Survivor, The Bachelorette, Project Runway, The Bad Girls Club, The Amazing Race, Sober House, Celebrity Rehab and Sex Rehab. I could name more, but why go on.
One reason I suspect for the proliferation of such shows is that, for the most part, they are low cost productions that generate significant advertising revenue. In short, they’re very profitable.
However, it isn’t just T.V. that promotes an unrealistic perception of the world, it’s also our books, movies, art and advertising. We’re constantly assaulted by advertising, especially on T.V., that insults the intelligence of the viewer with vapid comments and behavior, presumably designed to sell products but, more often than not, that’s offensive, at least to me. Sexually charged advertising or such commercials as fast food restaurant ads that depict people eating hamburgers like slobs, are just two examples. Or, automobile ads that promote speed that is obviously excessive and illegal. They sell speed that’s clearly illegal. Or, how about commercials that push drugs, telling us about the list of potential side effects that can do serious damage to the user or kill them,
It has reached the point where some T.V. programs devote almost as much time to ads as to the story. Commercial breaks seem interminable and often include as many as 10 advertisers. A one-hour show is actually only about 30 minutes of programming, or less.
The bottom line seems to be that commercials are generally pitched to the lowest common denominator, inevitably trending down as the education of each succeeding generation fails to teach critical skills and the ability to analyze information. This is further translated into a lack of interest in evaluating information about our government and the politicians who control it.
The situation is exacerbated by an education system that has a dropout rate as high as 75% in some parts of the country. According to the Wall Street Journal (October 21, 2008), the five cities with the lowest graduation rates were Detroit (24.9%), Indianapolis (30.5%), Cleveland (34.1%), Baltimore (34.6%) and Columbus OH (40.9%).
CNN.com/US noted in a May 5, 2009 article that “Nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school…The total represents 16 percent of all people in the United States in that age range in 2007. Most of the dropouts were Latino or black, according to a report in the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston…”
Something is seriously wrong with our education system and with a generation that is riding it to the bottom. It’s no wonder our media, art, books, advertising and T.V. programming are pitched to the lowest common denominator.
Customs around the world vary in many ways, everything from table manners to diet to attire to education, lifestyle in general and, of course, marriage, including polygamy. In matters of marriage and cohabitation, in the good ol’ U.S. of A being married to more than one spouse at the same time is illegal, even when it is sanctioned by one’s religion, as is the case with certain Mormon sects or Muslims.
The history of polygamous marriages in the Mormon religion dates back to Joseph Smith, Jr., Mormonism’s founding prophet, in 1883, in Ohio. In 1862, it was outlawed by the Merrill anti-Bigamy Act, which was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. It was banned by the mainstream Mormon Church in 1890 and is grounds for excommunication.
If polygamy is OK in other countries, where it is accepted by certain religions, such as Islam, why isn’t it also OK in America? Perhaps more to the point: Why is polygamy illegal in the U.S. when it is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions to cohabitate with as many people as one might like? Can a man live with more than one woman if they are not married, or vice versa? The answer is, in general, yes. Furthermore, in some states, it has been or is possible to be married without benefit of clergy, a judge or some other government official. Such unions are generally known as common-law marriages.
Common law marriage is recognized in sixteen states or jurisdictions. Specifically: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia (D.C.).
Nine of these states recognize only common law marriages that are contracted within their borders, and five have “grandfathered” those that were established before a certain date. New Hampshire recognizes such marriages only for purposes of probate and Utah only recognizes only those that have been validated by a court of administrative order.
In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that recognizing sharia law in Great Britain was not only inevitable but also desirable, arguing that “Secular law must be modified to accommodate religious sensibilities and that Muslims should not have to choose between the diametrically opposed alternatives of cultural or state loyalty, that they should be free to decide in which jurisdiction they can have certain ‘carefully specified matters’ decided.”
The Archbishop did not explain how he would deal with the conflicts that might arise between sharia and secular or Christian based law. I suppose he would leave that to the society at large to resolve, but it’s not difficult to guess how the Brits might react to one law for those who are Christians and another for Muslims. Sharia law, of course, permits men to have more than one wife, while women can be married to only one man.
In the U.S., there are still a few places where polygamy is practiced, albeit illegally. In 2009, The Los Angeles Times reported: “Texas authorities…indicted (Warren Jeffs) the leader of a polygamous sect…on charges of felony sexual assault on a minor (not polygamy), the first criminal charges to stem from a massive raid on the group’s West Texas compound…” (http://tinyurl.com/6oenlz).
“The media kept saying, ‘Polygamist leader, polygamist leader,’” Mark Henkel of truthbearer.org noted, “…the case actually involved incest and the arranged marriage of a girl with her 19-year-old cousin. There wasn’t anything [that] had to do with polygamy. [Jeffs] wasn’t called an incest leader. He wasn’t called an underage-marriage leader. He was called a polygamist leader.”
Henkel, who estimates that there are 100,000 polygamists in America, believes American laws are hypocritical: “Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that’s all OK, and he’s making great money, and that’s all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he’s a criminal. That’s insane!”
University of Georgia Professor Patricia Dixon, who thought polygamy exploited women, conducted a study, concluded that: “…it was not about men exploiting women, but that it is female centered.” After living with different polygamous communities for years she was surprised to discover that polygamy is “female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting…”
Plural marriage is common around the world. In the United States most get married in religious ceremonies but keep quiet about it because what they do is illegal. Professor Dixon commented: “The families we met wonder why what they do is illegal. Clearly it’s wrong if an older man arranges marriages of young kids, but when adults choose to live this kind of life, why is that evil?”
“Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that’s all OK, and he’s making great money, and that’s all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he’s a criminal. That’s insane!”
When they hear the word “polygamy,” many people think of fundamentalist Mormons living in cults, but the truth is that there’s lots of polygamy in America that has nothing to do with the Mormon Church.
Religious leaders generally agree that polygamy is wrong, but Mark Henkel counters, “If they’re saying that’s immoral, they’re calling the greatest heroes in the Bible … immoral! … Saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob had four wives. David had seven known named wives before Bathsheba.”
African Israelite, Prince Ben-Israel, who has four wives, calls plural marriage a civil-rights issue. “Who is this government that’s in somebody’s bedroom? … It was illegal for me to marry a white woman at one time. … It was illegal for me to vote at one time. And if I had accepted somebody else’s definition of what was right and wrong, I would still be riding in the back of the bus.
Celebrities Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins split after living together for twenty-three years. They never married, even though they had two sons together. And, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell have lived together for over twenty-five years, raised two children and appear to have maintained a very successful relationship.
However, a few questions do come to mind:
If couples like these can live together successfully for many years, what’s the point of getting married?
Is the commitment to one another as strong without the so-called “piece of paper?”
What happens when such couples do decide to split – to the man, the woman, the children?
For one thing, presumably, celebrity couples are financially independent and, generally speaking, can end their relationships anytime without either of them having to be concerned about earning a living.
But, when Joe Six Pack and his “girlfriend” decide to break-up after living together for many years, what happens? Who owns the home and furnishings, bank accounts, cars, retirement accounts and other assets? Who is responsible for their debts? How about child support if there are young children involved?
Without the resources and the financial independence of the rich and famous, the result is often a disaster, especially when children are involved.
We sometimes hear the argument, “My parents got a divorce, and it was so devastating that I just don’t want to risk it.” However, I don’t see how living together avoids the risks of a failed marriage. As a matter of fact, dissolving a live-in relationship can be more difficult and costly to resolve than getting a divorce.
Writing in the Jewish World Review (October 3, 2006), Dennis Prager offered the following reasons why people should get married rather than just live together:
“First, no matter what you think when living together, your relationship with your significant other changes the moment you marry. You have now made a commitment to each other as husband and wife in front of almost everyone significant in your life. You now see each other in a different and more serious light.”
“Second, words matter. They deeply affect us and others. Living with your “boyfriend” is not the same as living with your ‘husband.’ And living with your “girlfriend” or any other title you give her is not the same as making a home with your ‘wife.’ Likewise when you introduce that person as your wife or husband to people, you are making a far more important statement of that person’s role in your life than you are with any other title.”
“Third, legality matters. Being legally bound to and responsible for another person matters. It is an announcement to him/her and to yourself that you take this relationship with the utmost seriousness. No words of affection or promises of commitment, no matter how sincere, can match the seriousness of legal commitment.”
“Fourth, to better appreciate just how important marriage is to the vast majority of people in your life, consider this: There is no event, no occasion, no moment in your life when so many of the people who matter to you will convene in one place as they will at your wedding. Not the birth of any of your children, not any milestone birthday you may celebrate, not your child’s bar-mitzvah or confirmation…”
“Fifth, only with marriage will your man’s or your woman’s family ever become your family. The two weddings transformed the woman in my son’s life into my daughter-in-law and transformed the man in my daughter’s life into my son-in-law. And I was instantly transformed from the father of their boyfriend or girlfriend into their father-in-law…I was now related to my children’s partners. Their siblings and parents became family. Nothing comparable happens when two people live together without getting married.”
“Many women callers to my radio show have told me that the man in their life sees no reason to marry. ‘It’s only a piece of paper,’ these men (and now some women) argue.”
“There are two answers to this argument…One is that if in fact ‘it is only a piece of paper,’ what exactly is he so afraid of? Why does he fear a mere piece of paper? Either he is lying to himself and to his woman or lying only to her because he knows this piece of paper is far more than ‘only a piece of paper.’”
“The other response is all that is written above. Getting married means I am now your wife, not your live-in; I am now your husband, not your significant other…It means we have legal obligations to one another. It means my family becomes yours and yours becomes mine.”
“When you realize all that is attainable by marrying and unattainable by living together without marrying, you have to wonder why anyone would voluntarily choose not to marry the person he or she wishes to live with forever…Unless, of course, one of you really isn’t planning on forever.”
In the final analysis, the question is: Who really benefits from living together?
One of the most valuable lessons about negotiating that I learned in over 50 years as an accounting professional and businessman was to always leave something for the other side. Successful negotiating is not about winning everything and leaving nothing for the other party. That’s one of the biggest mistaken assumptions made by many people and can sometimes lead to undesirable and unintended consequences.
Negotiating is not dictating. It’s a give and take process that, hopefully, can be a win-win for both parties. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in power, where one side simply dictates to the other.
That said, the example of the day is the unions that represent government employees vs the government entities that employ them and indirectly the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill. Think about it. What is the long-term outcome likely to be when unions obtain wages and benefits from the government that cannot be sustained over time?
Pogo’s well known quote comes to mind: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” That seems to be the case with government employee unions, which have negotiated wage and benefit packages that are generally better than those of most the taxpayers who are forced to pay the bill.
The argument is sometimes made that government employees are also taxpayers. True enough. However, that would only be appropriate if they were paying the major share of the bill for their own compensation.
The problem has been a combination of government revenue streams that grew steadily for many years, coupled with compliant politicians who responded to the political muscle of the unions that have actively supported their campaigns for election. A particularly egregious example of this was the Santa Barbara City Council election a few years ago, in which the employees’ union asked candidates for City Council a series of questions but would not release their responses to the public.
Not only do the government employee unions have the power to strike but they also vote and, given the percentage of the workforce that now work for government, they represent a major portion of the voting population.
We, that is, our political leaders can resist, but they don’t. Ronald Reagan demonstrated the value of pushing back against the excessive demands of government employees when he fired 11,345 air traffic controllers in 1981, when they attempted what was then an illegal strike.
The result has been the steady growth of government employee costs, to the point that they can no longer be sustained. This is clearly demonstrated by the current plight of Santa Barbara County, which is currently grappling with a projected budget deficit of some $39 million.
The percentage of government budgets that is allocated to employee retirement has been steadily increasing. At some point, those government entities that fail to stop approving expenditures they do not have the money to pay them will eventually go broke. When that happens, whatever retirement benefits they may be contractually bound to pay to their employees will be drastically reduced, of necessity, possibly by a bankruptcy court, if no other way.
But, both the unions and the various government entities seem to keep trying to “soldier on” as if there’s no tomorrow. One gets the impression that if no one looks, the problem will just go away. But, it won’t. There will be a day of reckoning, which appears to be approaching fast.
Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Julian J. Ramos noted (March 3, 2010): “Faced with the unenviable task of closing an overall $40 million budget gap, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to hold off giving direction to county staff on how to narrow that deficit… Most of the budget gap is linked to skyrocketing county employee retirement costs and shrinking property tax revenues, which makes up the majority of the board’s discretionary funding and supports most public-safety programs.”
Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno of Santa Maria said he would rather see cuts to non-essential services than see reductions in services to children and adults who need mental-health care. “We have to find a way to accommodate their needs,” he said.
It all sounds good, but no one has the slightest idea how to stretch the available funds to accomplish that without going broke in the process. Ultimately, Santa Barbara County will not be able to meet its commitments to pay the retirement benefits the unions have negotiated for their members. The County will be forced to default, and the unions will have turned out to be their own worst enemy.
It’s time for people in government (at every level) to get real.
On August 21, 2009, the Orange County Register ran the following editorial:
Time to return to a part-time Legislature?
Ballot measure effort begins; public mood seems inclined to punish lawmakers.
“With so many special interests deeply invested in pulling the levers and turning the wheels of California state government, scaling back to a part-time Legislature may seem a pipe dream. Still, some dreams come true.
“Three decades ago the odds seemed similarly long for a radical reform of the way California governments were having their way with taxpayers. But outrage from homeowners and businesses financially overwhelmed by soaring property taxes built to a crescendo in 1978.
“The dream of a handful of tax reformers was realized with Proposition 13’s lopsided victory at the polls, rolling back property taxes and imposing a 2 percent limit on annual increases.
Prop. 13 sent a jolt through every property-tax collecting agency in the nation.
“We’re just encouraged enough by recent events to think lightning could strike twice.
“This week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger met with a new reform group that intends to put on the November 2010 ballot a measure to abolish California’s year-round state Legislature and replace it with a part-time body to meet 90 days a year. California is one of only six states with full-time legislatures.
“In more placid times, which is to say before the governor’s favorability ratings fell to all-time lows and the Legislature’s even lower, even considering such a proposal would have been
unthinkable for a governor. These are not placid times.
“The Legislature has operated full-time since 1966. But lawmakers were forced to reconvene repeatedly in special sessions to adopt three successive budgets for this year, largely due to their own mismanagement. A fourth session to revise the current budget is possible before year’s end.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger met Wednesday with Gabriella Holt, head of the Citizens for California Reform, a nonpartisan group seeking “more limited and more transparent government.” A spokesman for the governor said that while Mr. Schwarzenegger hasn’t endorsed the idea, he considers a part-time Legislature to be one answer to state government’s mess.
“While that’s a good sign, even more promising was pollster Mark Baldassare, of the Public Policy Institute of California, saying 80 percent of state voters disapprove of the Legislature’s performance.
“The public is in a very angry mood about state government, in particular the Legislature,” Mr. Baldassare told the San Francisco Chronicle. “So anything that comes with making life harder for the Legislature comes with public support — because they’re frustrated with the lack of action on things they think are important.”
“Bringing Sacramento under control just might begin by shrinking the role of those pulling the levers and turning the wheels. Could this be next year’s Prop. 13?”
The Citizens for California Reform website notes: “The Citizen Legislature Act is a constitutional amendment initiative which outlines a legislative session, which will convene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. The Legislature will then reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days thereafter to consider bills vetoed by the Governor. The Act also reduces legislative pay by at least 50% and can only be increased through cost of living adjustments.”
Given that Californian has the highest paid state legislators in the U.S., it’s likely that this initiative will be aggressively opposed by the current officeholders.
Petitions in support of this initiative to place it on the ballot in November of this year are currently being circulated. It has been endorsed by Steve Poizner, a Republican candidate for governor,” who commented: “In the early ‘70s we began the tailspin, I think, when the Legislature became full-time.”
Supporters must obtain almost 700,000 signatures within 150 days following the date a title and summary are prepared by the California Attorney General. That’s a tall order, so it remains to be seen if this measure will make it to the November ballot. If it does, it promises to be a hotly contested issue.
For my part, I’m in favor of a part-time legislature in California. We have allowed our elected officials to become professional politicians, with compensation and benefits that far exceed those of most of their constituents. Term limits have helped, however, it does not prevent politicians from running for a succession of offices, such as the state Assembly, then the state Senate, then state Treasurer, Attorney General, Lt. Governor, etc.
It’s time to eliminate the incentive that makes the life-time pursuit of public office an attractive goal in California and make it necessary for politicians to return to their communities to make a living.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
