FLASHREPORT

I just got an email from the Republican Party about the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee trying to divide Republicans from activists.  The strategy is a real concern.  The Republican challenge?  How to respond to the concerns of activists without alienating them.  Let's be honest, many of the activists that are becoming engaged at this time have been alienated by both Republicans and Democrats.  They are closer to the Republicans in their "Leave Me Alone" approach to government, but they don't believe Republicans take them seriously.  It is very easy to turn them off, and Republicans, in their attempt to curry the favor with the media and intelligentsia, are quick to diss the activists who would, on the natural, support them.

There is a way to deal with their issues without alienating them, and it is important that Republicans learn these ways.  The activists are not hicks, they are not rubes, they are not unintelligent, no matter how much Democrats and the media wish to cast them in that light.  They are natural allies of Republicans, if Republicans treat them with respect and dignity.  Consultants will tell candidates to ignore or deny their concerns, to curry favor with the media and intelligentsia.  That will only rile the activists, turn them off, and leave them out of a political process in which they are absolutely critical to a Republican victory.  Addressing their concerns incorrectly can bring down media hell on any candidate.  These are my suggestions on the questions brought up by the DSCC:

1. Do you believe Obama is a US citizen?  There are a lot of activists who question his citizenship.  The response of the Obama people has been to assert his citizenship, and hide his birth certificate.  Why?  This is my suggested response when asked the question.  "Obama should just make his birth certificate public, and put this whole debate to rest.  Here is my birth certificate.  Where is his?"  Just stick to that.  The candidate is not agreeing with the birthers, nor is the candidate denying their point, which is a good one, why isn't he making his birth certificate public.

2.  Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care standards?  The question of the limits of federal power is an important one.  Congress and the Supreme Court have routinely ignored the constitutional balance struck by our founding fathers between the federal government and the states.  How to respond to this question?  "The 10th Amendment says very specifically that powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.  That is an important principle that needs to be preserved.  I will follow that principle in making my decisions based on the limits stated in the Constitution."  Who can argue with someone following the Constitution?  That is what the activists want to hear, and it is hard to argue with.  What would a Democrat say to that?  We shouldn't follow the Constitution?  We should ignore it?  We do think the First Amendment is important.  The 10th is just as important.

3.  Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and shouldn't have been created in the first place?  Here is the response "The problem of Social Security and Medicare is that they place our senior citizens at the mercy of politicians.  Look at Obamacare.  Politicians were going to hurt seniors to enact a single payer system.  Why is that right?  Why should our seniors be at the mercy of Washington politicians?  Our Social Security and Medicare systems should be set up to maximize freedom, and minimize the dependence of seniors on politicians.  Whether that is through tax credits, or defined benefit programs that protect seniors, or other methods of protecting seniors from the whims of politicians, we need to have a serious discussion before the politicians in Washington really hurt our seniors."  The problem of government run systems, whether you call them socialist or not, is that they leave the recipients of benefits at the mercy of politicians.  Stick to the language of government run, like the post office, or the DMV, emphasize individual freedom, and people will get it.

4. Do you think Obama is a socialist?  Ok, yes, so he is, but you will be ridiculed if you say that.  So stick to the language of a government run system.  Yes, a government run system is socialism by definition.  But if you use the "government run" language, people get it.  Once again, emphasize individualism, freedom, the "leave me alone" standard, and minimum government intervention, and you win the debate.  "Obama thinks government will solve all your problems, and I just don't think that is right."

5.  Do you think America should return to a gold standard?  These are the words "I agree with those economists who believe that our money should be stable and strong.  When the federal government tries to finance its big programs with borrowing, it simply increases inflation and hurts the middle class.  We need a monetary policy that protects the middle class."  Indeed the gold standard protects the middle class, but most of the media doesn't get it.  It doesn't help to get into a debate with a reporter, questioner, or opponent who is economically dense.  Stick to the "solid foundation" rhetoric, and no one can argue with you.

The most important thing is to make the activists understand that you respect them.  Democrats will call them extremists.  There is no need for Republicans, by words or actions, to call them extremists as well.  Keeping them happy does not require that you engage in an argument with those who wish to cast the opinions in the least favorable light.  Look for words and actions that give activists respect, but that don't engage in the argument on the Democrats' turf.  The biggest issue is respect.  Once activists believe that a candidate respects them, they will fight for that candidate no matter what.

These are some observations I have thought about writing down for quite some time.  It is by no means a complete listing of all the truths I have observed, but they are true, as far as they go.

Truth No. 1

Democrats win power by making promises to grow government, then alienate voters by keeping those promises.  Republicans win power by making promises to cut government, then alienate voters by breaking those promises.  So it doesn't matter who gets power, government always grows.

Truth No. 2

Democrats are intensely partisan when they enforce the law, and prove that partisanship by only prosecuting Republicans.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when they enforce the law, and prove that nonpartisanship by only prosecuting Republicans.  So it doesn't matter who gains control of the law enforcement mechanism, only Republicans get prosecuted.

Truth No. 3

Democrats are intensely partisan when it comes to drawing political lines during redistricting, and they prove that partisanship by drawing the lines to protect the Democrats' power.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when it comes to drawing political lines during redistricting, and they prove that nonpartisanship by protecting the Democrats' power.  So it doesn't matter who draws the lines, they always protect the Democrats power.

Truth No. 4

Democrats are intensely partisan when they wield political power, and they always use their power to benefit groups that contribute to Democrats, and punish groups that contribute to Republicans.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when they wield power, so they wield their power to benefit groups that contribute to Democrats, and punish groups that contribute to Republicans.  So, it doesn't matter who is in power, groups that support Democrats are rewarded, and groups that support Republicans are punished.

Truth No. 5

Whenever there are any allegations of any wrongdoing, Democrats will always protect Democrats, and attack Republicans.  Republicans will always protect Democrats and attack Republicans.  So, no matter what the wrongdoing, everyone protects the Democrats and attacks the Republicans.

Truth No. 6

The media will always believe Democrats no matter how wrong they are, and never believe Republicans no matter how right they are.  So the media will always run a story about Democrats without any criticism of the Democrats, but never run a story about Republicans unless it includes criticism of Republicans.

Truth No. 7

Whenever Democrats take power, they fire all of the Republican staff.  Whenever Republicans take power, they hire Democrat staff for their experience.  So it doesn't matter who is in power, the Democrat staff is always in charge.

Truth No. 8

Democrats will always vote to raise taxes, and never vote to cut taxes.  Republicans will sometimes vote to raise taxes, but rarely vote to cut taxes.  So it doesn't matter whose in charge, taxes usually go up, and rarely go down.

Truth No. 9

Moderate Democrats always vote with the Democrats to pass the Democrat agenda, and moderate Republicans always vote with the Democrats to pass the Democrat agenda, so it doesn't matter which party obtains power, Democrats always have the votes they need to pass their agenda.  As a corollary, Democrat executives (Governors and Presidents) will never sign bills that pass the Republican agenda, but Republican executives will ultimately give in and sign bills that pass the Democrat agenda, so it doesn't matter what party owns the executive, Democrats ultimately enact their agenda into law

and my favorite;

Truth No. 10

There are two parties in the United States, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party, and it is not hard to tell which one is which.

I welcome additions, or comments, but I believe these are pretty close to the truth

As the New Year begins, I have been reflecting on politics, my role in it, and the direction of the state.  About a year ago, right after the election of Obama, I was approached by a fellow who said he could make me President, and he asked for me to give me a plan to accomplish that.  I showed him the plan, and although he failed to meet the benchmarks I set for setting up a run (there goes my Presidential ambitions), a lot of the presumptions I made for such a run to work have been coming true.

First, I am convinced 2010 will be a Republican year IF (and I mean a really big IF) Republicans don't screw things up.  It will have nothing to do with the ascendancy of those principles that many Republicans espouse in office in American society (because sometimes it appears that Republican officeholders don't believe in those principles), it will be because Democrats overrreached.  I have a number of "truths of American politics" (which I should write down sometime), but one of them is this--Democrats really believe in the principles they espouse, and they alienate voters doing exactly what they promised they would do when they were trying to get elected.  The corollary to that truth is that Republican get elected when they espouse Republican principles, but most officeholders don't really believe in those principles, so Republicans alienate voters by never doing what they promised they would do when they were trying to get elected.  Republicans lost power in 2006 because they wouldn't do what they promised to do when they got elected in 1994.  Democrats will lose power in 2010 because they are doing exactly what they promised they would do in the last election.

2010 will be a Republican year no matter what.  It is very similar in many ways to 1994: (1) it is an nonpresidential election year, which tends to help Republicans; (2) Voters really dislike Democrats right now; (3) Republican leadership has been drowned out, just like it was in 1994, so voters are not angry with them yet; (4) Independents are realizing what a mistake they made with Obama, just like they did after they elected Bill Clinton in 1992; (5) Democrats are, once again, arrogantly pursuing an agenda that is out of touch with the electorate.  In California, we have a Governor's election coming up where all of the candidates (except for one) are strongly pursuing a conservative small government agenda, and they all have deep pockets.  The end result will be well financed campaigns, and, if the candidates remain focused on the right agenda, next year at this time could be a big party in Sacramento and Washington for Republicans.

That being said, there are still plenty of things that could go wrong. Republicans can still screw things up.  With that in mind, here are my predictions.

 Barbara Boxer will lose her seat this year.  In 1994, Michael Huffington almost beat Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer is no Diane Feinstein.  Republicans only challenge in this case is that the candidates, Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina each have their own unique sets of issues.  Chuck is great on the principles that drive the activists in the party, but he lacks fundraising skill and, quite frankly, lacks "gravitas" as they call it in the media.  Fiorina, on the other hand, has absolutely no political identity at all.  Voters will not vote for someone they do not know, and activists will definitely not work for them.  My advice for each candidate-Chuck, shed your tendency towards nerdiness and raise money--Carly, do all you can to define yourself as a small government conservative, don't listen to those consultants who will be telling you to stay vanilla on the issues.  Step out and define yourself.  You can win if activists and voters are comfortable with who you are.

For Governor, it will come down to Poizner or Whitman (I like Tom Campbell on a personal level, but there are reasons why Democrats really want Tom to be our nominee.  Tom has always been one of those Republican officeholders who think that Republicans are wrong on the issues).  Poizner and Whitman have deep pockets, and can finance a solid media effort, as well as a well financed ground effort.  A well financed media effort will remind everyone that it really was Jerry Brown who screwed up this state, and we have been paying for it in our housing costs, our poor schools, our overcrowded freeways, our water costs, and our decaying prisons ever since.  The ground effort will lead a re-energized California Republican Party to victory in the election.  The only issue will be what kind of coattails they have on election day.  That will depend on whether they inspire the Republican rank and file, or whether they turn them off.  Consultants will do everything they can to turn off the Republican rank and file.  It will be up to the candidates to reject that bad advice, and lead the party to a conservative victory in November.

Congress--Republicans should regain control of Congress this year.  The blueprint?  1994.  Another Contract with America--only this time follow it.  Don't return to the spending sprees that occurred between 2000 and 2006.

Legislature--the 2001 redistricting plan makes getting a majority difficult, but it is possible.  The problem?  There are no Jim Brulte's in charge of the election operation.  Jim was a political mind without peer in Republican circles, his political instincts were always right.  I was there to help on policy initiatives, but Jim knew what to do in 1994 to get the majority.  We do not have that kind of insight in either our consultants or officeholders in Sacramento right now.  That is not to speak ill of those in charge, it is just the way it is.  A majority in the Assembly is a long shot, but it can be done.  3 or 4 seats should be automatic.

What will interfere with the historical certainty of a good Republican year?  Another tax increase proposal by Schwarzenegger.  Capitulation to the Obama agenda in Washington.  Any move by anyone at the top of the California ticket, or in leadership in Sacramento or Washington to alienate the major Republican constituency groups.  The pro-family, pro-gun, anti-tax, small government conservatives seem to be the first ones the party abandons when the press goes after them for actually having beliefs.  Look at Matt Fong.  According to insiders, Matt lost 18 points in 3 days (from 9 points ahead of Barbara Boxer to 9 points down) when he came out for the homosexual agenda.  The result?  A disaster for him and the entire Republican ticket in 1998 (Lungren might have done better if either he or Fong had been a better candidate).  This is the year to thank those Republican constituency groups by giving homage to the principles those groups hold dear.  Of course, that means those candidates should actually follow those principles when they are elected, but to reject those principles before the election is even held is certain defeat.

Those are my predictions this year.  I am encouraged by the mood of the electorate, and discouraged by those we elect to leadership.  The principles I hold dear are dissed everyday by the people Republicans elect to represent them in elections.  If those candidates actually took the time to persuade people that Republican principles were right, they would create a permanent Republican majority.  Unfortunately, Republican leaders spend their time distancing themselves from Republican principles.  As a result, the people who spend hours trying to get these leaders elected become disenchanted, and Republicans lose power.  People then get angry at Democrats, put the Republicans back in power, and then hope against hope that this time the Republicans will get it right.  Republicans will be back in power at this time next year.  This time, I hope they get it right too.

In 1999, the first year of the beginning of the Davis debacle, I was re-appointed as the Republican member of the Health and Human Services Budget Subcommittee (I had been the one Republican member of the three member committee before, but had been removed because I was "too difficult" to deal with).  When I returned, my consultant on that committee was Mike Genest.  For at least one budget cycle (maybe two), we sat in the committee watching then Committee Chair (later Congresswoman, and now Labor Secretary) Hilda Solis spend the state into oblivion.  During her time as the Committee Chair, Solis increased welfare spending by 42%, moving the state to its largest (by percentage) deficit in its history.

During that time, I learned more about the budget, how it works, and what works and what doesn't than I had in my first stint on the committee.  I had great consultants before and after that time, but I learned a lot from Genest, and learned how the budget worked.  A better budget technician you will never find.

He is now leaving the state, and I think the Governor will be worse off for it.  He is loyal, he is competent, he is smart, and he knows how to make the budget work.  I don't know all of the battles that took place behind closed doors in the Governor's office, but I know that the budget didn't grow out of control because Genest was at the helm.  He knew how to control spending, he knew how to say no.  He knew what he was doing, and he stayed around long after it became clear that his opinions were not driving the budget process.  That is a testament to his loyalty.

His voice will be missed in the Governor's office.  As time goes on, the Governor's greatest failure in office will be his failure to control spending, and keep the budget under control.  I know, had the Governor actually listened to Genest, rather than some of the other voices in his administration, the Governor would be feted as a hero of restraint in otherwise difficult times.  If Genest were not there, things would have been worse, I am sure.  Sorry to see you go, Mike, the State needs you.

The Governor recently called term limits "crazy."  Now, I don't agree that they are crazy, there were good reasons for term limits, and the voters were not crazy in enacting them.  But I have come to the conclusion they are not a good idea.

I ran for office in 1990 supporting term limits.  I believed at the time that doing whatever it took to remove Willie Brown as the Speaker of the Assembly was justified.  Dem Legislators weren't going to do it, it appeared voters weren't going to do it.  Maybe term limits would.

Well, the voters did, in 1994, when they elected the first Republican majority in the Assembly since Reagan's first term as Governor.  I was elected to the Assembly in 1992, then in 1994, two terms in the Senate, and when my term there was done, I went back to the Assembly.  I supported term limits through my first term in the Assembly and my two terms in the Senate.  I changed my mind when I went back to the Assembly.

My first term in the Assembly was an interesting one.  We were the first class elected knowing we were subject to term limits, but we were mixed in with some of the war horses of the Legislature.  The battles between Willie Brown and Pat Nolan were legend.  Ross Johnson, Bill Jones, Gil Ferguson in the Assembly, John Lewis, Frank Hill, and others in the Senate would tell us the stories of the Gang of Five, the deal the Assembly Republicans had with George Deukmejian.  Ferguson talked about the rampant spending of the 80's (when state spending skyrocketed from $22 billion to $40 billion, of course in the 90's it went from $40 billion to $79 billion).  Interestingly enough, the average length of a legislative term was around 8 years, but the core of Legislators that had served more than ten years stayed the same, and acted as an institutional anchor.

That anchor was gone when I returned to the Assembly.  The entire nature of the institution had changed, and not for the better in my opinion.  While I did not agree with Willie Brown, he had the good sense to know when his members, and his constituency groups, were out of control, and he would reign them in.  He would tell them no.

Just so you know, in politics, the hardest thing to do is say no to your friends.  The people who were there for you at the beginning, the people who helped you make your career, sometimes want things you, as a policymaker, think they shouldn't have, or things which may hurt the cause for which they advocate.  In those times, a good legislator will look his friends in the eye and say no.  There is usually a price to pay for that.  Your friends get mad, and they may not support you in your next attempt at higher office.  It usually takes about 5 years to repair such a relationship.

Of course, in the Assembly, you only get six years.  And worse than that, in the era of term limits, if you say no, your neighboring legislator will say yes, and when you run against him or her in the next election, your former friends will support your neighbor, because you believed your friends were wrong before (and they of course thought they were absolutely right).

For Republicans, this is not much of an issue.  Republicans don't really need to say no to their friends.  Democrats will do that for them.  For Democrats, however, it is a huge problem.  Elected official jobs are a great gig.  They don't want to lose the jobs, and the unions are ruthless masters.  If a Democrat says no to the unions, or the lawyer lobby, or the enviro nuts, the likelihood is that they will lose their job very soon, not in a primary, but in their next attempt to move to higher office.

As a result, no Democrat, not the Speaker, not the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and especially not any of the individual members, say no to any of the Democrat constellation of special interest groups.  They are afraid that, if they do, their political careers will end as a Legislator, and they don't want their career to end.  Term limits have taken away their independence.  The Democrats, once supplicants to these groups, are now slaves.  They refuse to say no, and, as a result, the Capitol is out of control.

Term limits are not crazy.  There are some very good reasons for limiting individual terms.  They have, however, some very nasty unintended consequences.  They have made sure that no leader will lead, they will only follow some very powerful, and unforgiving, special interest groups.  These groups actually benefit from indulging the worst of their agendas, and the state taxpayers are paying the costs.  I think it is time to rethink term limits, not because I like this set of legislators, but because term limits actually punishes politicians who want to do the right thing, and lead.  They are not crazy, as the Governor said, but, in my humble opinion, they are not a good thing for the state.

Since I have left politics to try to earn an honest living, and become a profit center for the state, rather than a cost of doing business (that is, actually paying more taxes than I get paid), I have not gotten to involved in many campaigns.  However, when Linda Ackerman called, I said I would do what I could to help.

I didn't know Dick Ackerman when he ran for office in 1994.  It goes without saying that I didn't know Linda either.  For the twelve years that I served with Dick, I got to know Linda, and spent more than a few hours talking with the both of them about politics, the Legislature, and the California Republican Party.  During that time, on more than one occasion, I came to believe that Linda should have been the candidate in 1994, not Dick (only kidding, Dick).  But it is true, Linda knew and understood policy, the Legislature and politics.  Quite frankly, there are few people more suited to serve in the Legislature than Linda Ackerman.

First, she knows the right policy solutions, and knows how to work those solutions in the Legislature.  Life is difficult for a Republican in the Legislature, and especially difficult for a conservative.  Linda is a solid conservative, and understands her role in the Legislature.  I know and respect her commitment to principle, her understanding of policy, and her ability to work with those in the Legislature to promote the cause of conservatism in the Legislature and in California.

It is unfortunate that many in the conservative movement get more caught up in the fight with other conservatives, or with Republicans, than they do with promoting the cause of conservatism among voters.  As a result, the movement has slowly eroded over the years.  We have been very good at killing off each other, and very poor at challenging Democrat hegemony in the state.  Linda will be a great voice and a great leader for conservatives, not just in Orange County, where conservatives are in control, but throughout the state.

Conservatives needs Linda Ackerman.  This isn't just about this one election, or about the who in Orange County is the most conservative.  This is about the long term health of the movement.  We need Linda's voice.  We need Linda's vision.  We need Linda's ideas, and we need Linda's leadership.

That is why I am with Linda.  It is also why I hope the voters of the 72nd Assembly district will send her to Sacramento.  The California Republican Party, and California conservative, need Linda in Sacramento.

From 1994 to 2002, I was the Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Public Employee and Retirement Systems (we called it the PERS committee).  If that committee is not hell for Republicans, it certainly is purgatory.  Every single committee hearing was filled with Government Employee Union Lobbyists coming in and asking for higher pensions. I used to refer to this gang of lobbyists as the Red Brigade.

 For eight years, I sat on that committee voting NO on every single request for increased pensions, and talking about how these requests were going to bankrupt the State.  In the Dot Com boom of the late 90's, CalPers and these lobbyists talked about how wrong I was, and about how the increase in the value of CalPers investments would more than cover the increased pension benefits, and that "taxpayers would never have to pay for the pensions again."  I endured harangue after harangue from these lobbyists and from my Democrat colleagues, both in committee and on the floor, for speaking up against this massive giveaway.

One of the Democrats who dished up those criticisms was Bill Lockyer, then President Pro Tem of the Senate.  He had sentenced me to this committee as punishment for beating his Senate candidate in 1994, and he told the Senate on more than one occasion that I was exaggerating.  The money for large government employee pensions, he said, would last forever.

He has now realized the error of his ways.  He should be congratulated for his newfound insight, and again, I want to welcome to the Haynes fold another disbeliever.  First, it was Joe Mathews, now it is Bill Lockyer.  The Governor is getting there on judges, and hopefully he will also be there on budgets.  I hate to blow my own horn on this one (well actually I don't, sometimes I feel like gloating), but the important thing is people are starting to see what many of us who were called too radical saw in the years leading up to this collapse.

The important thing is that the Government Employee Union bosses are thieves.  They steal from their employees, they steal from the taxpayers, they justify their existence by using the power of government to increase their own power at the expense of everyone with whom they come in contact.  They have driven the pension funds to bankruptcy.  They have driven the state to bankruptcy.  They have an unlimited amount of money with which to mercilessly punish those who would stand up to them, and as a result, they often have their own way with anyone who comes into contact with them.

The wall is cracking, however.  When someone with Bill Lockyer's past dares to stand up to these bosses, and deliver the truth on pensions, it is clear that the situation is dire.  The Legislature needs to stand up to them.  The Democrats in the Legislature need to recognize that it is no longer just nut balls like Ray Haynes who are sounding the alarm, but one of their own.  We are standing on the edge of the precipice.

It is time to start evaluating Miller/Milias/Brown, the law that allowed the creation of government unions, signed by Jerry Brown in 1975.  If we do not limit or disband these unions, they will destroy the state.  Unfortunately, the damage may be too great to fix at this point, but we ought to at least try.

Over the last couple of days, the Governor has been crying about Federal judges.  Everything he is saying about them is true.  They are out of control.  They think they are the governors of this state.  They think they have the power to tell the state how to run its operation.  All of that is true.  So what?  Those things are not new.  Federal judges have been out of control for at least 50 years, and they have had no regard for state government since at least 1936.  So what?

In previous columns in this blog, in papers, and while I was in the Legislature, I have advocated that the state government, and particularly the Governor, tell the federal judges to take a very long leap off of a very high bridge.  I have been ignored, because, as everyone knows, I'm am crazy, unrealistic, way too conservative, and I lack judgment.

I would have also saved the state a lot of headaches and a lot of money.

Today, another voice, obviously one who thinks himself very reasonable, not as crazy as Haynes, and certainly wise and judicious, has joined in my solo.  We are now a chorus.  Take a look at the blog of Joe Mathews on Fox and Hounds.
 
A short review of my articles on this blog reveals I said the same a month ago.  Here's the deal, the Governor will not be arrested by Federal marshals.  It would be a gross invasion of state sovereignty, bad politics, and practically impossible.  The CHP is charged with the Governor's security.  They couldn't let it happen.  It would be interesting theater to see the Federal Marshals face off against the CHP, but highly unlikely.

The state can't be fined by the federal government under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, and, quite frankly, their only remedy is to cut off federal funds to the state.  What would that do?  Send welfare recipients and illegal aliens to other states, when the state cuts the state's giveaway to these groups, because they are no longer bound by federal requirement imposed on the programs.

More important than the political theater and the obvious benefits of such a program, it would create a long need showdown on federalism.  It would be historical, and quite frankly, it is the right fight.  Federal judges cannot let state prisoners go unless the state agrees, and the state doesn't have to agree.  It would be an interesting battle, and one that could redefine the relationship between the states and the federal government.  I say, let's do it.  Those federal judges are crazy, they are out of control.

The Governor should stand up to them.  Put your money where your mouth is Governor.  There is at least one crazy former legislator who will stand with you on this.

In 1996, then Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian introduced a bill that would give public employees the option of moving from the current "defined benefit" pension system to a "defined contribution" system.  The major difference between the two system is that under a defined benefit system, the contributions are made to a fund, managed by someone else (in Californias case, a union elected board, with a couple of Governor appointees and appointees by the Controller and Treasurer, both union controlled Democrats), and the payment that is made to the retiree is defined by the state.  A defined contribution system is a 401(k) system.  It allows the investments to be controlled by the employee, and the benefit the employee receives depends on how smart the employee was in making the investment.

Kaloogians bill passed the Republican controlled Assembly at the time, and ended up in the Democrat controlled Public Employee Retirement Committee, of which I was the Vice Chair.  A whole host of government employee union lobbyists (a group I used to refer to as the "Red Brigade") showed up in the committee to oppose the bill.  What was most interesting about the discussion is that several of the lobbyists contended that CalPers would do a better job of "managing" the retirement money than the employee would.

Then we get todays news.  CalPers and CalSTRS (the teacher retirement system) have lost a combined $100 billion (yes that is billion with a B) in the last year.  Thanks guys for doing such a good job for your members.  Of course they don't have to worry about it, the taxpayers, under the defined benefit program, eat the losses.  And, of course, in a related story, one of the members of the CalPers board received over $50 million in fees for directing CalPers investments to certain projects (the story called it fees, it is really a criminal bribe).  So, the taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab, while the board picks up the fees for themselves.

What is worse is that the unions have figured out that this huge chunk of money they control is a great way to control politics.  CalPers invests in a number of Fortune 500 companies, and its influence in the market can drive the stock price of a publicly held company down very fast, if that company doesn't play political ball with the union bosses that control the CalPers fund.  Rumors in the Capitol were rampant that these bosses threatened any company that donated to the initiative in 2005 that would have eliminated forced union dues at the state level with a massive sell off of their stock.  It was intended to tell those who ran the companies that if they didn't toe the union line, they would lose millions of dollars of equity value.  In other words, these union bosses were willing to sacrifice their investments to ensure that their political power stayed intact.

That is only the least of their problems.  CalPers and CalSTRS have invested in the programs of individuals who were politically favored over the years.  Where do you think Phil Angelides made his money, and got the financing for his real estate projects, projects which, by the way, cost the taxpayers millions?  Having $200 billion at their disposal, these union bosses have played fast and loose with the money, advancing their political agenda, because they know the taxpayers will pay the bill for any losses caused by their decision.

One of the most important things the state can do to reform the pension system is to move from defined benefit to defined contribution.  It will break the power of the unions, and protect taxpayers.  State employees will benefit as well.  They will have the freedom to pursue investments that will maximize their income in retirement and create wealth for their heirs, since the money will belong to the employee, and not to the union bosses.  It is a win for the taxpayer, a win for the employee, and a win for state government.  The only ones who will lose are the union bosses, which is why the change won't happen as long as the Democrats are in charge in Sacramento.  Sacramento Democrats are the lapdogs for the union bosses, and don't care a wit about state employees or the taxpayers.  We will be stuck with the corruption and abuse of employee money by union bosses as long as the system remains in its current state.  It is time to change it, by changing the Legislature.

I have spent the last several years trying to make a living, to become a profit center for the state of California, instead of a cost of doing business.  I have learned that once you no longer have a vote in the Legislature, people forget your name, and your opinions count for little.  I voice those opinions, nevertheless, from time to time, in the hopes that someone might listen to them.

So, I want to voice my opinion on Governor.  Now that the convention is over, and everyone has heard the candidates.  The newspapers have analyzed the speeches, and the blogs have clashed their cymbals.  I come to this point with the knowledge that I have not always been right about my choices.  Bill Simon had to defeat Richard Riordan for the primary nomination, to avoid a complete meltdown of the Republican Party in 2002, but he was a terrible candidate for Governor.  Afraid to take a position, constantly alienating people at all turns because of his weakness, and severe personal issues that arose just before the election doomed his chances.  I endorsed Simon despite these weaknesses, and we lost that Governor's race to the incompetent Gray Davis.

I endorsed Schwarzenegger as well in the recall.  I know McClintock was running, but there was no way Tom would win that race.  I endorsed Schwarzenegger with my eyes opened, knowing his Governorship could become problematic, but I felt that since conservatives started the recall, we should win it, and Tom wasn't going to win it.  I also knew that a lot of conservatives felt like me, but would be too afraid to say so.  I took the step, paid the price, but did it to protect the Conservative movement in California.  The movement was then, and is now, more important to me that my personal reputation, or my personal career.  I paid the price for that endorsement, and Schwarzenegger betrayed the movement.  He has paid the price for his betrayal, as the current budget problems demonstrate, but the movement survived, and even now, candidates for Governor still sound like Ronald Reagan.

So, you may ask, why did I endorse Steve Poizner?  Simple--I know Tom Campbell very well, served with him in the Legislature for quite some time.  Tom is a nice guy, and very smart, but he is contemptuous of conservatives, and very arrogant about it.  He will do severe damage to the party and to the movement if he is the nominee, and he will be too arrogant to understand why.

By the same token, I have no idea who Meg Whitman is.  We had the same problem with Schwarzenegger, we didn't know who he was.  He sounded good when he held up brooms and said he was going to blow up boxes.  But he didn't sweep out corruption, he hired it into his administration, and he didn't blow up boxes he just made them bigger.  Whitman suffers from the same lack of believability.  Don't tell me what you are going to do, show me what you have done.

That leads me to Poizner.  When I first met Steve, he was running for the Assembly in the Bay Area.  I helped him, but I didn't like his positions or his attitudes.  I didn't think he would be good for the party.  He lost that election, angered conservatives, and made lots of mistakes.  The next time I saw Steve, I was at a CRA convention in Bakersfield.  That was when my mind changed about him.  CRA conventions are difficult things for candidates.  Some of the members are rude, some committed, vocal conservatives.  If they don't like you there, you will know soon enough.  Candidates who show up to the convention best be ready for rough sledding.  The CRA is a tough audience.

Poizner is not a CRA kind of candidate.  But I watched him.  He stayed the whole weekend, patiently endured the good, the bad and the ugly that conservative activists can dish out, and he came through.  A guy who I would have thought would have been run out of that place on a rail, survived and got the nomination.  He came out of that convention with the respect of conservatives, because he respected the conservative activists that were there.  I was impressed.

Sure, I don't like all of his positions.  Sure, he has made mistakes in the past (by the way, so have I, I was a Democrat until 5 years before I was elected to the Legislature).  Sure, he is not a Ray Haynes or Tom McClintock sort of conservative, but he listens to us, he respects us, and he will make us an important part of his administration.  That means a lot to me.  It took four years for Pete Wilson to learn that conservatives were a valuable asset.  Schwarzenegger still hasn't learned, and is paying the price.  Campbell will never learn, and we can't afford on-the-job training for Whitman.  Poizner has learned, and acted on the things he has learned, and he is a better Republican, and a better politician for it.

Poizner can win, and he is the best choice available for conservatives, because I know conservatives will have a voice in his administration.  He will not be perfect, and will not always listen to us, but he comes to the office with a respect for conservatives in the party, and treats them as a valuable part of the team.  That is an important thing, and a necessary first step for the conservative revolution that will come to California.

That is my opinion, anyway, for what is worth.

When I left the legislature, I applied to become a judge.  I never figured I would make it, because I just can't keep my mouth shut (and the Governor has to like you before you can become a judge), but the judiciary needs more people who have a right view of what a judge does, a restrained interpreter of the law, not a frustrated legislator.  Chuck Poochigian is just such a person.  I sat next to Chuck on the Senate floor for several years, and in that time, and watching him at work, saw a man of intelligence, hard work, balance, and insight.  He is in my opinion perfect for the job of a judge.  He has the temperament, the experience, the knowledge, and the insight necessary to be not just a good judge, but a great judge.  I was glad to see the Governor appoint him to the appellate court.

And now to read that the Commission on Judicial Nomination Evaluations ranks him not qualified to sit on the bench because he hasn't practiced law enough?  Outrageous, not just outrageous but comical.  Who do these people think they are?  Are they so biased, so pompous, so narrow minded, or so intimidated by a man of Chuck's obvious qualifications that they cannot see?  If anything shows what is wrong with the legal profession in general, this is it.  I am ashamed to call myself a lawyer, that such narrow minded people of such obvious bias would be granted positions of influence in that profession.  We are looking at the mindset of those who condemned Socrates to death, who condemned Galileo, those who are so enamored of the status quo that they cannot open their minds to someone with whom they might disagree.  Chuck's only negative is that he is a conservative, but to these unreconstructed leftists, that is enough.  I cannot say enough about their lack of tolerance, their narrow mindedness, their obvious bias in this evaluation.  It is the worst of the worst.  Chuck is by far their superior in every sense of the word, and they have the gall to render such an opinion.

I would expect that they would evaluate me not qualified.  I am opinionated, and question my own temperament to become a judge.  It is hard for me to keep my mouth shut when I see things with which I disagree.  Chuck is even tempered and intelligent.  I know he knows the law, and he knows the practice.  We talked about those things often in our time in the Senate.  I would expect a bunch of nutball leftists to condemn me, and to use my words and my actions against me in evaluating me.  Chuck has none of my defects in that area.

Sometimes I question my own tactics.  Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better to preserve peace to advance the causes in which I so passionately believe.  Sometimes I think that confrontation is not always the best way to advance the conservative movement.  Should we not allow those with whom we disagree the benefit of the doubt, that they may be misguided, but they are honorable?  Then they do something like this.  There is no honor in the left, no reason to give them any benefit of the doubt.  That they would use this tactic, that is, the tactic of rating such a good and honorable man "not qualified" then releasing that evaluation in violation of their own rules tells me that we have a long and arduous fight on our hands, and that people of honor and good will must confront these types, and attack on all fronts.  They are in this fight to destroy people who think like us.  We must face that fact, and know that we are right in our cause, and not back away from any fight.

What the JNE Commission did was outrageous.  Quite frankly, no Governor should ever listen to them again.  They are not reliable, they are not honorable, they are biased, and they are not entitled to the trust they have been given in the judicial appointment process.  I hope they are completely ignored from this point forward in the judicial process, and that they simply atrophy away in the legal process.  Outrageous, simply outrageous.

What is going on in the Assembly Republican caucus?  Have they lost their minds?  The Senate passed the Healthy Families bill, a bill with a tax increase in it, with Republican help, which was foolish enough.  One Senator said he just couldn't see "children losing their health care."  He couldn't have articulated the Democrat argument for any tax increase better.  But the Assembly caucus voted overwhelmingly for the thing.  Are they nuts?

I will start with one observation.  I was one of 5 Senators who voted against the Healthy Families bill in 1997.  Healthy Families is the California version of the so-called State Child Health Insurance program (S-CHIP) which was passed by the national government (with a Republican majority in Congress) in those days.  The reason given for passage at the time was that the federal government had to do something about the uninsured children out there.  So-they passed a program where the federal government paid for two-thirds of a subsidized health insurance program (with the state picking up the other one-third) for the so-called working poor, those poor workers whose employers were too cheap to buy health insurance.

Interestingly enough, after 10 years of being in effect, it was clear that the money being spent on the program was having absolutely no effect.  In studies done year after year, academicians and policy wonks everywhere couldn't understand how 10 per cent of the workforce could be uninsured before S-CHIP, and 10 per cent was still uninsured year after year, despite the growing roles of government insured workers.  What was happening?

It turned out employers were figuring out how to transfer their health insurance costs onto the government.  They would simply drop the coverage of the employees, and the employees would sign up on the government supplied health insurance (do the words "public option" come to mind?).  The number of uninsured throughout this entire time stayed relatively stable.  All that happened was that the government spent huge amounts of money on a government program that failed to fulfill its mandate (that was a big surprise), shifting billions of dollars of costs that used to be picked up by the private sector to the government.

So, in the last week, Republicans were faced with the opportunity to actually shrink the size of both the federal and state government at the same time, by eliminating a program of very marginal value, and they punted.  They walked around like their Democrat colleagues talking about how they were helping "the children," voted to increase taxes on insurance companies, and bragged about their bipartisan behavior.  I was aghast.

I wasn't there.  I don't know what they were told, but I was the Vice Chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, and the Republican representative on the HHS budget subcommittee for years.  I know what a boondoggle Healthy Families was (and is).  It's only justification at the state level is that the federal government is spending most of the money.  Let's do taxpayers everywhere a favor.  Let's actually kill a program whose benefits do not justify its costs.  S-CHIP, like thousands of federal programs, has failed to satisfy its reason for existence.  It should be allowed to die a quick and justified death, no matter how much the federal government is spending on it.

And if smart policy decisions are not enough reason to kill the bill, perhaps keeping your word to the voters of your district ought to move your conscience a little.  You promised you wouldn't raise taxes on anyone.  You just violated the promise, and what is worse, you violated that promise for a program that doesn't do what it promised to do.  (oh, and by the way, replacing a federal tax that is going to expire, with a state tax, is still a tax increase, even if the state tax is lower than the federal tax.)  That is why these promises are made.  You may not always know the facts about a particular program, but you know right from wrong.  It is right to keep your word, no matter how good the reason for breaking it may sound, or how small the damage from breaking it may be.  Keep your word, and you can never do wrong, no matter what the thousands of analysts say.  They were wrong, and they led you astray, but you were wrong to break your word.  There is always a good excuse for bigger government, and you just fell for one of the biggest Democrat lies of all, that you were doing this "for the children."  You were doing it for bigger government, and more government intrusion into the private markets, nothing more, nothing less.

The battle lines are drawn.  Fleischman says the rule on primary voting (restricting Republican primaries to Republicans alone) is necessary to "maintain a vibrant GOP."  Maldanado says it is suicidal.  I think it is much ado about nothing.

Tony Quinn, in his column in Fox and Hounds, gives the numbers.  The number of independent voters in Republican primaries in less than four percent.  Now, I have to admit, I never agree with Quinn's assessments of what it wrong in the GOP, but numbers don't lie.  Independent primary voters are for the most part irrelevant in either party primary (being about 6 percent of the Democrat voters).  That means that restricting them from our primaries won't be disastrous,and including them won't make the party any more or less vibrant.

On the whole, if pressed on the question, I would say that Republican primaries are for Republicans.  Definitely no Democrats, but I am ambivalent on DTS voters.  The reason Republicans are losing voters to DTS status is not because Republicans are too conservative, however, it is because they stand for nothing.  The party of small government and less taxes, the party I joined some 22 years ago, proved itself the party of "kinda big" government, big debt, and "we'll raise your taxes when our spending has pushed us to the brink of bankruptcy."  People are rightly disgusted with a party that has no core principles, and rightly leave that party when they think they have been lied to by the party leadership whose sole purpose in politics seems to be maintaining their own political power.

The purpose of the political process is to persuade people to entrust their god-given power in a particular set of leaders.  Governing principles are the most common tools used in politics to persuade people to entrust the leaders with power.  When someone gains power using those principles, voters expect those to whom they have entrusted power (based on the appeal to those principles) to actually follow the principles they promised they would follow.  Republicans violated that trust, and the voters retaliated by turning them out of power in Washington.  People have left the party in droves, not because the Party is too conservative, but because the party was exposed to be a party of power and not a party of principle.

Recommit to principle, and work hard to persuade people that the principles we espouse are the principles under which the government would operate best, that is the secret to a strong vibrant GOP.  Waffling on principle, having candidates more focused on their personal power than on the governing principles upon which they campaigned, that is suicide.  Nobody cares about the rules, nobody cares about whether the candidate is moderate, they care about whether the candidate can persuade them that the candidate has a clear vision about how to govern, and once the political power to govern has been entrusted to that candidate, that the candidate implements that vision.  The problem with the California GOP is that it has not communicated a clear, coherent set of governing principles to the voters in a very long time, and that it has not persuaded enough people to entrust enough of its members with political power.

We can fight over rules, we can whine about how "conservative" our candidates are, we can fight over the crumbs of power left on the floor to us by the Democrats, or we can get about to the hard work of formulating a clear coherent set of governing principles, and then persuading voters that those principles are what would be best for them in government.  When we have persuaded enough voters that a clear, coherent set of Republican principles are the best governing principles, those voters will entrust Republicans with power, as the voters did in 1994.  When Republicans violate that trust, the voters will turn Republicans out of power, as they did in 2006.  That is how a Republic ought to work.

It seems the Chronicle, whose concern about the health of the State's GOP is well documented, is now worried about who votes in Republican primaries.  Excuse me if I don't worry about the Chronicles opinion about our party.  We have a bigger problem.

Rod Lapsley, of the State's Chamber of Commerce, commented that prohibiting decline to state voters from voting in Republican primaries would relegate the party to "permanent minority status."  Excuse me if I don't care what the Chamber thinks, either.  The Chamber is as much responsible for Democrat hegemony in this state as any other group.  They demand absolute fidelity from Republicans, but have little problems hopping into bed with the other side if it suits their purpose.  The Democrats have a faithful spouse in the unions; the business community, to whom the Republicans seem to have married their future, cheat on the Republicans all the time.  They do not have our best interest in mind either.

Republicans' problems go deeper than who votes in their primaries, and the sooner Republicans understand that, the better we will be.  In the same day as the Chronicle story on primary votes, we find a story about how one group of Republicans is suing another over their Republican credentials in a Central Committee vote IN A COUNTY WITH 16% REPUBLICAN REGISTRATION, and the state party has joined in the fight.  Talk about fighting over the crumbs.  We should welcome those who upset the status quo into the party, praise their organizational skills for beating out the existing structure, and encourage them to use those skills to build registration to 20 or even 30% in the county, not sue them.  Does anyone not see the irony here?

Republicans activists spend more time fighting with each other over who gets control of the fiefdom than they do fighting for the kingdom.  We spend more time trying to figure out how to outsmart the Democrats than how to outwork them.  The only thing that is going to make Republicans the majority in this state is hard work.  Not new technology, no new techniques about who is going to vote where, not cute, insider political maneuvering.  Hard work towards a majority, towards commitment to what Republicans believe, a secure community, a small government, lower taxes, and family.  Hard work, nothing else.  When our party leaders and our elected officials realize that we need not worry about who controls a central committee in a county with less than 20% registration, but we should work hard to raise registration, and find candidates in districts where the registration is between 30 and 35%, we will start to pick up seats, and registration throughout the state.  We may then win more than one or two statewide offices.  We might win more than 30-32 Assembly seats and 14-16 Senate seats.  We might actually become the majority because people like us, not because they hate the Democrats.

Since 1958, Republicans have only held the majority in one house or the other twice, once in 1968 and once in 1994. We rarely get more than one or two statewide offices. Our party is dysfunctional because the leadership thinks that raising and spending money is the way to win, not working hard for a solid set of principles.  Of course, money is important, but only hard work, and being committed to principle, will win the hearts and minds of Californians.  Suing each other, fighting meaningless fights over who gets to vote, whining and complaining is not going to get us there.  Hard work and commitment to principle, that is it.

Federal judges have just told the state of California to release 43,000 prisoners due to prison overcrowding.  Lets leave aside, for the moment, that the Democrats in the Legislature have caused this overcrowding because they have not allowed the construction of any new prisons in over 15 years (the Democrats have been waiting for this order for that entire time, since they dont think that criminals should be in prison).  That is the real cause of this overcrowding.  But this is a time to make lemonade out of this federally imposed lemon.

For years, the federal judiciary has been pushing itself more and more into the operations of state government.  Tossing out the 1994 initiative prohibiting payment of welfare to illegals (and thus resulting in California having the largest welfare roles in thenation), telling how to spend our money, forcing us to provide better medical care to prisoners than most law abiding citizens receive, dictating spending, welfare and medical policies because some left wing interest group doesnt like the policy choices the state has made.  The courts have turned the principle of federalism on its ear, intruding more and more into state operations, and imposing their conception of correct policy under the guise of constitutional mandate.  This is judicial activism at its worst.

Operation of state prisons is a state function, not a federal one.  A court cannot conclude, nor can any federal law say, that our prisons constitute cruel and unusual punishment (which is the only constitutional basis for intrusion into state decisions in this area) at any level.  What with state of the art weight rooms, cable television, decent (although not five star hotel) food, and decent housing, prisoners have a place to live and eat in relative comfort (compared to some people living on the outside) while we keep them away from the rest of us during their sentence.  The only danger they face is from each other, really bad people, that is people who have no respect for themselves, their neighbors, or for the rules, can be difficult to live with, without question, but that cannot be avoided.  Prison is for bad people, to keep bad people away from good people so that the bad people cant hurt the good ones.

So what should the state do with this federal order?  Tell the judges we wont do it, we will not let these bad guys go, ever.   This order is the exact order that needs to be resisted to re-establish a sense of federalism, that is, a respect for the rights of the state v. federal government that was established in our Constitution, and which has been lost for many years.  If the Governor said no, California wont let these prisoners go, what would the judges do?  Try to arrest the Governor?  They cant, they dont have guns.  US Marshalls?  I doubt it.  It would be an interesting standoff between the CHP and the Marshalls.  Ask Obama to step in?  Obama would have to call out the Army to demand the release of these prisoners.  Can you imagine a more interesting scenario?  Finally, the Democrats would be shown for the soft on crime types that they are.  The Governor would be standing up for the law abiding citizens of California.  Obama would be ordering the Army to go to the prisons and let the bad guys go.  It would be the perfect policy, political, and dramatic scenario to show exactly why federalism is an important constitutional principle.  We should run our prisons, not some unelected federal judge.  Who would win the political and public relations fight in that case?  The judges would be shown for the leftist, and impotent fools, they really are.

Will it happen?  It should, but it probably wont.  This administration doesnt have the guts.  The federal judges are clearly wrong.  There is nothing wrong with our prisons.  These judges are hell bent (literally) on putting Californians in harms way.  The Governor took an oath to protect us and the Constitution.  These judges have clearly put California citizens and constitutional principles at risk.  It is the duty of the Governor to resist this clearly illegal order.  It would be good for Californians, it would be good for the Constitution, and it would be good for him to do so.  Does he have the internal fortitude to make history?  We will see.