FLASHREPORT

The problem Flash Report is poor leadership by the Republican Party in California...

If you cannot guide, suggest, stear your own.....well....

Time for a house cleaning in the California Republican Party!

There you go again, Jon, off the rails to the far far far right. So you think the Republicans will pick up the seat in the 15th if Abel is confirmed? Think again, Jon. The 15th has gone Democrat - by several percentage points. And if you think the independents will vote for some far right wing-nut Republican I think you must be smoking something from the store front medicine shop down the lane. But dream on, Jon. The Democrats will pick up this seat and that puts them one vote away in the Senate from a veto proof majority whereby the Democrats override any veto of increased taxes. Good going by you and your far right-wing nuts, Jon. When you and your far right wing-nuts elect Jerry Brown and a super majority Democrat dominated legislature, my next step will be to move to Nevada. By the way, Jon. Do you ever wonder why the Club for Growth manages to step in and block the Republican and help elect the Democrat by splitting the vote? Do you ever wonder why the far right wing-nut Republican never wins? Do you ever think that this state would be a Republican state if the party would stop putting forth right wing-nut candidates and stated supporting moderate Republicans?

I do agree with Sen.Steinberg that our Governor should appoint someone outside the state legislature so we do not have to pay for any special elections. There are good Arnold friendly replacements for Garamendi such as Keith Richman and Jim Cunneen and they would not cost us 2 million dollars plus and we could delay the 2/3rds dominance in the state senate for a few more years.

I seriously feel that Laird or Monning might have a chance and it will be another lost seat. So the State Senate Republicans should vote NO on Maldo's appointment.

We are seriously going to lose the 2/3rds buffer if we don't have the right message in this blue state.

Maybe the 2/3rds buffer should go away so the Republicans would be forced to recruit candidates that could win all over California such as the suburbs of San Jose, Burbank, Torrance and Pasadena. The far right of the Republican Party likes the 2/3rds rule because they realize they do not have to compromise and they can keep the status quo even though many communities have ditched voting Republican since 1996.

If we want to be a governing party we must have an inclusive party. If we have 41 and 21 members in our party in either house we can set the agenda and even with some environmentalist and or gay friendly Republicans in the caucus what is there to lose?

And even so, having the Democratic Party own the budgets and tax votes would make them accountable to the voters if we lose the 2/3rds buffer.

I would be interested in hearing from Mr. Evans or Mr. Munson exactly how Abel Maldonado helps the Senate Republicans veto tax and budget legislation when HE VOTES FOR IT! If we had a legislature full of Maldonado's, the 2/3 buffer would be moot, and Mr. Evans would, indeed, be in Nevada.

I have no problem with the idea of nominating moderate Republicans from the more liberal districts in our state. But, to me, this means they might stray from the conservative line on certain social issues. They should never stray on the fundamental Republican issues of lower taxes and smaller government. Abel Maldonado is not a moderate. He is, by definition, a liberal.

The reason why we need to keep Abel Maldonado in the state senate is he is our buffer for keeping the 2/3rds if we lose SD-12.

And a Senator Laird or Monning would be much worse than Maldo at the helm.

Bob Evans - your post is particularly spot on today.

Thank you for your question, Don Stout. Abel, in voting for the TEMPORARY tax increase in the budget deal was able to extract the elimination of a PERMANENT 12 cent per gallon gasoline tax increase. Personally, I think that Abel got the Republicans a great deal - temporary tax increase to help fill the budget shortfall while also helping to keep the cost of driving to work down a little. To me, a temporary tax is much preferable to a permanent tax. And I never saw any hint of what to cut from the budget proposed on this blog that would have closed the budget shortfall (which, due to the economy is again in the red). What do you think?

Can anyone think of a tax that was temporary and it was never made permanent? (I'm not trying to make a point here. I really don't know the answer.)

Taxes that are meant to be temporary usually never get removed. Think of the Spanish-American War phone tax.

I think one of the big ways California could save money is if we removed the Davis era pension hike of 1999 which caused a huge spike in our unfunded liabilities. We need to save our tax payers from having to bail CalPERS out and make sure the fund stays solvent in the long run.

And AB 32 (2006) needs to be suspended as well and maybe those two things would make a difference. If we change the business climate people will want to keep their businesses and their jobs in California which would make life easier for all of us.

People like Keith Richman have tried for years to tell California that something has to be done.

Wouldn't the 12 cent gas tax also have required a 2/3 vote? I still don't see what Maldonado actually accomplished, other than getting a silly counterproductive primary measure on the ballot next year.

Mr. Munson hit it right on the nose. Much of the budget problem is due to huge and irresponsible public employee pension hikes and a unionized public bureacracy which views its own well being as a greater good than the well being of the public it allegedly serves. If we are going to solve our budget problems this is where we are going to need to focus our efforts.