Following the Affordable Care Act seminar, I also asked the Assembly why he supported granting undocumented residents, or illegal immigrants, drivers' licenses.
He justified his vote because the Los Angeles Police Chief, Charlie Beck, supports the measure.
He also argued that the law will provide future drivers, whether they are in the country illegally or not, to receive proper training before they drive.
These individuals will also be able to purchase car insurance, so that in future accidents, which including illegal immigrant drivers, insurance companies will cover the costs for any damages.
The logic behind Assm. Muratsuchi's decision is flawed on many levels.
What difference does it make what the Los Angeles Police Chief thinks about driver's licenses? Did the Assemblyman contact the police chiefs in Torrance, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or even the Palos Verdes region? What about the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department?
Their opinion on this policy matters too, and moreso since Muratsuchi represents the South Bay, including the Beach Cities, not Los Angeles.
Yet even if the Police Chief of Los Angeles offered his opinion, his authority on the matter still conveys very little. Why does the Police Chief support the measure? Does he have any research or evidence to support the argument that permitting undocumented immigrants to earn a state document will create safe roads and reduce accident liabilities?
What if Pope Francis had supported drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants? President Bush? Desmond Tutu? Or even Bozo the Clown? An established authority's opinion does not establish any authority for an opinion.
Not only that, but Susana Martinez, the first Hispanic female governor of New Mexico, the most Hispanic state in the Union, opposes drivers licences for illegal immigrants.
Her opinion ought to matter, shouldn't it?
She pointed out to reporters in her state that the roads are not safer since New Mexico adopted the statute to allow licenses for illegal immigrants. She further cited that the rate of fraud and human trafficking has increased because of the law. When runninng for office in 2010, she ran specifically on a platform of repealing the DL law, and she won.
"73% of New Mexicans opposed drivers licenses for illegal immigrants".
Political pressure had forced the repeal of the 2002 California law granting licenses to illegal immigrants. But societal realities should have convinced Assemblyman Muratsuchi to vote against permitting undocumented individuals from obtaining drivers licenses.
The logic behind the measure fails to consider that since individuuals have entered the country illegally, and a number of them are driving anyway, what makes anyone believe that they are going to change their behavior habits and earn a license?
Furthermore, legal and illegal residents drive without insurance, so the notion that someone with a drivers' license will automatically purchase insurance is also illogical.
Eight states have already repealed similar legislation. There is no research which suggests that expanding licenses to illegal immigrants will ensure safe roads and more insured drivers.
Not only that, but Muratsuchi as a former state prosecutor should have rejected any law which would violate the federal immigration laws of our nation.
Hopefully, a legal challenge will force injunction and repeal of this law.
In the mean time, Muratsuchi should have worked with his Republican colleagues to streamline the naturalization process and make it easier for immigrants to become legal residents of the state of California in the first place!
Friday, September 27, 2013
Muratsuchi Voted to Force the Minimum Wage
After the Affordable Care Act seminar on Tuesday Morning (Sept. 24), I spoke with Assemblyman Muratsuchi privately.
I asked him first about the minimum wage increase which Governor Brown just signed into law.
I thought that the Assemblyman had voted against the bill.
He acknowledged that he voted against the first version of the bill because minimum wage increases would have risen with inflation if the original language of the bill was not changed.
After the provision tying wage increases to inflation was removed, Muratsuchi supported the $!0 minimum wage increase.
I asked the Assemblyman if he was aware of the widespread opposition to minimum wage increases.
He did meet with representatives of the business community at the Red Car in downtown Torrance.
Still, Muratsuchi supported the wage increase because the wage had not been increased since 2008.
The staggering lack of economic understanding from our legislators cannot be underestimated.
Or rather, the political pandering which overcomes common sense cannot be ignored.
There is no policy more likely to create unemployment (which rose in the state of California this week) than a minimum wage increase.
The government cannot create wealth, the government cannot provide funding, and forcing the rise in the minimum wage creates another tax on already struggling small businesses, and even the larger ones, in the state of California.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi might want to explain to local residents why has sided with the Democrats in Sacramento against the small business owners, the wage earners, and the future (yet dwindling) work force in the South Bay.
I asked him first about the minimum wage increase which Governor Brown just signed into law.
I thought that the Assemblyman had voted against the bill.
He acknowledged that he voted against the first version of the bill because minimum wage increases would have risen with inflation if the original language of the bill was not changed.
After the provision tying wage increases to inflation was removed, Muratsuchi supported the $!0 minimum wage increase.
I asked the Assemblyman if he was aware of the widespread opposition to minimum wage increases.
He did meet with representatives of the business community at the Red Car in downtown Torrance.
Still, Muratsuchi supported the wage increase because the wage had not been increased since 2008.
The staggering lack of economic understanding from our legislators cannot be underestimated.
Or rather, the political pandering which overcomes common sense cannot be ignored.
There is no policy more likely to create unemployment (which rose in the state of California this week) than a minimum wage increase.
The government cannot create wealth, the government cannot provide funding, and forcing the rise in the minimum wage creates another tax on already struggling small businesses, and even the larger ones, in the state of California.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi might want to explain to local residents why has sided with the Democrats in Sacramento against the small business owners, the wage earners, and the future (yet dwindling) work force in the South Bay.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Forum on State and Fate of Public Education in South Bay?
Dear Assemblyman Muratsuchi:
I recently attended a seminar which you hosted on the Affordable Care Act.
You introduced to a small community of constituents to Ms. Marcia Davalos, a representative from the Small Business Majority.
She provided a number of graphs, statistics, and interlinking talking points discussing the rollout of Obamacare.
There is another issue which deserves greater attention, Assemblyman, which I fear has not received proper vetting for South Bay voters.
That issue is education, specifically the current condition of our youth's education in our local public schools. I have heard troubling reports regarding the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) which was supposed to supply greater funding to all California schools. Local school leaders have informed me that they do not know how much money they will receive this year from Sacramento. They also have no guiding rubrics or expectations for how to allocate and evaluate the spending of our state’s tax dollars.
Some South Bay residents have shared that their children’s education is still receiving less funding than other, more urban school districts. Local School board members and candidates have also voiced their concerns regarding the funding inequities toward our schools. Some parents have become so frustrated with the drastic cuts to education, that they have considered forming dependent charter schools within Torrance Unified. Other parents have opted for private education, but many families in this region do not have the resources to provide a private education for their children.
One parent in Palos Verdes complained that Proposition 30 was supposed to ensure that elementary school students on the Peninsula would not have to endure class sizes of thirty-eight or more students. Another parent frequently holds her school board accountable, despite the fearful recriminations of other parents.
What have you been doing on behalf of our students? What plans do you have to ensure that South Bay students do not lose out on more funding at the expense of other districts, where student achievement is still falling?
Constituents also have concerns about AB 1266, legislation which would permit students of a decided gender to enter school bathrooms. Voters are disturbed about the implications of this law, and deserve more information than they are currently receiving.
I thank you and your office for providing an educational forum on the Affordable Care Act. I now request that you and your office schedule a forum on the state and fate of public education (including SCROC and the community colleges) as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arthur Christopher Schaper
I recently attended a seminar which you hosted on the Affordable Care Act.
You introduced to a small community of constituents to Ms. Marcia Davalos, a representative from the Small Business Majority.
She provided a number of graphs, statistics, and interlinking talking points discussing the rollout of Obamacare.
There is another issue which deserves greater attention, Assemblyman, which I fear has not received proper vetting for South Bay voters.
That issue is education, specifically the current condition of our youth's education in our local public schools. I have heard troubling reports regarding the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) which was supposed to supply greater funding to all California schools. Local school leaders have informed me that they do not know how much money they will receive this year from Sacramento. They also have no guiding rubrics or expectations for how to allocate and evaluate the spending of our state’s tax dollars.
Some South Bay residents have shared that their children’s education is still receiving less funding than other, more urban school districts. Local School board members and candidates have also voiced their concerns regarding the funding inequities toward our schools. Some parents have become so frustrated with the drastic cuts to education, that they have considered forming dependent charter schools within Torrance Unified. Other parents have opted for private education, but many families in this region do not have the resources to provide a private education for their children.
One parent in Palos Verdes complained that Proposition 30 was supposed to ensure that elementary school students on the Peninsula would not have to endure class sizes of thirty-eight or more students. Another parent frequently holds her school board accountable, despite the fearful recriminations of other parents.
What have you been doing on behalf of our students? What plans do you have to ensure that South Bay students do not lose out on more funding at the expense of other districts, where student achievement is still falling?
Constituents also have concerns about AB 1266, legislation which would permit students of a decided gender to enter school bathrooms. Voters are disturbed about the implications of this law, and deserve more information than they are currently receiving.
I thank you and your office for providing an educational forum on the Affordable Care Act. I now request that you and your office schedule a forum on the state and fate of public education (including SCROC and the community colleges) as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Muratsuchi and the Unaffordable Obamacare Seminar
On September 24, at 8:00am, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi sponsored an Affordable Care Act seminar at the Hermosa Clark Building down the street from the Hermosa Beach City Hall. These Affordable Care Act seminars have been popping up all over the South Bay in the last few weeks, trying to prepare the Medicare exchanges y for California residents to purchase insurance.
About fifteen people arrived.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi addressed the small group first, informing everyone that the seminar would assist in making Obamacare work for them. “The train has left the building,” Muratsuchi commented, so everyone has to work with it.
I could not help thinking of US Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana, and retiring) who described the 2014 rollout of this law as a “train wreck”. After an hour presentation from Small Business Majority rep Marcia Davalos, the wreck looked bigger, yet now no one can look away.
Assemblyman Murastuchi shared that California was leading the way for states to enact Medicare exchanges. Davalos commented that despite the budget battles in Congress, Covered California (the state’s Medicare Exchanges) will not be defunded, so there is nothing to worry about. Of course, she never addressed the matter of unfunded. . .
Starting her presentation, Davalos presented graphs detailing rising health care costs in 2008, and if nothing was done, those costs would continue to rise. She also related, and rightly so, that small businesses pay a greater percentage of their budget toward health care costs. What she failed to acknowledge is that small businesses incur less revenue to begin with, compared to larger companies.
Why do small businesses not insure their employees? The high health care costs. No one has ever differed on this reality, but President Obama’s signature legislation has only aggravated those costs while diminishing access and raising taxes on working Americans.
Like many Affordable Care Act proponents Davalos emphasized the popular provisions of the law, like permitting children to stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26, or preventing insurance companies from declining coverage for clients with pre-existing conditions. She failed to consider the concerns of young people who would rather purchase their own insurance.
Obamacare also requires health insurance companies to invest 80% of their revenue toward medical costs, and up to 20% on administrative needs. Some companies are receiving rebates from their insurance companies, including one gentleman at the seminar, who had received $15,000. Davalos promoted that small businesses would receive larger tax credits.
Davalos assert that Obamacare has no employer mandate, but she featured that the fines would go into effect in 2015 (per Obama’s unconstitutional rewriting of his law). Businesses with fifty or more employees which do not provide insurance will pay a fine. Still, Davalos neglected to realize that businesses seek profits, and they want to maintain a high profit margin. Facing a mandated cost, whether providing insurance or paying a fine, businesses will lose revenue because of Obamcare.
From the business mandate, or fee, the speaker pivoted to the individual mandate. Americans have to pay for affordable health insurance, or pay a fine, which will increase over the next three years, as well.
Employers do not have to, but individuals have to. No wonder people are concerned.
Davalos then discussed the definition of “unaffordable”: insurance greater than 9.5% of one’s income. How many Americans are receiving an income, I wonder? She outlined different insurance plans available, from catastrophic to bronze, all the way to platinum, depending on the upfront costs an individual is willing to pay.
Enrollment in Covered CA begins October 1. At this part of her presentation, Davalos shared that California operatives had considered calling the exchanges “Avocado”, The whole program is starting to look like guacamole, and not very tasty. The states are grinding, not smoothly, rolling out all the information regarding individual enrollment.
The California Medicare exchanges, according to Davalos, contain five insurance companies. Recently, those numbers have reduced to two. Kaiser is contemplating whether to remain.
After an hour presentation, Davalos took questions. Two residents from Hermosa Beach announced their rising health insurance premiums. Another business owner discussed her anxiety about providing health insurance or directing employees to the Medicare exchanges. Another attendee discussed that Cedar Sinai will not accept insurance provided by the Medicare exchanges. Demonstrating the informed cadre of those attending, one person referenced Forbes Magazine, which reported that health care premiums are rising an average of $7,450. Another person said that Obamacare is “capitalism at its best” because of a forced market of insurance options.
Someone then mentioned that Walgreens has pushed 120,000 off the company’s health insurance, indicating that the employer mandate has forced fewer hours and opportunities for employees. Davalos countered that the corporation overseeing Olive Garden and Red Lobster cut hours for its employees following passage of Obamacare. The customer reaction was so vocal in opposition, that the restaurant industries brought back the hours.
I asked about the health insurance subsidy which low-income enrollees can receive. The lower costs are factored into the Medicare exchange calculator on the Covered CA website, Davalos explained.
There were questions afterwards, many of which remained unanswered.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Muratsuchi Backs Unfair Funding Formulas
http://www.easyreadernews.com/71739/south-bay-educators-parents-celebrate-lcff-compromise/
School administrators and school board members, whether running for office or staying in place, have decried the new Local Control Funding Formual enacted by Governor Brown.
Despite his promises to increase local control over school funding, and engage local leaders to embrace the funding and enhance their influence over expenditures, school districts still lament the lack of clarity and accountability expected of them.
One superintendent acknowledges that Brown's insistence on local contorl waned from January 2013 to May. The budget passed, and most school districts still have no idea what to expect.
South Bay schools have a lower population of povery-level students, and thus they will still be receiving less funding than less affluent schools. This disparity has concerned a number of leaders in the South Bay.
Why students born in wealthier communities should suffer just because their parents make more money and live in a wealtier area is just as unfair and inequitable as punishing those in poorer families and impoverished communities because of their location.
The race for funding equality is becoming a race to the bottom, and punishing high-achieving students and school districts with less funding has outraged a number of leaders in school districts, as well as city leaders and committed parents and teachers.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have been commended nonetheless for their leadership on this matter. Still, a disparity of rich and poor in the state of California cannot be undone by taking wealth from "the haves" in care of the "have nots".
In fact, some schools in the South Bay were adjudicated as "low wealth" districts for years, in spite of the growing rate of homeownership and affluence in the region.
Torrance Unified leaders point out that their schools do well because the culture in this community upholds education as critical to the well-being. Parents expect their children to go to school. This manifestion is a culuture issue, and cannot be created with more money. The well-being of a child's upbringing makes all the difference.
Yet school leaders still insist that more money will solve the problems in our schools. Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have refused to take a lead on real reforms which would fix all of these problems.
State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar)" submitted SB 451 and 452 in order for every child in the state of California to choose their public school. Torrance Superintendent George Mannon has not qualms about statewide school choice, and neither do members of the school board, because they already enact a comprehenisve permit program in Torrance Unified.
Nevertheless, the inequity of forbidding choice still forces parents to move their students within Torrance boundaries to take advantage of Torrance schools. Just reading over the rent rates along Western Ave, one will find that those apartments advertized along the western side of Western Ave cost an average of $300 more per month compared to the Eastern side of Western Ave, whose students are expected to enroll in Los Angeles Unified. Yet the irony continues in that LA students receive more money from the state than Torrance students.
Once again, it's not about the money, but how the money is spent. It's not about the funding, but how the school district allocates its funds. These are cultural issues, and such matters cannot be pressured or enforced with more laws and regulations. Competition and accountability through choice, and even vouchers and easier regulations for founding charters, will either force failing schools to commit to educating students, rather than funding expansive bureaucracies.
Al Muratsuchi ultimately backed an unfair funding formula, one which may have been the best deal which South Bay school districts could expect, yet one which reveals the fundamentally unfair elememts of driving funding from taxpayers to Sacramento back to school districts.
School administrators and school board members, whether running for office or staying in place, have decried the new Local Control Funding Formual enacted by Governor Brown.
Despite his promises to increase local control over school funding, and engage local leaders to embrace the funding and enhance their influence over expenditures, school districts still lament the lack of clarity and accountability expected of them.
One superintendent acknowledges that Brown's insistence on local contorl waned from January 2013 to May. The budget passed, and most school districts still have no idea what to expect.
South Bay schools have a lower population of povery-level students, and thus they will still be receiving less funding than less affluent schools. This disparity has concerned a number of leaders in the South Bay.
Why students born in wealthier communities should suffer just because their parents make more money and live in a wealtier area is just as unfair and inequitable as punishing those in poorer families and impoverished communities because of their location.
The race for funding equality is becoming a race to the bottom, and punishing high-achieving students and school districts with less funding has outraged a number of leaders in school districts, as well as city leaders and committed parents and teachers.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have been commended nonetheless for their leadership on this matter. Still, a disparity of rich and poor in the state of California cannot be undone by taking wealth from "the haves" in care of the "have nots".
In fact, some schools in the South Bay were adjudicated as "low wealth" districts for years, in spite of the growing rate of homeownership and affluence in the region.
Torrance Unified leaders point out that their schools do well because the culture in this community upholds education as critical to the well-being. Parents expect their children to go to school. This manifestion is a culuture issue, and cannot be created with more money. The well-being of a child's upbringing makes all the difference.
Yet school leaders still insist that more money will solve the problems in our schools. Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have refused to take a lead on real reforms which would fix all of these problems.
State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar)" submitted SB 451 and 452 in order for every child in the state of California to choose their public school. Torrance Superintendent George Mannon has not qualms about statewide school choice, and neither do members of the school board, because they already enact a comprehenisve permit program in Torrance Unified.
Nevertheless, the inequity of forbidding choice still forces parents to move their students within Torrance boundaries to take advantage of Torrance schools. Just reading over the rent rates along Western Ave, one will find that those apartments advertized along the western side of Western Ave cost an average of $300 more per month compared to the Eastern side of Western Ave, whose students are expected to enroll in Los Angeles Unified. Yet the irony continues in that LA students receive more money from the state than Torrance students.
Once again, it's not about the money, but how the money is spent. It's not about the funding, but how the school district allocates its funds. These are cultural issues, and such matters cannot be pressured or enforced with more laws and regulations. Competition and accountability through choice, and even vouchers and easier regulations for founding charters, will either force failing schools to commit to educating students, rather than funding expansive bureaucracies.
Al Muratsuchi ultimately backed an unfair funding formula, one which may have been the best deal which South Bay school districts could expect, yet one which reveals the fundamentally unfair elememts of driving funding from taxpayers to Sacramento back to school districts.
Electricity, Aerospace, Small Business Outages in the South Bay
On Sunday, September 15, the South Bay suffered another regional power outage. On average, the Southern California region from Manhattan Beach to Palos Verdes experiences twenty-five power outages a year, some of which have caused electrical fires. In many instances, drivers must detour from their original destinations on heavy thoroughfares throughout the region, and businesses large and small lose time and money preparing their goods and services. During these untimely setbacks, local police and fire stations must rely on generators to maintain their stations, then follow up on public safety away from their daily duties. These shortages even affected ExxonMobil in Torrance, where earlier this year the entire workforce was forced to evacuate in case of fires or explosions following the power outages.
Coincidentally, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-South Bay) submitted Assembly Bill 66, which would require California’s electric stations to submit information following power outages. The legislation passed with only one “no” vote, and awaits Governor Brown’s signature. This bill would require electricity providers to report to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and this agency would then document and enforce investigation and reforms for utility providers following the frequency of these problems.
Instead of documenting the power outages, the state legislature should investigate why they have been occurring for the past four years. Southern California Edison has a monopoly on electrical energy in the region. The service has become dismal and abysmal over the past four years, yet legislators have done nothing to permit competition and accountability from these utilities.
Some investigation into the lasting impact of Cap and Trade legislation, signed into law by the previous administration, would also spur discussion on the proper role of the state in regulating energy markets. So far, no one has turned up the lights on this matter, but the carbon tax did increase energy prices and increase pollution where instituted in other countries. Who knows how this abortive legislation is harming and hindering South Bay energy needs?
Besides the frustration, as well as loss of time and money for the South Bay business community, what other outages should spark outrage in the South Bay?
After two attempts, I finally contacted Muratsuchi’s office regarding the fate of the Aerospace Industry in the South Bay, one of the crucial businesses in the region still hard-hit by the sluggish economy. Murastuchi hosted a forum for the aerospace industry, whose diminished power stems from the detrimental taxes and regulations on California’s small businesses.
During the August 9th forum, business executives and leading aerospace entrepreneurs singled out a number of issues which the Assemblyman and his legislative colleagues need to address.
1. The high cost of doing business in California is hurting industrial investors. From high employee costs to high energy prices, potential business entrepreneurs often seek other venues for expansion. Governor Brown just raised the minimum wage, a move which small businesses throughout the state oppose. Assemblyman Muratsuchi’s AB 66legislation may increase costs since regulations and reporting alone will only increase the red tape instead of cut prices, tying up energy production in the state.
2. Worker’s compensation premiums are higher in California, also discouraging future investment and employment. There is nothing wrong with expecting companies to provide and protect their employees from workplace accidents. Yet with the rising costs, the ample legislation fit for a lawsuit feast, and the ongoing workers’ comp fraud, businesses look elsewhere for a fair opportunity to expand and profit.
3. California’s state debt continues to discourage investment. In spite of tax increases, in spite of promises for more frugal spending, Governor Brown’s promises of a balanced budget and an end to the wall of debt have gone unfulfilled. The tax revenues have decreased in the state of California since the passage of Prop 30. Even local schools still struggle to balance budgets. Local school officials do not know how much money they will receive this year, nor can count on stable and continuous funding.
Raytheon is moving one of its headquarters to Texas, and other businesses are moving to Orange County. A local law firm advertises services on how to leave their businesses! Not just power outages, but businesses going out should alarm Sacramento legislators.
Regarding these power outages in the South Bay, why doesn’t Assemblyman Muratsuchi investigate the effects of taxes, spending, and regulations like Cap and Trade on California’s economy? European energy markets have already endured the havoc of that terrible carbon-trading scheme, and voters in the South Bay and throughout the state of California are wondering how much longer the taxpayers will endure paying for not only the energy bills, but also the upkeep for a statehouse dependent on union-hall lobbying and special interest infiltration.
The South Bay power outages in electricity, aerospace, and small businesses will end when voter outrage in the region resurges and resists these outrageous policies. Residents elected a moderate legislator to represent a moderate role for government in the South Bay. Despite his lead on requiring reports of power outages, when will Muratsuchi resist California’s higher taxes and regulations, all of which are tying up businesses and forcing away potential investments?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Muratsuchi the Moderate -- Meh
But Huey's opponent contended his victory played out exactly as advance polling suggested, with South Bay voters from both major parties more willing to embrace a known moderate - Muratsuchi is a Torrance school board member - than an unknown Tea Party Republican.
Former School Board Member and currently 66th District Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi championed himself as the moderate alternative to his Republican opponent in the 2012 election. In debate and in discussion, he affirmed: "I am not an ideologue." Throughout his excessively negative campaign, Muratsuchi rarely shared his own views yet spent time and advertising shaming the "extreme" position of his opponent, many of which had nothing to do with South Bay or California politics.
Now that Muratsuchi has been in office for nine months, what's the record on "Moderate" Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi has voted 90% of the time with his party: ideological, to say the least.
Here are some of the bills which he has supported in Sacramento:
-- He has voted to permit illegal immigrants to drive in the state of California. Ten states had toyed with this policy, and eight of them repealed the law. Instead of endorsing illegal immigration, with the flawed premise that those illegal aliens will at least purchase car insurance, the state of California should lobby the federal government to reduce the welfare state, relax naturalization requirements, and resurge a proper immigration policy for all legal immigrants.
Muratsuchi's vote on this issue is hardly a moderate postion. The Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, has repeatedly fought to repeal licenses for illegal immigrants. Her arguments on this matter deserve more attention, which Muratsuchi failed to consider.
Muratsuchi's vote on this issue is hardly a moderate postion. The Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, has repeatedly fought to repeal licenses for illegal immigrants. Her arguments on this matter deserve more attention, which Muratsuchi failed to consider.
Authorizes Certain Individuals to Perform Aspiration Abortion Procedures
Muratsuchi has expanded the types of individuals who can perform abortions. This legislation follows the growing decline of available doctors to practice medicine in the state of California, which results from the regulations and fines associated with Obamacare.
Muratsuchi has expanded the types of individuals who can perform abortions. This legislation follows the growing decline of available doctors to practice medicine in the state of California, which results from the regulations and fines associated with Obamacare.
The state of California needs legislators who will cut the red tape and approve free market reforms in health care. Why is Muratsuchi making it easier to get an abortion? What kind of message does that send to pro-life and pro-choice constituents in the South Bay?
This law will permit transgenderes students to enter school bathrooms. Extreme, and extremely disturbing. I have already written about the reaction that his daughter might have to such a policy. What about the other children in Residents in the South Bay? Torrance residents have shared with me their deep concern with a legislator who would permit an individual of decided gender to enter the bathroom of his choosing. The civil liabilities for such a law are incalculable. Why hasn't Muratsuchi advanced policies which would permit school choice, or vouchers, or strengthen the power of Torrance families to establish dependent charter schools in their neighborhoods?
Jury duty is a solemn service, one which belongs to United States citizens. Why are Sacramento Democratics focused on expanding jury pools when workforce involvement is low, when businesses are leaving the state, and schools are not getting proper control over their funding?
Contrary to his campaign pledges, Al Muratsuchi is too extreme for the South Bay.
Does Al Muratsuchi Have Any Courage?
Whenever a constituent wants to know how their represenative voted on an issue, they can visit "Vote Smart" (votesmart.org), and find out whether their Congressman, Senator, state or federal, vote up, down, or abstained.
The website has another interest feature, one which spotlights the political courage of the candidate.
"The Courage Test"
http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/138450/al-muratsuchi/
Just visiting this website, I found a disturbing admission from Vote Smart:
"Al Muratsuchi refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders."
What?!
I wonder if he is willing to tell us why he voted to allow individuals of decided genders to go into any bathroom of their choosing.
I wonder also why he voted to permit non-citizens on juries. While he has celebrated "Surf Day" and stumps for aerospace design, why did not he protect school funding in the South Bay?
Of course, I am not surprised that Muratsuchi failed the political courage test. Instead of stepping up and telling us about his stance on the issues, he ran a slash-and-burn, hate-and-hate some more campaign to drag down his opponent. Instead of focusing on local issues, Muratsuchi talked about Huey's stance on federal policies, abortion, and unemployment.
Where's the courage in smearing a candidate when there is nothing to stand on?
Votesmart.org tells it like it is.
Will voters tell it like it is next November and send Muratsuchi packing?
The website has another interest feature, one which spotlights the political courage of the candidate.
"The Courage Test"
http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/138450/al-muratsuchi/
Just visiting this website, I found a disturbing admission from Vote Smart:
"Al Muratsuchi refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders."
What?!
I wonder if he is willing to tell us why he voted to allow individuals of decided genders to go into any bathroom of their choosing.
I wonder also why he voted to permit non-citizens on juries. While he has celebrated "Surf Day" and stumps for aerospace design, why did not he protect school funding in the South Bay?
Of course, I am not surprised that Muratsuchi failed the political courage test. Instead of stepping up and telling us about his stance on the issues, he ran a slash-and-burn, hate-and-hate some more campaign to drag down his opponent. Instead of focusing on local issues, Muratsuchi talked about Huey's stance on federal policies, abortion, and unemployment.
Where's the courage in smearing a candidate when there is nothing to stand on?
Votesmart.org tells it like it is.
Will voters tell it like it is next November and send Muratsuchi packing?
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
LAPD Reduction of Misdemeanors and the South Bay GOP
According to internal reports released by the Associated Press, the LAPD is directing law enforcement to lay off arresting Angelenos for misdemeanors, instead directing police to issue infractions. Ninety-one misdemeanor offenses will be reduced, according to internal memos. These offenses include possessing or purchasing alcohol as a minor, drinking in public, gambling, defecating in public, trespassing and not having one's dog vaccinated for rabies. Harbor-area residents in the 66th Assembly District, which includes the Harbor Gateway, West Caron, and Harbor City, should be concerned about the sudden and subtle changes in police policy.
Moreover, the diminution of criminal penalties can provide Republicans with an opportunity not only to press on the quality of life issues which affect all South Bay residents, but allow the Republican Party organizations to brandish their more libertarian credentials on crime, both prevention and control, in future elections. Republicans in the 66th district can expose a number of problems associated with state-sponsored micromanaging on one hand, yet at the same time hold Los Angeles and Sacramento lawmakers (predominantly Democratic) accountable for arbitrary budget cuts which neglect to enforce key quality of life issues. On the other hand, conservatives can reach out to libertarian elements as well as minorities alienated by excessive police force by championing a reduction in the overcriminalization of California's penal code.
The LAPD's cost-cutting measures emerge in the wake of budget crises gripping Los Angeles, reductions which are hitting the South Bay with greater severity. Over the past few years, such misdemeanors were often reduced to infractions by the Los Angeles city or district attorneys to begin with, so instructing peace officers to back off on arrests and bookings will eliminate wasted time and money. Conservatives should be leading on these issues, and Republicans in the South Bay can play up their support for efficient crime prevention as well as more effective forms of retribution and rehabilitation.
Instead of arresting a minor for alcohol use, a diversion program following an infraction would permit the youth (and his parents) to work on recovery from substance abuse. Drinking in public in and of itself -- should that even be a crime? Some libertarians have even argued for removing drunk-driving checkpoints. Instead of looking for drunk drivers, the police should focus only a stopping dangerous drivers, since they pose the greater, more manifest threat to the well-being of our communities. Other victimless crimes like gambling should not b subject to criminal penalty, anyway.
To reduce certain misdemeanors to infractions will also spare younger voters. College Students are facing crippling cuts in their education, both at the community college level and in statewide universities. Some youth have already engaged in petty crimes, like loitering or breaking curfew. Instead of police officers' impugning their record with misdemeanors, Republicans can applaud the LAPD's decision to reduce such offenses, and thus keep them off a younger person's record.
The blunt instrument of state force should never wield so many penalties in the first place, and Republicans can hammer this point, too. From Governor Jerry Brown's first two terms in Sacramento until the late 1990s, California voters, including South Bay residents, supportedtough-on-crime legislation which instituted mandatory sentencing and enhanced enhancements for criminals. The "Three Strikes" initiative culminated this drive for enforcement. Last year's Prop. Republicans can fault Democratic lawmakers for overcriminalizing and overpenalizing our state penal code, a policy move which can attract libertarians, limited government advocates in general, and even young voters
When commenting on the impact of LAPD's new police of reducing misdemeanors to infractions, Tom Bristow of the Beach Cities Republicans commented:
"[W]here I think they [LAPD] are making a huge mistake is the 'trespassing" penalty. We are dealing with personal property at that point, and if a private citizen does not have any say as to what happens on their personal property, or who is allowed on it - that is the beginning of collectivism."
Granted, police must enforce the sanctity of private property. Republicans in the South Bay should call out the Los Angeles Police Department for enacting their discretionary policies without input from the City Council or Neighborhood Councils in the Harbor region.
On a related note, Republicans campaigning in the Harbor area can also assail Sacramento for closing courthouses, making it harder for residents to enforce their property rights and maintain law and order. In the original charter following consolidation, Los Angeles City Leaders promised San Pedro residents their own courthouse, so that for future litigation they would not have to travel the twenty-two miles to Downtown Los Angeles. The journey was hard enough then, made worse with the traffic congestion which bottles up Harbor Area residents further still. The San Pedro courthouse will be closed, nevertheless.
South Bay residents should contact their legislators (Al Muratsuchi) on these issues. Crime prevention was a winning issue for Republicans in the 1970s. In 2014, following the mandated release of 10,000 prisoners from California prisons, plus the forced reduction of ninety-one misdemeanors in Los Angeles, South Bay Republicans can expose the present dangers to California residents because a tax-and-spend, regulate-frustrate, regressive-progressive Democratic government has crippled public safety.
Asm Muratsuchi: What Would Your Daughter Say?
Give him a chance? He [Muratsuchi] just voted to reduce funding to PV, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance schools. He also voted to allow boys to go into the girls bathroom with the new "transsexual bathroom bill". This is a dangerous far-left guy. We need mainstream folks to represent the South Bay. Additionally, Muratsuchi raised about $2.7M for his election. Of that, $2.5M came from Unions and other special interests. His opponent Huey was 80% private funded. This guy is as crony as they get. --- Anton Lazzaro
Assemblyman Muratsuchi:
You ran a heated slash-and-burn campaign against your opponent Craig Huey, claiming a number of allegations, many of which were unsubstantiated, and even libelous. Your opponent filed a lawsuit against you because of your distorted attacks.
Your campaign gave the impression that a man can stoop to any level just to win. Is that the message that you want to leave with your children, your grandchildren? What kind of an example are you setting for your daughter?
I heard you repeat during your 2012 campaign: "I am not an ideologue". Does that mean that you do not have any stance on issues? A local city leader shared with me his dismay about your lack of courage. On many bills in committee, you vote "abstain". Former Assemblywoman Betsy Butler voted "abstain" on SB 1530, which would have empowered school districts to remove abusive teachers from the classroom. She lost her reelection the next year.
What kind of example are you setting for your daughter, Assemblyman Muratsuchi?
You ran a heated slash-and-burn campaign against your opponent Craig Huey, claiming a number of allegations, many of which were unsubstantiated, and even libelous. Your opponent filed a lawsuit against you because of your distorted attacks.
Your campaign gave the impression that a man can stoop to any level just to win. Is that the message that you want to leave with your children, your grandchildren? What kind of an example are you setting for your daughter?
I heard you repeat during your 2012 campaign: "I am not an ideologue". Does that mean that you do not have any stance on issues? A local city leader shared with me his dismay about your lack of courage. On many bills in committee, you vote "abstain". Former Assemblywoman Betsy Butler voted "abstain" on SB 1530, which would have empowered school districts to remove abusive teachers from the classroom. She lost her reelection the next year.
What kind of example are you setting for your daughter, Assemblyman Muratsuchi?
When I heard your pronouncement "I am not an ideologue", I assumed that you would represent the best interests of your district and the state of California.
However, you supported Governor Jerry Brown's revised public school funding formulas, which will only diminish South Bay public school funding even more. I have spoken with Torrance residents, and they have complained about forty-six students assigned to one classroom, and that was in a middle school! A Palos Verdes parent complained (and justly!) that fourth graders will endure a "lecture" with thirty-six students per classroom. Residents in the South Bay and throughout the state of California did not support Prop 30 so that their children would continue to compete with more students for the attention of their harried and overworked teachers in their classrooms.
What kind of education are you leaving for your daughter. Assemblyman?
You just supported a bill which would permit students of decided genders (individuals who claim one gender as opposed to the one they were born with) to enter any bathroom that he or she (literally) chooses. Such divisions of identity should not be decided, let alone accommodated, at the state level. Would you be comfortable knowing that a child who was a boy, then claims to be a girl, was using the same bathroom as your daughter?
What kind of a public school experience are you giving your daughter?
In a recent press release, you championed green technology as the pathway for the future. Yet under the Obama Administration, nineteen green tech companies went bankrupt (including Solyndra), taking down in their closures billions of taxpayer dollars. Green technology currently does not bring in the green, but rather wastes it, and the state of California cannot afford to lose any more money.
What kind of future are you leaving for your daughter, Assemblyman?
By the end of this year, Governor Brown will have to enforce a federal judicial order to release ten thousand prisoners onto California streets because of prison overcrowding. Instead of grandstanding against Republicans and supported public sector unions, when will you place the public safety of all Californians, including the residents of the South Bay, ahead of political concerns?
What kind of communities are you hoping to leave to your daughter, to her children?
Assemblyman Muratsuchi, State Senator Ted Lieu rescinded his abortive attempt to triple California residents' car tax in part because his wife helped him realize the folly of such a move (plus a heated recall waiting in the wings, too). It's time to consider the impact of your decisions in Sacramento on your daughter. If you will not consider the best interests of me, of my generation, or anyone else, at least have enough self-respect to consider the impact of your poor legislative choices on your family and their posterity.
What kind of future are you leaving for your daughter, her children, and all the children in the South Bay?
With your attention to such limited matters as green technology, with a legacy of distorted attacks (in reality, lying) as a campaign strategy, as father who spent more time listening to his party rather than his conscience (if yours still means anything to you), or considerations of your daughter's better interests, I can only ask, Assemblyman Muratsuchi:
"What would your daughter say?"
However, you supported Governor Jerry Brown's revised public school funding formulas, which will only diminish South Bay public school funding even more. I have spoken with Torrance residents, and they have complained about forty-six students assigned to one classroom, and that was in a middle school! A Palos Verdes parent complained (and justly!) that fourth graders will endure a "lecture" with thirty-six students per classroom. Residents in the South Bay and throughout the state of California did not support Prop 30 so that their children would continue to compete with more students for the attention of their harried and overworked teachers in their classrooms.
What kind of education are you leaving for your daughter. Assemblyman?
You just supported a bill which would permit students of decided genders (individuals who claim one gender as opposed to the one they were born with) to enter any bathroom that he or she (literally) chooses. Such divisions of identity should not be decided, let alone accommodated, at the state level. Would you be comfortable knowing that a child who was a boy, then claims to be a girl, was using the same bathroom as your daughter?
What kind of a public school experience are you giving your daughter?
In a recent press release, you championed green technology as the pathway for the future. Yet under the Obama Administration, nineteen green tech companies went bankrupt (including Solyndra), taking down in their closures billions of taxpayer dollars. Green technology currently does not bring in the green, but rather wastes it, and the state of California cannot afford to lose any more money.
 |
| What kind of future? Get back to me on that one. . . |
By the end of this year, Governor Brown will have to enforce a federal judicial order to release ten thousand prisoners onto California streets because of prison overcrowding. Instead of grandstanding against Republicans and supported public sector unions, when will you place the public safety of all Californians, including the residents of the South Bay, ahead of political concerns?
What kind of communities are you hoping to leave to your daughter, to her children?
Assemblyman Muratsuchi, State Senator Ted Lieu rescinded his abortive attempt to triple California residents' car tax in part because his wife helped him realize the folly of such a move (plus a heated recall waiting in the wings, too). It's time to consider the impact of your decisions in Sacramento on your daughter. If you will not consider the best interests of me, of my generation, or anyone else, at least have enough self-respect to consider the impact of your poor legislative choices on your family and their posterity.
What kind of future are you leaving for your daughter, her children, and all the children in the South Bay?
With your attention to such limited matters as green technology, with a legacy of distorted attacks (in reality, lying) as a campaign strategy, as father who spent more time listening to his party rather than his conscience (if yours still means anything to you), or considerations of your daughter's better interests, I can only ask, Assemblyman Muratsuchi:
"What would your daughter say?"
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Sadder Bluer Harbor Area (Not So Much)
In a late 2012 cover piece, San Pedro based Progressive rag Random Lengths News claimed that the Harbor area is getting "bluer".
If "bluer" means "sadder", that would be a just assessment. Mr. Jerricks, the Managing Editor who wrote the article, is micromanaging an entire legacy out of one election cycle, assuming like the Democratic surrogate James Carville that the his party would reign for the next forty years. Then came 2010, the great shellacking, and the unnerving revelation for President "I AM" Barack Obama, who was both surprised and dismayed that the majority of Americans opposed his new entitlement, ironically entitled "ObamaCare."
I cannot think of a "bluer" outcome than for the Harbor Area Voters, who continue to vote Democrat but think Republican, who cast their vote for the Democratic candidates, and get elitist outcomes which favor the political class instead of every class of voter. The Republican Platform, without all the vitriol of marginal elements, advances a program which enhances individual liberty and communal responsibility, better than the state ever could. The notion that taxing rich people will solve all our problems is just the classic "class-warfare" propaganda which hurts all classes, especially the middle.
After reviewing the lackluster ascendancy of flip-flop "Mitt", I am not surprised that a larger number of voters simply chose not to vote. One stunning statistic informed me that 24 million Evangelical voters did not go to the polls in November. The GOP standard-bearer was substandard to too many, and the low-turnout hurt Huey and helped Muratsuchi, who will in turn help no one and hurt this state along as part of the crass and overblown supermajority in Sacramento.
That's what really happened in the South Bay: a depressed turnout, and thus a majority percentage of Torrance voters supported the Torrance School Board Members who has overseen one of the most impoverished periods of Torrance Unified, where pensions and benefits remain unreformed, where large bureaucrats still rule the roost at the Plaza Del Amo central office. Obama hit hard with one last surge, plus a horde of paid-door knockers relying on donations from outside of the district.
Al Muratsuchi, bought and paid for by union interests, carried a district where his left-leaning policies are more extreme than "perennial" Republican candidate Craig Huey's views on free markets and individual liberty. The Republican Party has been playing from the old "Mad Men" playbook, using old means to reach an older population. That stops from this time forward. I spoke with many Democratic voters who supported Huey because they like not paying high taxes and doling out tax payer dollars to public sector unions who have created a colluded cartel with the political class at the expense of the voters, the workers, the youth, and even the poor in our communities. The poor suffer considerably under union policies, which favor minimum wage increases, which automatically shuts out poor and minorities looking for entry level work.
The GOP consultants failed to reach out to the eastern sections of the South Bay. One Sacramento pol claimed that Bloomfield did not have a chance of taking the 33rd, yet he only lost by six points. Quite impressive. Recriminations from Establishment types about Democratic voters never stopped me from visiting Venice and Santa Monica, where I surprisingly ran into Republicans, along with disaffected Democrats and independents who are tired of everyone, including Big Government, not respecting the "Little Guy." The Old Guard have to throw out the old ideas for outreach. Free markets work. More government does not. Make the case, and the Harbor Area will be red with life once again.
Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1 right now, but what about the growing number of independents who are dissatisfied with both parties? I understand the upset that many voters have with the Republican Brand -- George W. Bush contributed to that, running a Democrat-lite administration of "compassionate conservatism" which was neither.
No one should count their chickens before they are hatched. After two years of pushing tax increases and spending more money that the state coffers do not have, the Democratic supermajority may endure the same shellacking that shook Obama off his roost for two years and bring back to our state a real Golden gleam based on individual liberty and free enterprise, as opposed to the "soft bigotry of low expectations and dependence".
Muratsuchi Supports Unions, Not Students
 |
| "I want to thank all the unions, who stepped on you to help me get here. . ." |
Attending SEIU ULTCW's awards gala and holiday celebration. Thank you for all that you do. I stand with you in your struggle. -- @AMuratsuchi December 8 (A date that lives in infamy. . . for 66th Assembly voters)
Torrance School Board Member Al Muratsuchi ran a slash and burn, hate and berate campaign to denigrate his opponent for the 66th Assembly District seat, a constituency which runs from Manhattan Beach to Palos Verdes, from Redondo Beach to West Carson. He had union money, and Democratic intimidation in the statehouse, with mouth-piece Head Hog John Perez intimidating local businesses to donate to Muratsuchi, or else. One of his biggest contributors, incidentally, was GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who helped depress the GOP vote by three million. He should have stayed at Bain Capital.
Huey ran a credible campaign with incredible help from volunteers all over the South Bay. He did it without union handouts, by the way, but the spirit of the times, and the inspiration of the Republican Party. Now the GOP must coalesce Tea Party enthusiasm with down-to-earth Establishment pragmatism. Instead of waiting for top-down party leadership, grassroots from the root to the rest of the South Bay must flourish. Local GOP candidates are taking back city hallsthrough Los Angeles Country, and any one leader can rise up and take down Muratsuchi, with or without "Big Money" backing the candidate.
Local Republican clubs are bringing in new members. Independents are returning to the Republican fold, now purged of the "Big Government" dispassionate "(un)compassionate conservatism" of the Bush-Romney age. President Obama has a more troubling legacy on his hands, as the Democratic leader who will do to his party what George W. Bush nearly did to the Republican brand: make it unpalatable to even the most interested swing-voters.
No longer will outsider status and wealth alone persuade, let alone purchase, a political office; yet Democratic leaders still clamor for a Constitutional Amendment to overturnCitizens United. Unbelievable. Huey represented the grassroots that is sprouting about. Local leaders are now stepping in to take off where his ground game has laid new opportunities.
One union, or association, deserves praise and respect from South Bay residents. Kudos to the Torrance Police Officers Association, for their bold and brave stance to endorse Craig Huey. Let us hope that future public sector associations will recognize that the Democratic plan of "do nothing about pensions and spending" will only ensure that no one collects a pension, and that no one will be able to live in the state of California without enduring high taxes, higher spending, and the height of regulatory burdens.
Back to the current 66th Assembly representative, Muratsuchi claims that "volunteers" helped him win his race for the Assembly. I do not see how "union interests" resemble, let alone represent volunteers, considering that Muratsuchi had "four-to-one" hundreds of thousands of dollars more to spend from interests outside of the district, in the first place. Today, Muratsuchi is a warm body in a bought seat, and no one can really trust that he can or will represent the interests of the South Bay, let alone every taxpaying resident in the State of California. With so many lies about one candidate just to win, what has the man really won, besides a political office and polarizing infamy?
Muratsuchi's last tweet, following his attendance at a gala celebration for the SEIU, represents this priceless and laughable dilemma. He claims to stand with the "SEIU", as if the Service Employees International Union needs anyone to stand with them. In the past few months, the SEIU has stood in the way of Americans purchasing Christmas gifts (widespread demonstrations at Wal-Mart) or standing in the way of international travelers and trade (disruptive yet abortive strikes across LAX). One group of employees no longer stands with the SEIU, the Aviation Safeguards Assocation, which now receives more take-home pay since they broke away from the SEIU. Fewer are standing with the SEIU, since fewer people should stand for the choke-hold of union money, power, and imperium in Sacramento, represented infamously by Democratic State Assembly Speaker, John Perez.
By the way, when will Muratsuchi stand with the struggles of South Bay residents? Why does Redondo Beach only keeps eighteen cents of every dollar sent raised from property taxes? Why do workers have to spend part of their salary joining a union just to get a job, then witness union leaders take advantage of this immoral power grab and kill the very jobs they claim to protect? How much longer will students, in Torrance and throughout the state, have to suffer in substandard schools? Republican State Senate minority leader Bob Huff has introduced legislation which would extend the deadline for teacher layoff notices and save millions. Muratsuchi should endorse this bill.
Then again, perhaps Al should sign the Prop 13 pledge, give back all that union cash, and apologize for the lies before anyone can believe that he stands with "us".
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Edited Assessment of 2012 Race for the 66th
In the 2012 66th Assembly Seat election, Torrance School Board Member Al Muratsuchi won every South Bay city North of PCH. The South Bay has often been known as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative constituency, so why would 53% of voters support a Democrat who ensured a tax-and-spend Democratic supermajority in Sacramento?
Some charge that the Republican candidate Craig Huey was too extreme for the South Bay. The Daily Breeze repeated this falsehood in their editorial endorsing Muratsuchi. Of course, to save face and staunch their diminishing influence in South Bay politics, The Daily Breeze editorial board stood by likely winners with losing views and values. Muratsuchi remains to the Left of South Bay voters, and now he has left for Sacramento. Who knows what his record will force on the state and our district during his term in office.
Following his unexpected loss, Craig Huey staged a post-mortem meeting to review what went wrong, what went right, and the unexpected which went awry.
Was it money that bought the race?
California's public sector unions and Muratsuchi's own campaign dumped $3-4 million dollars into this Assembly race. With $6 billion dumped on the losing Republican nationwide campaign, with $7 million coming out of Bill Bloomfield's losing bid for the 33rd Congressional District, money does not ensure a win, and likely contributed little to Huey's loss.
Ideas matter.
Not advertisements, but outreach makes all the difference. Craig Huey was a credible candidate, with incredible integrity that tailored his message all kinds of South Bay voters. His message did not reach enough people, nor was his campaign strategy prepared for the Obama-juggernaut to bring out the vote for the incumbent against a lukewarm Republican challenger. Despite former House Speaker Tip O'Neill's assertion that all politics is local, the nation race had a devastating impact on the 66th Assembly race.
How did the national race affect the 66th Assembly race?
In two words, Romney sucked. He sucked the life out of winnable races, and the interest from conservative voters, who did not vote (three million did not bother, and now they will be bothered with four more years of Obama). The larger national trends created greater problems for the Huey campaign. No matter how much party leaders insist otherwise, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was a weak candidate. Byron York ran the numbers on Romney’s poor showing with Hispanics. Even if he had won George W. Bush margins (44%) or Obama’s 2012 showing (71%), he still would have lost! The GOP turnout out was low, low, low; and the top party brass, which has made winning elections more important than promoting a winning vision to the voting public, trumped their own chances.
What about campaign strategy in the South Bay?
A stronger Republican operation must engage previous candidates and their efforts. The 2010 Republican candidate for the 36th Congressional District, Mattie Fein, shared very little interest or support for Craig Huey's 2011 run for Congress, and there was still less for the Huey team to work with for the 66th Assembly District run. This lack of networking among Republicans is unacceptable, a trend which the Beach Cities Republicans and sister groups are combating for the better. No matter how much we differ or disagree with certain candidates, we need to support our man or woman as much as we can.
What about the targeted demographics?
Too much of Huey’s campaigning focused on older, more propertied voters. Protecting Prop 13 is an admirable platform, but I heard very little about what the Republican candidate or the statewide party were offering for struggling high school and college-age students, many of whom were convinced that without Prop 30’s tax hikes, their education would be more impoverished than ever. I also received very little which touched on the concerns of Hispanic voters -- immigration, the DREAM Act -- or other issues which would invite more inquiry from African-American voters, like school vouchers.
Then there’s Gardena. . .
According to previous election statistic, the turnout in the Eastern sections of the South Bay has been minimal. This year, those expectations were all wrong. Republican consultants are losing touch with voting trends. One Sacramento Republican commented that Waxman was a shoo-in (he won reelection by five points). Internet, mass media, and intensive word-of-mouth information decimated the previous projections.
Future South Bay campaigns cannot rest on empty assumptions about key demographics. More outreach is needed in Gardena, West Carson, and Harbor City. Republican Party leaders in the South Bay should set up an office in that region, perhaps along Western Ave. (Craig Huey’s business is located there).
Other suggestions
The Republican Party needs to reach out to Michelle Rhee's "Students First" Organization, as well. Stressing school choice would appeal to minority voters. This district still has a fiscally conservative heart beat, and should emphasize fiscal issues for young and older voters. A plan for revitalizing higher education, for localizing spending issues, and a focus on job creation would also help.
With more outreach, and no flailing standard-bearers, the Republicans should do well in 2014 to regain the 66th Assembly District.
Some charge that the Republican candidate Craig Huey was too extreme for the South Bay. The Daily Breeze repeated this falsehood in their editorial endorsing Muratsuchi. Of course, to save face and staunch their diminishing influence in South Bay politics, The Daily Breeze editorial board stood by likely winners with losing views and values. Muratsuchi remains to the Left of South Bay voters, and now he has left for Sacramento. Who knows what his record will force on the state and our district during his term in office.
Following his unexpected loss, Craig Huey staged a post-mortem meeting to review what went wrong, what went right, and the unexpected which went awry.
Was it money that bought the race?
California's public sector unions and Muratsuchi's own campaign dumped $3-4 million dollars into this Assembly race. With $6 billion dumped on the losing Republican nationwide campaign, with $7 million coming out of Bill Bloomfield's losing bid for the 33rd Congressional District, money does not ensure a win, and likely contributed little to Huey's loss.
Ideas matter.
Not advertisements, but outreach makes all the difference. Craig Huey was a credible candidate, with incredible integrity that tailored his message all kinds of South Bay voters. His message did not reach enough people, nor was his campaign strategy prepared for the Obama-juggernaut to bring out the vote for the incumbent against a lukewarm Republican challenger. Despite former House Speaker Tip O'Neill's assertion that all politics is local, the nation race had a devastating impact on the 66th Assembly race.
How did the national race affect the 66th Assembly race?
In two words, Romney sucked. He sucked the life out of winnable races, and the interest from conservative voters, who did not vote (three million did not bother, and now they will be bothered with four more years of Obama). The larger national trends created greater problems for the Huey campaign. No matter how much party leaders insist otherwise, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was a weak candidate. Byron York ran the numbers on Romney’s poor showing with Hispanics. Even if he had won George W. Bush margins (44%) or Obama’s 2012 showing (71%), he still would have lost! The GOP turnout out was low, low, low; and the top party brass, which has made winning elections more important than promoting a winning vision to the voting public, trumped their own chances.
What about campaign strategy in the South Bay?
A stronger Republican operation must engage previous candidates and their efforts. The 2010 Republican candidate for the 36th Congressional District, Mattie Fein, shared very little interest or support for Craig Huey's 2011 run for Congress, and there was still less for the Huey team to work with for the 66th Assembly District run. This lack of networking among Republicans is unacceptable, a trend which the Beach Cities Republicans and sister groups are combating for the better. No matter how much we differ or disagree with certain candidates, we need to support our man or woman as much as we can.
What about the targeted demographics?
Too much of Huey’s campaigning focused on older, more propertied voters. Protecting Prop 13 is an admirable platform, but I heard very little about what the Republican candidate or the statewide party were offering for struggling high school and college-age students, many of whom were convinced that without Prop 30’s tax hikes, their education would be more impoverished than ever. I also received very little which touched on the concerns of Hispanic voters -- immigration, the DREAM Act -- or other issues which would invite more inquiry from African-American voters, like school vouchers.
Then there’s Gardena. . .
According to previous election statistic, the turnout in the Eastern sections of the South Bay has been minimal. This year, those expectations were all wrong. Republican consultants are losing touch with voting trends. One Sacramento Republican commented that Waxman was a shoo-in (he won reelection by five points). Internet, mass media, and intensive word-of-mouth information decimated the previous projections.
Future South Bay campaigns cannot rest on empty assumptions about key demographics. More outreach is needed in Gardena, West Carson, and Harbor City. Republican Party leaders in the South Bay should set up an office in that region, perhaps along Western Ave. (Craig Huey’s business is located there).
Other suggestions
The Republican Party needs to reach out to Michelle Rhee's "Students First" Organization, as well. Stressing school choice would appeal to minority voters. This district still has a fiscally conservative heart beat, and should emphasize fiscal issues for young and older voters. A plan for revitalizing higher education, for localizing spending issues, and a focus on job creation would also help.
With more outreach, and no flailing standard-bearers, the Republicans should do well in 2014 to regain the 66th Assembly District.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Muratsuchi and Green Technoglogy -- AB 1077
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) showcased his clean-energy bill Assembly Bill 1077 at Hermosa Beach City Hall. His bill offers a tax credit for consumers who purchase an alternative-fuel vehicle. His prominence on this legislation demonstrates where his greatest interests lie. Apparently, Muratsuchi assumes that there are few pressing issues to consider.
Our local schools are struggling for funding. The rising average of forty students per class has diminished the quality of public education for California students. High school graduates cannot enroll in a proper post-secondary program because universities, both public and private, do not have the money or the space. Community colleges are raising fees while closing classes just to balance their budgets.
Local businesses are struggling to make ends meet. After Prop 30 passed, raising the income tax on small businesses and every consumer in the state, nineteen companies pledged to leave California for neighboring states. Because of ObamaCare and insurance regulations, California faces doctor shortages, higher premiums, and slacking access to healthcare.
"It is time we help Californians go green," Muratsuchi proclaimed. California is red in debt and blue with regulation asphyxiation. Aside from the fewer wealthy residents, who plans on purchasing a "fuel-efficient" vehicle any time soon?
With policies like Muratsuchi's, the state of California will soon indeed "go green". With no one willing to live here any longer, all the grass, plants, and trees will flourish once again, unheeded and unimpeded by human commerce, which obviously does not mean much to Muratsuchi, in the first place.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
"We Already Have School Choice!" No We Do Not (Yet)
We already have school choice! - Diane Wallace, Beach Cities Democratic Club
People can send their children to any school they choose, no one is stopping them. Paying your property taxes does not equate to paying for YOUR child's education, it means that EVERY child has the OPPORTUNITY for a public school education. Susan 6:27 pm on Thursday, April 4, 2013
I have heard this misconception frequently: "We already have school choice!" in the state of California. This one myth, which California residents should resist upon hearing, that we already have school choice in this state, cannot be stifled soon enough.
School choice by its very definition would permit every parent to choose where they send their children to school. The reality in the state of California by far disputes this myth:
My parents had to provide a false address in order to take my sister and me out of failing Los Angeles schools and enroll in nearby Torrance Unified. Later on, my parents moved into Torrance, then moved out once again. Even though I was a top student in my class, my father had to drive every year to Downtown Los Angeles to get the permit for me to enroll in Torrance schools. Yet during my senior year, the dean informed me that Los Angeles Unified wanted to pull my permit and force me out of the school.
Because state funding continues to decline, Los Angeles Unified floated the option of rescinding its district permits. The firestorm which erupted forced the school board to back off, for now. Yet to this day, many parents wonder whether they can get an adequate education for their kids.
Charter schools have eaten away at the enrollment for poor schools, thus granting more freedom. Yet school districts have to allow charter schools to operate within their boundaries, and the same districts can refuse or revoke a charter. If choice does exist, the limits are severe, and more often than not students are sand-bagged with a poor school and a poor education.
I have tutored a number of students in the past. Parents have shared with me their struggles to remove their children from low-performing home districts to better ones. A friend of one parent was already rejected from receiving a permit, and she wonders if her child will have an opportunity to learn at a better school. Why do parents have to appeal to their "home district" in the first place? Even now, every public school in California requires incoming students to prove their home address with two proofs of residency -- trash, electric, or other utility bills (but no phone bills.)
Beverly Hills Unified has hired investigators to affirm the addressed submitted by Beverly Hills residents. Libertarian journalist investigated the time and expense of school districts to enforce the current residency laws, which bar students outside of the determined zipcode from enrolling their children. When the state funding was diminished, Beverly Hills Unified decided to deny permit renewals for students enrolling from outside the district.
At this time, school choice in its true form does not exist in the state of California. No, we do not have school choice in California, yet. There is an opportunity, however, for the state legislature to remove this officious roadblock which prevents parents from selecting the best public school for their children. SB 451 would extend the limited "Open Enrollment" provision to all students in California. Parents could enroll their children any public school instead of settling for the school in their zipcode. By forcing schools to compete for students, efficiency, innovation, and accountability from the bottom up will help shape public education for the better.
If SB 451 passes, then every California student will have school choice. No longer will students suffering in a classroom with incompetent or immoral teachers have to wait for administration to do something, if anything. Frustrated parents will have the option, the opportunity to choose where their kids go. School administrators will have to respond to the needs and concerns of their students, as opposed to ignoring their concerns. Furthermore, SB 452 and SB 559 will grant parents more power to reform their children's schools, and will give some peace of mind to teachers, who currently absorb pink slips long before school districts know their funding for the next school year.
I appeal to Diana Wallace, to every Democratic leader in Los Angeles County and throughout California: support school choice. Do it because it's right, and do it because it's fair. Governor Pat Brown was never afraid to do the right thing for Californians, even if it was not popular. School choice is the right thing to do, but we do not have it (yet). Help make it happen. Give students and parents the freedom to go to any school they want to, so that they will never have to force themselves through such bureaucratic meddling and hollow rigmarole of petitioning home districts for a permit, which they can refuse to offer.
I have heard this misconception frequently: "We already have school choice!" in the state of California. This one myth, which California residents should resist upon hearing, that we already have school choice in this state, cannot be stifled soon enough.
School choice by its very definition would permit every parent to choose where they send their children to school. The reality in the state of California by far disputes this myth:
My parents had to provide a false address in order to take my sister and me out of failing Los Angeles schools and enroll in nearby Torrance Unified. Later on, my parents moved into Torrance, then moved out once again. Even though I was a top student in my class, my father had to drive every year to Downtown Los Angeles to get the permit for me to enroll in Torrance schools. Yet during my senior year, the dean informed me that Los Angeles Unified wanted to pull my permit and force me out of the school.
Because state funding continues to decline, Los Angeles Unified floated the option of rescinding its district permits. The firestorm which erupted forced the school board to back off, for now. Yet to this day, many parents wonder whether they can get an adequate education for their kids.
Charter schools have eaten away at the enrollment for poor schools, thus granting more freedom. Yet school districts have to allow charter schools to operate within their boundaries, and the same districts can refuse or revoke a charter. If choice does exist, the limits are severe, and more often than not students are sand-bagged with a poor school and a poor education.
I have tutored a number of students in the past. Parents have shared with me their struggles to remove their children from low-performing home districts to better ones. A friend of one parent was already rejected from receiving a permit, and she wonders if her child will have an opportunity to learn at a better school. Why do parents have to appeal to their "home district" in the first place? Even now, every public school in California requires incoming students to prove their home address with two proofs of residency -- trash, electric, or other utility bills (but no phone bills.)
Beverly Hills Unified has hired investigators to affirm the addressed submitted by Beverly Hills residents. Libertarian journalist investigated the time and expense of school districts to enforce the current residency laws, which bar students outside of the determined zipcode from enrolling their children. When the state funding was diminished, Beverly Hills Unified decided to deny permit renewals for students enrolling from outside the district.
At this time, school choice in its true form does not exist in the state of California. No, we do not have school choice in California, yet. There is an opportunity, however, for the state legislature to remove this officious roadblock which prevents parents from selecting the best public school for their children. SB 451 would extend the limited "Open Enrollment" provision to all students in California. Parents could enroll their children any public school instead of settling for the school in their zipcode. By forcing schools to compete for students, efficiency, innovation, and accountability from the bottom up will help shape public education for the better.
If SB 451 passes, then every California student will have school choice. No longer will students suffering in a classroom with incompetent or immoral teachers have to wait for administration to do something, if anything. Frustrated parents will have the option, the opportunity to choose where their kids go. School administrators will have to respond to the needs and concerns of their students, as opposed to ignoring their concerns. Furthermore, SB 452 and SB 559 will grant parents more power to reform their children's schools, and will give some peace of mind to teachers, who currently absorb pink slips long before school districts know their funding for the next school year.
I appeal to Diana Wallace, to every Democratic leader in Los Angeles County and throughout California: support school choice. Do it because it's right, and do it because it's fair. Governor Pat Brown was never afraid to do the right thing for Californians, even if it was not popular. School choice is the right thing to do, but we do not have it (yet). Help make it happen. Give students and parents the freedom to go to any school they want to, so that they will never have to force themselves through such bureaucratic meddling and hollow rigmarole of petitioning home districts for a permit, which they can refuse to offer.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Bill Sutherland -- Do You Rue Your Endorsement for Mura?
Torrance City Council member Bill Sutherland endorsed Al Muratsuchi for the State Assembly.
I have since learned that they were non-partisan friends.
Granted, friendships should not be broken easily, even over political values and goals.
The times are pressing and unprecedented in California, and basing an endorsement on friendship is not in the best interests of the state or her people.
Even Henry Waxman and David Dreier maintained an amicable relationship in Congress, but David Dreier never retired from his conservatism out of "friendship".
Yes indeed, and even Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could have a drink or two as friends.
Yet political figures owe their first allegiance to their constituents, not to their personal ties with other politicians.
Mr. Sutherland has a great opportunity in his mayoral run, should he choose to continue, in right the wrong of putting a friendship ahead of the state.
He can still be friends with Muratsuchi if he chooses, but he has to make lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, limited government, and local control more important.
Frankly, Muratsuchi does not espouse these values. He need to prove his mettle, or stop meddling in our lives altogether.
Sutherland -- endorse the "right" people!
I have since learned that they were non-partisan friends.
Granted, friendships should not be broken easily, even over political values and goals.
The times are pressing and unprecedented in California, and basing an endorsement on friendship is not in the best interests of the state or her people.
Even Henry Waxman and David Dreier maintained an amicable relationship in Congress, but David Dreier never retired from his conservatism out of "friendship".
Yes indeed, and even Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could have a drink or two as friends.
Yet political figures owe their first allegiance to their constituents, not to their personal ties with other politicians.
Mr. Sutherland has a great opportunity in his mayoral run, should he choose to continue, in right the wrong of putting a friendship ahead of the state.
He can still be friends with Muratsuchi if he chooses, but he has to make lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, limited government, and local control more important.
Frankly, Muratsuchi does not espouse these values. He need to prove his mettle, or stop meddling in our lives altogether.
Sutherland -- endorse the "right" people!
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Al Speaks Up for South Bay Schools -- What About SB 451?
This is an unprecedented move on my part, as I have published a number of posts critical of Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance, 66th Assembly District). Muratsuchi did a good thing: he expressed clear and convincing concern about Governor Jerry Brown's proposed school funding formulas, which would impoverish Manhattan Beach and Torrance Unified Schools at the expense of other districts.
Finally, the Democrat who slandered his opponent in the 2012 race, who refused to sign the Prop 13 Pledge, who refused to refuse the Union/Special Interests, money has done something commendable.
From Muratsuchi's website:
March 13, 2013 (Sacramento, CA) – "All school districts have been hurting over the last several years, and we can all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.
He gets one cool point for stating the obvious.
However, the Governor's Local Control Funding Formula disproportionately negatively impacts suburban school districts.
Exactly. Finally, someone in Sacramento among the Democratic caucus is exposing the scam of "not all schools or students are created equal" should Brown's proposed funding reforms pass.
After full implementation of the Governor's proposal, Torrance Unified School District and Manhattan Beach Unified School District would be receiving significantly less per student funding than the adjacent Los Angeles Unified School District.
Torrance teachers are among the lowest paid teachers in Los Angeles County. It's disgraceful the cuts and losses which they have to sustain, yet the test scores keep improving, and parents all over the South Bay want their kids to go to Torrance Schools. Manhattan Beach Unified also commands a great deal of academic and scholastic respect. The governor has not right to punish these school districts and their staff because they are doing a great job. Yet twenty-four teachers face the chopping block this year. . .
"We need to find a proposal that helps all school districts recover from the severe cuts, and bring California closer to the national average of funding education."
Regarding "proposals", Muratsuchi does not have to "find" any, because State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) has proffered quite a few. Besides authorizing the "parent-trigger" law, which has empowered parents in Adelanto and South Los Angeles to take over their children's schools, Huff has advanced the following bills:
SB 451 -- Open Enrollment for all students in California. Currently, school districts do not have to compete for dollars because students are required to enroll in the school closest to their home, in the same zipcode. In effect, schools are guaranteed funding based on student attendance, whether they deserve it or not. With this bill, parents and students would be allowed to go to any public school of their choice. School districts would be forced to compete with innovative and efficient proposals along with more responsive curriculum which respected the needs and interests of students as opposed to the arbitrary whim of school boards, bureaucrats, and unions.
SB 452 - Parent Empowerment. Currently, interventions into failing state schools require extensive bureaucratic wrangling. This bill would give parents more power to push for reforms at their local schools.
SB 559 - This bill would give school districts more time before requiring them to notify personnel of layoffs. Instead of March 1, the initial deadline would be June 1, when district administrators would have a better understanding of next year's budget. Final notices would not be due until August 1. Moving these deadlines would save schools millions of dollars and give teachers more assurance about their positions for the next school year.
Muratsuchi (and State Sen. Ted Lieu, along with every legislator in Sacramento) should support these three bills. They represent reforms which would cost the taxpayer nothing, and would save the taxpayer millions of dollars. Furthermore, these bills would assist our kids in getting a better education and ensure more stability and support for our teachers and cash-strapped school districts.
Of course, if Muratsuchi wanted to make a real gesture of good will on behalf of students and taxpayers in the 66th Assembly District, he would sign the Prop 13 pledge, give back all that special interest money, and apologize for the lies he endorsed during his 2012 campaign for the Assembly seat. For now, I am grateful that Muratsuchi is not in lock-step with everyone of Brown's "proposals".
Finally, the Democrat who slandered his opponent in the 2012 race, who refused to sign the Prop 13 Pledge, who refused to refuse the Union/Special Interests, money has done something commendable.
From Muratsuchi's website:
March 13, 2013 (Sacramento, CA) – "All school districts have been hurting over the last several years, and we can all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.
He gets one cool point for stating the obvious.
However, the Governor's Local Control Funding Formula disproportionately negatively impacts suburban school districts.
Exactly. Finally, someone in Sacramento among the Democratic caucus is exposing the scam of "not all schools or students are created equal" should Brown's proposed funding reforms pass.
After full implementation of the Governor's proposal, Torrance Unified School District and Manhattan Beach Unified School District would be receiving significantly less per student funding than the adjacent Los Angeles Unified School District.
Torrance teachers are among the lowest paid teachers in Los Angeles County. It's disgraceful the cuts and losses which they have to sustain, yet the test scores keep improving, and parents all over the South Bay want their kids to go to Torrance Schools. Manhattan Beach Unified also commands a great deal of academic and scholastic respect. The governor has not right to punish these school districts and their staff because they are doing a great job. Yet twenty-four teachers face the chopping block this year. . .
"We need to find a proposal that helps all school districts recover from the severe cuts, and bring California closer to the national average of funding education."
Regarding "proposals", Muratsuchi does not have to "find" any, because State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) has proffered quite a few. Besides authorizing the "parent-trigger" law, which has empowered parents in Adelanto and South Los Angeles to take over their children's schools, Huff has advanced the following bills:
SB 451 -- Open Enrollment for all students in California. Currently, school districts do not have to compete for dollars because students are required to enroll in the school closest to their home, in the same zipcode. In effect, schools are guaranteed funding based on student attendance, whether they deserve it or not. With this bill, parents and students would be allowed to go to any public school of their choice. School districts would be forced to compete with innovative and efficient proposals along with more responsive curriculum which respected the needs and interests of students as opposed to the arbitrary whim of school boards, bureaucrats, and unions.
SB 452 - Parent Empowerment. Currently, interventions into failing state schools require extensive bureaucratic wrangling. This bill would give parents more power to push for reforms at their local schools.
SB 559 - This bill would give school districts more time before requiring them to notify personnel of layoffs. Instead of March 1, the initial deadline would be June 1, when district administrators would have a better understanding of next year's budget. Final notices would not be due until August 1. Moving these deadlines would save schools millions of dollars and give teachers more assurance about their positions for the next school year.
Muratsuchi (and State Sen. Ted Lieu, along with every legislator in Sacramento) should support these three bills. They represent reforms which would cost the taxpayer nothing, and would save the taxpayer millions of dollars. Furthermore, these bills would assist our kids in getting a better education and ensure more stability and support for our teachers and cash-strapped school districts.
Of course, if Muratsuchi wanted to make a real gesture of good will on behalf of students and taxpayers in the 66th Assembly District, he would sign the Prop 13 pledge, give back all that special interest money, and apologize for the lies he endorsed during his 2012 campaign for the Assembly seat. For now, I am grateful that Muratsuchi is not in lock-step with everyone of Brown's "proposals".
Honda Has Left the South Bay -- Al did Nothing
USA Today reported:
Honda North America is moving its top North American executive, along with about 50 other salaried workers, from Torrance, Calif., to Marysville, Ohio.
Where was Al when Honda was planning to move fifty jobs and administrative operations out of the state?
Why did he say, do, or make no move to preempt this transfer?
The voters, the residents, the growing number of unemployed, should not have to sit by and watch the businesses flee from this state, and then wonder why our leaders refuse to do anything about it.
The high taxes, the over-spending, the excessive regulations are just killing off jobs. There is no excuse for this.
Yet Assemblyman Muratsuchi, who has moved his office to the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, has done nothing.
How many more jobs will have to leave the state before voters get mad enough to demand that either Al do something about it, or leave office altogether?
Honda North America is moving its top North American executive, along with about 50 other salaried workers, from Torrance, Calif., to Marysville, Ohio.
Where was Al when Honda was planning to move fifty jobs and administrative operations out of the state?
Why did he say, do, or make no move to preempt this transfer?
The voters, the residents, the growing number of unemployed, should not have to sit by and watch the businesses flee from this state, and then wonder why our leaders refuse to do anything about it.
The high taxes, the over-spending, the excessive regulations are just killing off jobs. There is no excuse for this.
Yet Assemblyman Muratsuchi, who has moved his office to the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, has done nothing.
How many more jobs will have to leave the state before voters get mad enough to demand that either Al do something about it, or leave office altogether?
"I am not an Ideologue"
How many times did Muratsuchi rattle off this talking point?
"I am not an ideologue."
Granted, people want people in office who will cross party lines to make decisions that serve the country, the state, their constituents.
Then again, Muratsuchi's slash-and-slander campaign against Craig Huey dripped with "ideology".
What did Huey's stance on abortion, or the Federal Reserve, or unemployment have to do with the needs of South Bay residents?
Why was Al getting all of that Union money? Whose interests does he claim to stand for?
Public sector unionism is an ideology, one which Muratsuchi stands by with both feet and all the campaign money.
"I am not an ideologue" -- those are hollow words.
"I am not an ideologue."
Granted, people want people in office who will cross party lines to make decisions that serve the country, the state, their constituents.
Then again, Muratsuchi's slash-and-slander campaign against Craig Huey dripped with "ideology".
What did Huey's stance on abortion, or the Federal Reserve, or unemployment have to do with the needs of South Bay residents?
Why was Al getting all of that Union money? Whose interests does he claim to stand for?
Public sector unionism is an ideology, one which Muratsuchi stands by with both feet and all the campaign money.
"I am not an ideologue" -- those are hollow words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)