A California Republican

The word religion is so loaded - especially in California. In California, people assume when you say that “you are religious” that you are also a member of the Religious Right - the RR. Being religious is also synonomous with being close-minded, petty and bigoted. This is especially true after the Prop. 8 vote.

However, most religious people wouldn’t characterize themselves that way. In fact, religious people choose political affiliations based on what best matches their beliefs  - the entirety of their beliefs- just like anyone else. It is not assumed that those on the left are godless and agnostics. However, when you say you are religious it is simply assumed that you are a amember of the Religious Right. It is almost as if peole don’t see how somone who holds Christianity dear to their hearts could be a Democrat. After all, Democrats kill babies because they vote in favor of abortion.

But here’s the thing - people choose political parties based on the entirety of their beliefs. For some, this means republican, for some this means democrats, and for others it mean green, independent, free, or some other party. There is no one party that can define faith and say they are the decisive party of the faithful.

It is because of this, that religion is so hard to bring to the table in politics. It gets even harder when you talk about core issues to religion - marriage, children, and stewardship. The Catholic Church does a great job with their political positions. They have taken the position that all people in CA should be helped - legal or illegal. And you know this about the church. It is a decisively left position - yet they are religious. The Catholic Church also believes marriage should be between a man and a woman only - a right position - yet they took the left on other issues. How can this be? You mean that churches don’t fit neatly into political categories either?

In California, it is a strange situation. Words associated with church - sepcifically Christianity - seem to be banned. Talking about religion in work is a bad idea. Talking about religion is school is forbidden. Heaven forbid the children learn that the Founding Fathers were Christian, or that our system of laws - specifically the criminal ones - were created from a distinctly Christian perspective. You cannot celebrate Christmas here, you have to celebrate the “holidays.”

So how do we bring back religion to the table in California politics? It has been removed, nuetered and spayed. It has become a bad word - the third rail of state politics. It should never be mentioned except in hushed tones on Sunday, and forgotten by Sunday evening when you are watching football.

Here’s how - attribute those actions that are based on religious values to them, and don’t be afraid. When someone asks me why I do so much charity work the answer isn’t simple “I like to do things for other people,” which is true, but isn’t the who truth. The answer is, ” I believe that God would’ve wanted us to take care of others, and it makes me feel good.” That’s the whole truth.

As peole begin bringing religion back into their daily lives, it will come back onto the political table as well. And back into daily lives doesn’t mean that you go to church on Sunday, and forget about the Bible on Monday. It means making it a part of your daily life. Then, and only then, will it become part of the discussion in California politics.

There has been a lot of writing on this post about the budget situation in California, and a lot of compliaining that the lawmakers cannot seem to do what they are elected to do - pass a budget. They create innane laws just fine - what about the bill that would’ve required children to be in booster seats in cars until they are 13? Some of those 13 year olds are bigger than me, and I don’t have to sit in a booster seat. Or the bill to require only CFL lightbulbs to be sold? These are all things that lawmakers think are important - but yet they cannot seem to pass a budget - which is even more important.

Republicans signaled last week what it would take to get them to vote for a budget solution with a tax increase: They want to relax overtime rules, break and lunch rules, easing environmental regulations for new land development and giving business that create jobs some tax breaks for it. The Republicans say this is economic stimulus - that if you are going to raise taxes, then you have to give some relief to people who are going to have higher taxes or else they will cut back, rather than spend more - which is what you want people to do in a recession. Republicans are also insisting on a spending cap that would allow the state budget to grow by no more than approximately 5% each year.

 Assemblyman Chuck Devore noted that we never cut programs in California, that they always grow.

Democrats say the spending cap is essentially a way to take funding away from state programs.

I don’t see how a spending cap is taking away funding. The spending cap simply says no more growth than 5%. The actual cap is something of a formula to include inflation and population growth, not a strict percentage. What is wrong with that? You are adjusting programs for inflation, and for population. If you want to provide a new service - because you think it is a good one to provide - prove it, and cut something that isn’t good to provide. The state has become this over-arching provider of all services, and master of none. The state cannot provide welfare, medical care, mental healt hcare, disabled care, veteran’s care, military, social programs, education, wealth redistribution, taxes, environmental protections, jobs and all of those without being bad at them all. There is no specialization. There is nothing this state does well, we simply try to do it all. So instead of taking that approach, the departments would have to make choices about what they do, and what they need to do. Non-profits provide better job training, charter school provide better education, and churches provide better welfare. Why not move some of the burden to people who do these things well, and then have the state do the things it does do well? That is the goal behind the spending cap  -and to keep spending in line.

As for the Labor Federation President’s remarks that the economic stimulus package Republican’s want is a pay cut for employees and a bonus for employers - well in a recession we want employers to employ people. We want people to earn money. If the over-time hours were changed from the current rules (you get OT if you work more than 8 hours a day) to new ones (you get OT if you work more than 40 hours a week) - what is wrong with that? People in most jobs in the world don’t get OT pay. OT pay is a benefit, and a plus, for any job - not a requirement. No one is saying that an employee should work 50 hours in a week and not get OT. They are simply saying, let’s make sure the people getting OT pay are actually working a full-time scheudle before we pay them more. That makes sense to me.

I think this is the begining of a compromise. Notice that Republican’s didn’t say there had to be an education cut. They simply made a list of demands. Now, I know the next budget isn’t due unti lnext July 1 - so I don’t expect any negotiations on these points until June 30, 2009. But we shall see how they play out.

The big news headline the other day was that the Republicans in the CA Legislature blocked passage of budget cuts and new revenues that would have helped close the gap in the budget that California is facing this year. Of course, the Democratic leadership put this proposal up to a vote, knowing that the Republican’s wouldn’t vote for it. Otherwise there would have been no way this proposal would’ve been put to a vote.

For all the posturing last week, and over the past months, the Democrats knew they couldn’t cut education. The proposal that went to the floor for a vote had education cuts in it - $4 billion’s worth. This is how you know it wasn’ta serious proposal from the Democrats. They were simply putting somthing up for a vote so they can blame the Republicans for the budget crisis now. But in negotiations, the Democrats knew what the package had to have for the Republicans to vote yes - it needed a spending cap amendment placed on the ballot for the next possible election.

There was no secret that this was the way the Republicans would vote for a budget plan. I suspect that if this budget plan had the spending cap, the Republicans would’ve voted for it - even with the new taxes (or revenue enhancements as some call them). But there was no way the Democrats were going to put a spending cap on anything. It isn’t in the Democratic vocabulary to say spending cap. So there was no spending cap, and the Republicans prevented the budget solution from passing - and they all went home for Thanksgiving.

Now, the Republican idea of a spending cap isn’t one that says no new spending. It says - the budget can only grow in direct relation to the population growth in CA, and to meet inflation. That’s it. It doesn’t say you have to cut any programs. It doesn’t say that no new programs can be started. It simply says - the budget growth is capped. What is wrong with that idea? If you want a new program, then a department would have to find a way to make it work under the budget cap. CA already provides the most services of any state - so let’s stop providing more and more services and cap growth. Nothing wrong with this concept. I think it should be on the ballot - let the voters decide.

Never in CA history have there been cuts to programs like we are going to have to make. Instead, programs and departments have simply grown. So let’s stop this cycle from happening every year, and instead work to solve the underlying problem.

I just wanted to let all my readers know - Happy Thanksgiving.

I appreciate all the comments and debate that goes on with this blog. Even if you don’t agree with me, I am always happy to debate and hear comments because it means you are involved in the process. It is a great thing that we, the people, can get so involved in politics and the political debates.

On this wonderful Thursday - which I have off of work - I am planning on eating turkey. Lots of turkey. And pie. Good old fashioned apple pie. It will be a great day to spend with my friends and family - mostly family. I am thankful that my family is close enough that we can spend time with them on the holidays.

And the other thing I am going to be doing (besides helping with the cooking)…..a great American past-time……watching the football games. It was more special when there were only 2 games on, and everyone could see them. Now there are 3 games on, and you can only get the last on if you have NFL Network, which only comes with DirectTv, which not everyone can get. So that makes the football a little less excited.

Well, happy thanksgiving. I hope yours is as good as mine.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving - I want to give thanks for the rights that I have as an American. Not only do I have the rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I have ones that the United States Supreme Court has said are implicit in there - including privacy.

I have the right to free speech. I get to write this blog, and my other blogs. I get to say what I want, about whatever subject. I get to be a Republican, and practice my free speech rights defending smaller government, fiscal responsibility, defense policy and immigration policy. I get to say what I think. And you get to comment on it.

I have the right to have the government not establish a religion. I love how people sometimes think this right means that the government must stay out of religion - but that’s not what it is. It is the right to worship as you wish, without the government establishing a religion. I love this right. I believe in God and Jesus. I believe in their message. I believe is unsing music to celebrate the power of this message. And you get to do what you want. I am truely thankful for this.

I have the right to be myself, and not be discriminated against because I am a woman. Which is fabulous. But some people do discriminate anyways - which means they need some education about why women are so great. We bear children, we are smart, we are multi-taskers. Women are God’s greatest gift to man - we rank as number one, even over football.

Mostly, I have the right to live here. I cannot imagine living in a more restrictive society like the Middle East. I spent some time there, and had to wear traditional garb if I went out in public. I had to be covered from head to toe, and I couldn’t drive. I had to be accompanies by a man. I cannot imagine what that would be like on a daily basis. The treatment of one gender as property is appalling. I understand wanting to protect your family, and maintain conservative values. But to do so at such extremes is absurd. I am thankful I don’t have to live like that.

I am thankful for the rights that I have as an American. And I hope you are too.

So I was thinking that in the spirit of Thanksgiving, the rest of this week’s postings will be dedicated to things that I am thankful for.

I am thankful for being a Californian.

Many people find that strange, especially since I comment so much on things that I do not like about California. But truely, I am thankful for being one. I live about 1.5 hours away from the beach, and 1.5 hours away from skiing - both of which I love. I live in an area where the sun shines more than not. I live in a beautiful state, where we have some of the most gorgeous trails to hike on, waterfalls to see, and sunsets to view. I live in a state where there is so much variety, it is almost overwhelming at times.

I live in a state that is accepting of everyone - sometimes too much accepting. But I live here. I live in a state whose economy isn’t tied to one industry (like Michigan is) and so the failure or re-doing of that industry doesn’t necessarily affect me.

I live in a state where I can get whatever food, in whatever season I want. This was particularly helpful when I was pregnant and wanted strawberries in the dead of winter. It is also helpful to be able to keep a healthy diet year round, without resorting to canned foods. It is simply wonderful.

But because I am thankful for all those things, I also have a responsibility to take care of those things I am thankful for.

Which means I need to help take care of the environment. I did some very simlpe things that made a big difference in our energy usage. I changed all the lightbulbs to CFLs. It is fairly cheap to do - they last longer, and use less electricity. So although you might be paying more up front, in the long run they are cheaper - especially if you buy the jumbo pack from Costco. I recycle. It is simple - everything plastic, cardboard and paper goes into one garbage can (and gets taken out to the recycling bin) and everything else goes to the trash. At work, I recycle all my paper. I walk to the store instead of drive. We use the light rail to get to work instead of driving. We turn off the water when brushing our teeth in my house - which saves water. We re-use our bottled water as water bottles. We do small things to help us be more environmentally conscious. Imagine if everyone did these things what a difference it would make.

And as for the food - I pay the price they ask me to. I don’t complain about $5.00 baskets of strawberries in winter (but my husband did). But the price asked is the price I pay. Therefore, I am doing my part there.

Anyways, the environment and food selection are the two things I am greatful for today - and so I have to work to make sure I can remain thankful for them for my life, and so my kids have them to be thankful for.

See … Republicans can be environmentally conscious without giving up what makes me a Republican.

There are three current budget solutions being debated (or not) by the Legislature in California.

The first, a short-term solution, is to reduce spending and borrow from other state funds, sell state property, and anything else that will make the income/outcome side balance for now. I hate to say this, but it is the Republican solution. They say no new taxes. But they don’t have any other solutions. As has long been their problem - they have an ideology but not a plan.

The Democrats have a plan. They want more taxes and money from the federal government - a lot of it. I am going to say that the money from the federal government is a pipe dream. The new taxes are possible. But the problem with new taxes is that we are in an economic downturn. And new taxes will only lengthen that downturn. New taxes will also create more spending on schools, since they are constitutionally guaranteed a portion of that money. So that will create new, sustained spending in future years.

Then there is the plan by the Governor - which no one likes. There is a while deal about raising the sales tax by 1.5% and borrowing money from the state lottery. No one likes that plan, and no one is agreeing to it.

So of the three plans…..none is going to work.

What should California do? I think that they should start soliciting ideas from individuals who make budgets. Any family can tell you that hard choices have to be made, and those choices are going to involve unpopular decisions. One of the hard choices to make is to cut spending. I truely do not understand how Democrats can advocate for a reasonable plan without this element in it. I just don’t see it as reasonable. Ok - you don’t want to cut everything the Republicans do. But they don’t want to cut anything at all.

Why not roll everything back to the 2000 levels? The cost of living in CA is going down, along with the housing prices. Instead of having the state offer programs where low-income people can get cars and cheap insurance, offer them a program on discounted transit. Instead of simply giving people money, require that they attend training in something as a pre-requisite to being on welfare or public assistance for more than 2 months. Have them go learn how to be a construction worker by working with Cal-Trans on all those new infrastructure projects. Have those with college degrees learn to be teachers. Have those with no other training learn to be office assistants for correctional facilities (which desperately need office techs and cannot get them). There are tons of ways to provide assistance that will help get people off the assistance, rather than what CA does - and simply keeps providing them assistance. This will lower the need for social services eventually. And it will provide skilled workers for holes in our economy. Even better - most of these solutions will provide more members for the unions (I hate unions) so Democrats can support it.

In the meantime - cut programs to the 2000 levels. Firefighters make 2.5 times their normal pay on over-time. Most of us make 1.5 times, if that, in over-time pay. But they get to make 2.5 times. That seems a little ridiculous. Especially when OT counts any time spent sleeping while they are away from their home station. It just seems a tad excessive. It isn’t like there aren’t a ton of people that want to be firefighters. They don’t need to pay them that much in order to have the positions filled. Firefighters are like NFL cheerleaders - there are a lot more people who want to be one than there are chances to be one - so you can pay them less. But the state doesn’t understand this when they are bargaining with the union, and always gives them a raise and more money. That’s good fiscal responsibility.

As for a plan - I am telling you - it is a spending problem, not an income problem. The state takes in so much income. They need to figure out where the money should go - responsibly, and make those choices. They are going to be hard, and someone is going to get less money, but they are decisions that need to be made.

We elected these people to make these tough decisions. I am not a legislator (nor do I want to be) because I don’t want to make these decisions. But they wanted this job - so do the job already and let’s stop having the continual structural deficit that CA has.

Somehow, when I write these blogs, everyone thinks I am rich. Some people even think I am a man. But here’s the thing - I am not rich. I am not a man either - I am a woman.

So why do people think these things? I can only assume it is because the traditional image of a conservative is an older, rich, white male. There aren’t a lot of young female conservatives. I think that might change since Gov. Palin put a face out there as a young, female conservative. I could wish she wouldn’t have spoken out on foriegn affairs, but oh well. People simply don’t think that a conservative can be anything other than a rich, white male.

Which is funny. Traditional family values are something that all people should like. Kids do better in homes with a father and a mother than they do in any other situation. Multiple studies have shown this. So as a mother  - you should want the best for your kids - and this represents the best.

Also, conservative has come to mean a member of the Religious Right. I don’t think I am a member of that class - and they certainly wouldn’t brand me a member of their group. I am religious. But I am not one of them. I do not zealously speak out on issues. I don’t think that God truely is going to get involved in our politics. I do think that people should live by God’s Words, and the example that Jesus gave us. But if you don’t - I certainly don’t think you are going to be killed by a lightning bolt. You might not be happy, and you won’t be living standards that will let you right into Heaven, but you won’t be struck dead on the spot.

And I am not rich. I have a husband who works, and I work: part-time as a freelance writer, and part-time as a fiscal analyst. I also go to school part-time and am a full-time mom. So I have 4 jobs. My husband has 1. We have a one-story condo, which has lost over 60% of its value in the current market. But we aren’t defaulting on our mortgage becuase of it. We made a decision to buy within our means, and we wanted to buy to have something for ourselves. The decision to buy a home wasn’t based on flipping the house for more value, it was based on wanting a home. A steady place to call our own. So we live in it. We aren’t rich by any means.

But yet, people continue to assume that a conservative means a rich, old, white male. I think it is time to change that view. There are conservatives out there of all kinds - old and young, rich and poor, while and not, male and female. So please, stop stereotyping me because you hear I am a conservative. I don’t think that you are a poor, lazy, woman when I hear you are a Democrat. So don’t think of a rich, white man everytime you hear the word conservative.

I am all about responsible legislation. And responsible legislators. They don’t have to do what I want, but I think that they should do what is considered responsible. One of the big things that members of the CA Legislature are elected to do is pass a budget. On time. They have a deadline, and they know what that deadline is. The new fiscal year starts on July 1. The budget needs to be signed by then. They know the Governor gets 10 days to sign/veto the budget, so it should be to him by June 15, just in case there are some weekends in there. This is what they know.

What they do is a whole different story. See, the budget process in CA is strange. It doesn’t matter, until the floor vote, what the Republicans think. Because until the floor vote, everything can pass through sub-committee and committees and even conference committee with only Democratic votes needed. So the Republicans are ignored until the floor vote. And then both sides go into negotiations. All the members know this is the way things go. And all of them know that the people who elected them would like an on-time budget. So why do they wait until so late to get any Republican feedback and input?

I think the real reason is so the Democrats can put forth the budget they want, and then rely on the Republicans to make cuts to it to make it some-what responsible. Then the Dems don’t have to go back to their districts and say - sorry we couldn’t fund this program, the Republicans cut it, and in order to get a budget at all we had to go with that, so blame the Republicans. This has been a very success approach for the Democrats to take. It is made more successful by the Republicans refusing to put a  plan out there early on, and waiting for a while. And the bland and bold statements Republicans make - No new taxes. Instead, they need to put a plan out there. I am working on creating one.

Here’s the first step - really take a look at the budgets. Maybe not all the budgets. I am not sure that the $300,000 alloted to the State Commision on Law Revision is really worth their time. But look at the big eaters - Education, CDCR, Health and Human Services. Do you really know where that money goes?

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf

The link above links you to what the enacted K-12 Education budget looks like. Tell me if you can tell where the money goes. Part of my job is looking at these things and understanding them, and I cannot really tell you where the money is going. I can tell you what general program it is going to, and what the major changes are. But I cannot tell you where all the money goes from there. If you go to the Department of Education website - which is by far the largest funded thing in K-12 Education - you cannot tell where all that money goes. It is really insane that there is not transparency to the budget. This is part of what gets us in trouble each year.

California has a roll-over budgeting. Each department simply gets what they got last year, in addition to any changes they wish to make. No department truely knows where all their money goes. I really don’t think they do. Maybe, if there was a Public Records Act request, someone would be able to figure it all out. But from the budgeting information the state gives out, no one can figure it out.

And no one wants to. If you have some time this next year, I urge you to watcha  budget hearing online, or listen to one online (you can go to the Senate and Assembly webpages for links to their radio). There is nothing going on in there. No real hard questions to anyone. I have had to testify at these hearings. I was representing a department that wanted an additional $25 million last year. There were no questions on the request. None. Not even a simple, “can you please tell me why you need this money.” They simply got their money. It is truely ridiculous the way this works.

So now the current members of the Legislature are on vacation. They aren’t going to do anything before Thanksgiving. The Democratic leadership thinks they have a better shot at a budget they like with the new Legislature, not the old one. But I think they are smoking something. Everyone knows there won’tbe a solution to this problem. That would take real guts. And the CA Legislature doesn’t have those.

So I decided that each Friday post would be a political round-up for the week. So here it goes:

Speak Karen Bass (D) of the California State Assembly declared that she was upset about the rage against African-Americans who voted for Prop. 8. She also said that the California budget should be fixed “50-50.” To her, this means 50% from the federal government, and 50% from increased revenues. To read more click here.

Emerging from a Big Five meeting, Senate President Pro Tem-elect Darrell Steinberg said, “Things have not broken down. I think that’s the news here.” So he thinks they are still on track to get a budget solution.

Too bad they all cancelled their floor session to vote on something. So there will be no floor session on Sunday. But they have decided to meet on Tuesday - which Sen. Perata says is the absolute latest day any action can be taken. Good thing they will be done for Thanksgiving - it is not like they term out at the end of November, they have decided to term-out before Thanksgiving. Glad you can all make it home for Thanksgiving. Not everyone effected by this budget gets to go home for Thanksgiving - or have a Thanksgiving.

Senate GOP leader Dave Cogdill, meanwhile, has reiterated his no new taxes stance in an op-ed.

President-elect Obama has decided to offer Sen. Clinton the post of Secretary of State (you can read the article here). It is a good thing that his campaign didn’t tout her as being unprepared in foriegn affairs. Or having no over-seas experience - except as First Lady. So now she’s going to be the nation’s top diplomat. I am all for mending fences broken in campaigns, but making your cheif opponent - who you said wasn’t experienced enough and was a liar about her foriegn policy experience - the nation’s top diplomat, might be going a bit far. Also - let’s be honest - she’s not the face I want representing America anywhere. She’s a power-hungry woman, who doesn’t have any training in foriegn policy that would make her effective. She should talk to my old International Relations professor - Susan Wiessman - to get some ideas about how to approach people who think differently than you.

The Federal Reserve is worried about deflation. They are worried that people are going to keep saving their money and not spend any, because there is a syndrome where people think the prices will always get lower tomorrow. And they say this is a hard cycle to break - even harder than an inflationary cycle. To read more click here.

And the country is still standing. Which is always a good thing!

If there is anything, or any story, that you think I should be tracking - let me know! I will track it for you for next week.