A California Republican

If anyone thinks that Senator Mark Leno (D) is more interested in grandstanding than in politics, and doing his job, then you are correct. Senator Leno proved, once again, that he’s interested in grandstanding, not in solving the problems of the state.

This week, during Conference committe hearings, Leno was remarking on Social Security benefits. One of the proposals on the table to solve the California state budget deficit, and the one that Leno was hearing about at the time of his remarks, was to remove the state disability benefits (SDI), but leave in place the federal disability benefits (SSI). There is an interesting thing about the state benefits, and the federal benefits. If you are two individuals, you get more money from the benefits than if you are a married couple because of the cap put on married couple’s benefits. However, there is survivor benefits for both to the married spouse of the dead person.

Leno wanted to know if the California Supreme Court’s upholding of Prop. 8 changed anything at the state, and federal levels. He wanted to know if civil unions were treated the same at the state and federal level, and if not, then marriage isn’t merely a “word” as the California Supreme Court said it was.

There are a few interesting facts:  Senator Leno is homosexual and makes no bones about it. Senator Leno represents San Francisco - which has a high concentration of homosexual people. He is also in desperate need of his district’s support, because he might be facing a primary challenge at the next election.

Also, the federal government, regardless of what California did, doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages as being marriages at the federal level. In California a civil union is granted the same survivor benefits as a marriage. These facts were true before Prop. 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court and were true before Prop. 8 was passed by the people.

The thing that makes Leno’s remarks so absurd is that he should know this. As a crusader for same-sex marriage rights, he should know that nothing about the federal government requires them to recognize same-sex marriages performed in a state. He knew this before he question, and during his question. He knew that no matter what California does to SDI, the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages for purposes of SSI, survivor benefits, or anything else.

That’s what makes his question so absurd, and grandstanding. Instead of focusing the attention on the issue before him, he focused it on something that he already knows the answer to. Instead of focusing his energies on how to get a solution to the budget deficit, he focused on how he could score points with his constituents, and what a good sound-byte he thinks he gave.

Senator Leno - focus on the issues or remove yourself from the Conference committee. There are enough problems that need real solutions, not grandstanding.

There are various figures, but everyone agrees that if you release illegal immigrants from jails and hand them over to the federal government to be deported, it will save the state money. Why is the Legislature balking at this proposal?

No one can give a good reason for not doing this. These are people who are here illegally, and who committed additional crimes. How many more times do they have to break the law before people realize they are no good, and we need to send them home? The federal government is the only one that can deport someone: Illegal  immigration, and legal immigration, is a federal issue and can only be handled at the federal level.

This presents a real and immediate savings to the state. Additionally, this presents a real and immediate message to other illegal immigrants. The message is “Get into crime, and you will go home.” The message should be “Come here illegally and you go home,” but that isn’t the message that California wants to send to illegals. Instead, send them home. Save California the outrageous cost per inmate for the people who aren’t supposed to be here anyways. Why shoudl an illegal immigrant have to serve a jail sentence here? While here they are getting better health care than they would get in their home countries (probably) and they are still in the U.S. Send them home.

What is the downside to this? There is a chance that the federal government would let them loose while they are waiting for their deporatation hearing. This wouldn’t be great for society, but it would be less costly than having them in prison. The other downside is that deportatino can take a while, so they would be free during that time. Well, they would be free during that time at the end of their sentence, and if the state waited until then, they would be paying a large per-inmate cost during the years they are locked up.

Send them home. America is an ideal that belongs to those who follow the laws and work for it. They don’t. Send them home.