Everyone, meet Annabel Park:
So what is this Coffee Party really about? To start, it’s about civility. One of the first things you see on their website (which, by the way, is here: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/) is the following pledge: “As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.” Wow, an actual conversation? Sounds like something I could get behind.
Although the media has already begun to try to pit the coffee party against the tea party, the two movements actually have a lot in common. First of all, everyone’s angry. Both sides are afraid for the financial stability of the country and are sick of politicians who seem painfully out of touch with ordinary Americans. Both movements are planning to elect their own people, normal citizens, to office, although the Coffee Party might be a little late to the party to get into the 2010 election.
If you’d like to find out more about them, here’s a good Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505517.html
If you’d like to follow them on Facebook, go here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/coffeeparty?ref=search&sid=35802366.3302691802..1
At the end of the day, whichever movement you identify most with… enjoy your caffeinated beverage!
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Reconcile Yourself to Reconciliation
The word of the day is reconcile:
1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.
As the time for the reconciliation vote on the healthcare bill approaches, all four of those definitions seem rather appropriate depending on the side of the aisle you’re on. The GOP is laughing at the Dems for passing a hotly debated piece of legislation in what appears to be a shady underhanded way. Yup, thanks for handing them the election next fall. Oh, but wait! Hypocrisy abounds!
As Senator Orin Hatch put it in the Washington Post last week, reconciliation would be, “unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, [and] degrade our system of government.”
Oh, puuuuh-leeze! I wonder if he felt that way when he voted for the 2003 Bush tax cuts under reconciliation rules (by the way, V.P. Dick Cheney had to come in and cast his vote to break a 50-50 tie in that vote). In fact, of the 22 bills passed under reconciliation through 2008, 16 were passed under a Republican controlled Senate.
You know what else came about thanks to a reconciliation vote? The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more fondly known as COBRA.
At the end of the day though, here is what’s most likely going to happen:
If you’ll remember, the Senate has already passed a healthcare bill. Remember the Night Before Christmas? Unfortunately, the House doesn’t like certain parts of the Senate bill and are likely to tweak it, undoing certain compromises that were made to pass the bill with 60 votes. In order to re-pass the bill through the Senate with those tweaks in place, they will probably have to use reconciliation rules. Ironically, this happens all the time. The difference here is that those tweaks will happen very quickly, in a matter of days rather than years.
But in reality, legislation is constantly being tweaked. A bill that you hear has passed one chamber of congress will, most likely, not be the bill that is ultimately enacted into law.
1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.
As the time for the reconciliation vote on the healthcare bill approaches, all four of those definitions seem rather appropriate depending on the side of the aisle you’re on. The GOP is laughing at the Dems for passing a hotly debated piece of legislation in what appears to be a shady underhanded way. Yup, thanks for handing them the election next fall. Oh, but wait! Hypocrisy abounds!
As Senator Orin Hatch put it in the Washington Post last week, reconciliation would be, “unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, [and] degrade our system of government.”
Oh, puuuuh-leeze! I wonder if he felt that way when he voted for the 2003 Bush tax cuts under reconciliation rules (by the way, V.P. Dick Cheney had to come in and cast his vote to break a 50-50 tie in that vote). In fact, of the 22 bills passed under reconciliation through 2008, 16 were passed under a Republican controlled Senate.
You know what else came about thanks to a reconciliation vote? The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more fondly known as COBRA.
At the end of the day though, here is what’s most likely going to happen:
If you’ll remember, the Senate has already passed a healthcare bill. Remember the Night Before Christmas? Unfortunately, the House doesn’t like certain parts of the Senate bill and are likely to tweak it, undoing certain compromises that were made to pass the bill with 60 votes. In order to re-pass the bill through the Senate with those tweaks in place, they will probably have to use reconciliation rules. Ironically, this happens all the time. The difference here is that those tweaks will happen very quickly, in a matter of days rather than years.
But in reality, legislation is constantly being tweaked. A bill that you hear has passed one chamber of congress will, most likely, not be the bill that is ultimately enacted into law.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
So What Are You Doing on Friday?
After the now infamous demon sheep ad, the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate have agreed to a debate. Carly Fiorina, Tom Campbell, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore are all running in the GOP primary to ultimately challenge Senator Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat. If Boxer wins in November, she will serve her fourth term (wow, at six year terms, a fourth term is… well... you can do the math).
The debate will be hosted by Eric Hogue of Sacramento’s KTKZ radio station. In Mr. Hogue’s blog (http://erichogue.townhall.com/blog) he discusses all three of the candidates. I have two favorites though. The first is his most recent blog entry “Campbell Sympathetic Toward Terrorists?” Apparently, in another move by Carly Fiorina to demonize (bah bah black sheep) Tom Campbell, her campaign manager commented that Campbell is clearly anti-Israel and insinuated that he is, in fact, a terrorist sympathizer.
As a former California Representative in the U.S. House, he voted several times to redirect money away from Israel and is accused of having personal relationships with two convicted Palestinian terrorist sympathizers. Yikes.
My other favorite blog entry of Eric’s sheds some light on why exactly Campbell switched races from being a Gubernatorial candidate to the Senate GOP primary race. In a word: abortion. As the only clearly pro-choice Republican candidate, many moderates believe that he is the only candidate with a chance against Boxer in November.
So if you have a chance, Friday at noon you should tune in and learn a little bit about these people who might very well be your next Senator. http://www.ktkz.com/
The debate will be hosted by Eric Hogue of Sacramento’s KTKZ radio station. In Mr. Hogue’s blog (http://erichogue.townhall.com/blog) he discusses all three of the candidates. I have two favorites though. The first is his most recent blog entry “Campbell Sympathetic Toward Terrorists?” Apparently, in another move by Carly Fiorina to demonize (bah bah black sheep) Tom Campbell, her campaign manager commented that Campbell is clearly anti-Israel and insinuated that he is, in fact, a terrorist sympathizer.
As a former California Representative in the U.S. House, he voted several times to redirect money away from Israel and is accused of having personal relationships with two convicted Palestinian terrorist sympathizers. Yikes.
My other favorite blog entry of Eric’s sheds some light on why exactly Campbell switched races from being a Gubernatorial candidate to the Senate GOP primary race. In a word: abortion. As the only clearly pro-choice Republican candidate, many moderates believe that he is the only candidate with a chance against Boxer in November.
So if you have a chance, Friday at noon you should tune in and learn a little bit about these people who might very well be your next Senator. http://www.ktkz.com/
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Healthcare Summit - Be There or Be Republican
Tomorrow President Obama is hosting the televised bipartisan summit on healthcare! You remember, the one that the Republicans were so nervous about?
Although on the eve of the summit (why do they call everything a “summit” these days, I mean this seems like more of a meeting and less of an overdramatic “summit”) it’s not the Republicans who are feeling uneasy. Basically, it would be a shame for the Democrats to come up empty handed on an issue that has taken up so much of our national conversation in the last year, especially in an election year. But the Dems aren’t even sure they can get enough votes on their own side of the aisle.
Obviously, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last year, bipartisan solutions are… umm… unlikely seems like it might very well be the understatement of my life. Republicans are demanding that the work done thus far on healthcare be scrapped and that reform should start over from the beginning. (So that we can watch this all happen again until the Republicans are back in the majority in the Senate? I’m exhausted just thinking about it.)
Since the Dems clearly won’t be able to pass a healthcare bill under the traditional method where they need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, they are considering passing the bill under the reconciliation process. I know, what the heck is the reconciliation process?! Apparently, there is an entirely different process for passing budget related bills which only requires a majority vote to pass a bill. It looks something like this: “The House and Senate pass the budget resolution in the spring of each year. It is a budget blueprint which Congress imposes on itself, and which establishes the rules that limit how much various committees can spend in the legislation they produce. A budget resolution can contain one (or in rare cases, up to three) reconciliation instruction(s). Reconciliation instructions create reconciliation bills.” I’m not sure who this guy is, but he gives a great and complete definition at http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/what-is-reconciliation/.
So, for this reconciliation bill to pass at all the healthcare bill would first have to become a reconciliation bill. Then, the House Democrats would have to approve the Senate version of the bill. And then there’s the minor detail of the underlying shadiness of the whole thing. All I can say is that if the Dems want to go down that road in an election year, they better do a fantastic job of communicating what the heck they’re doing to the public and why it has to be that way.
If you’d like to watch the six hour summit it will be streaming live from http://www.foxnews.com/ and will re-air on CSPAN and CSPAN-2 after the House and Senate adjourn for the day.
Although on the eve of the summit (why do they call everything a “summit” these days, I mean this seems like more of a meeting and less of an overdramatic “summit”) it’s not the Republicans who are feeling uneasy. Basically, it would be a shame for the Democrats to come up empty handed on an issue that has taken up so much of our national conversation in the last year, especially in an election year. But the Dems aren’t even sure they can get enough votes on their own side of the aisle.
Obviously, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last year, bipartisan solutions are… umm… unlikely seems like it might very well be the understatement of my life. Republicans are demanding that the work done thus far on healthcare be scrapped and that reform should start over from the beginning. (So that we can watch this all happen again until the Republicans are back in the majority in the Senate? I’m exhausted just thinking about it.)
Since the Dems clearly won’t be able to pass a healthcare bill under the traditional method where they need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, they are considering passing the bill under the reconciliation process. I know, what the heck is the reconciliation process?! Apparently, there is an entirely different process for passing budget related bills which only requires a majority vote to pass a bill. It looks something like this: “The House and Senate pass the budget resolution in the spring of each year. It is a budget blueprint which Congress imposes on itself, and which establishes the rules that limit how much various committees can spend in the legislation they produce. A budget resolution can contain one (or in rare cases, up to three) reconciliation instruction(s). Reconciliation instructions create reconciliation bills.” I’m not sure who this guy is, but he gives a great and complete definition at http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/what-is-reconciliation/.
So, for this reconciliation bill to pass at all the healthcare bill would first have to become a reconciliation bill. Then, the House Democrats would have to approve the Senate version of the bill. And then there’s the minor detail of the underlying shadiness of the whole thing. All I can say is that if the Dems want to go down that road in an election year, they better do a fantastic job of communicating what the heck they’re doing to the public and why it has to be that way.
If you’d like to watch the six hour summit it will be streaming live from http://www.foxnews.com/ and will re-air on CSPAN and CSPAN-2 after the House and Senate adjourn for the day.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Conservative Political Action Conference Lives Again!
This last weekend saw the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (more commonly known as CPAC) come and go. And boy was it exciting! Put on by the American Conservative Union, the conference hosts approximately 10,000 attendees and boasts speakers such as John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, John Bolton, Gov Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, George Will, Ann Coulter, Liz Cheney, Tucker Carlson, and this year’s keynote speaker: Glenn Beck.
The mission of the conference? Well, after perusing the website, I’m not too sure, but if you can figure it out by all means please let me know: http://www.cpac.org/
Some of it sounds pretty scary, some of it sounds downright infuriating, but mostly it sounds like celebrities playing to the crowd. Listen to some of the speeches for yourself and let me know what you think (If you can handle a whole speech, I will be very impressed. I can only make it through about 45 seconds at a time.). Enjoy! (Or at least, please don’t cry.)
Glenn Beck - Part 1 of 6:
Ann Coulter:
Liz & Dick Cheney - Part 1 of 2:
Newt Gingrich - Part 1 of 3:
Ron Paul:
The mission of the conference? Well, after perusing the website, I’m not too sure, but if you can figure it out by all means please let me know: http://www.cpac.org/
Some of it sounds pretty scary, some of it sounds downright infuriating, but mostly it sounds like celebrities playing to the crowd. Listen to some of the speeches for yourself and let me know what you think (If you can handle a whole speech, I will be very impressed. I can only make it through about 45 seconds at a time.). Enjoy! (Or at least, please don’t cry.)
Glenn Beck - Part 1 of 6:
Ann Coulter:
Liz & Dick Cheney - Part 1 of 2:
Newt Gingrich - Part 1 of 3:
Ron Paul:
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
OOoooohh! Drah-mah in the Courtroom!
And the Proposition 8 drama continues! A little over a week ago, two San Francisco Chronicle writers did the (almost) unthinkable. They outed Judge Vaughn Walker, the U.S. District Judge who is currently hearing arguments in the Proposition 8 case. (To read the original article, go here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker)
Now, I don’t know if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, but the phrase “conflict of interest” somehow leaps to mind. On the other hand, Judge Walker was appointed to his current position by President Bush Sr, implying that he is, by nature, conservative leaning. But again, if you’ll recall from my blog last month (because I know you hang on every word I’ve ever written!) gay marriage could actually be a conservative issue. Man, that sounds like a double whammy.
So with the news that’s new to all of us, will the judge remove himself from hearing the case? HA! Not surprisingly, anti-prop 8-ers claim that this is a non-issue and many cite a case he took as a private attorney on behalf of the U.S. Olympic Committee to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from using the name. The U.S. Olympic Committee won the case and consequently, Judge Walker, “pissed off a lot of gay people” (http://sfist.com/2010/02/08/prop_8_trial_judge_is_gay_should_th.php)
As you might imagine, the other side of the courtroom has a lot to say about it:
''Walker's entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.'' - Ed Whelan, National Review’s The Corner
''At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.'' And ''This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case.'' – Matt Barber, The Liberty Counsel (By the way, avid gun collectors DO occasionally preside over Second Amendment cases without any violation of the rules of judicial conduct.)
Walker is ''far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.'' – Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage.
I have to admit that I don’t know much about the rules of judicial conduct, but I do know that if I was for Proposition 8 and it was struck down by a gay judge, you better believe it would be the first (and maybe only) thing I would point to on appeal. And I would really hate to see a ruling as important as this one overturned by a higher court because of a technicality.
Now, I don’t know if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, but the phrase “conflict of interest” somehow leaps to mind. On the other hand, Judge Walker was appointed to his current position by President Bush Sr, implying that he is, by nature, conservative leaning. But again, if you’ll recall from my blog last month (because I know you hang on every word I’ve ever written!) gay marriage could actually be a conservative issue. Man, that sounds like a double whammy.
So with the news that’s new to all of us, will the judge remove himself from hearing the case? HA! Not surprisingly, anti-prop 8-ers claim that this is a non-issue and many cite a case he took as a private attorney on behalf of the U.S. Olympic Committee to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from using the name. The U.S. Olympic Committee won the case and consequently, Judge Walker, “pissed off a lot of gay people” (http://sfist.com/2010/02/08/prop_8_trial_judge_is_gay_should_th.php)
As you might imagine, the other side of the courtroom has a lot to say about it:
''Walker's entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.'' - Ed Whelan, National Review’s The Corner
''At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.'' And ''This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case.'' – Matt Barber, The Liberty Counsel (By the way, avid gun collectors DO occasionally preside over Second Amendment cases without any violation of the rules of judicial conduct.)
Walker is ''far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.'' – Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage.
I have to admit that I don’t know much about the rules of judicial conduct, but I do know that if I was for Proposition 8 and it was struck down by a gay judge, you better believe it would be the first (and maybe only) thing I would point to on appeal. And I would really hate to see a ruling as important as this one overturned by a higher court because of a technicality.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Colorado Loves California, How Sweet (not really)
Everyone I talk to seems to be at least mildly aware that California is not the most business-friendly of states. And I’m not surprised, given our current state of budget imbalance, constant bickering, and general partisanship, that everyone knows this is a bad time to be a business in this state.
Other states, if they were smart, would definitely make a move to steal some of those businesses right out from under us. Well, last week Colorado finally got smart. Governor Bill Ritter declared last Friday to be, “Colorado loves California day!” Cute Bill, very cute. The announcement though was actually driven by the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp (MDEDC), and you can check out their Colorado loves California website right here: http://www.colovesca.com/
In an effort to take their message to the streets, 20 Colorado-ians dressed up as Cupid invaded downtown Los Angeles on Friday (wings and all) and handed out chocolates. (They call them “love ambassadors” at the MDEDC.) Here are some of the “auditions” (can we say so staged?) to become a cupid:
On a more serious note though, should California be seriously worried that business is going to start migrating elsewhere? Quite possibly. Joining Colorado’s campaign are several other states including Nevada and Arizona who claim that businesses have already reached out to them with questions about tax rates and other expenses.
Tina Sumner, an economic-development director from the city of Clovis even commented on meeting another economic-development official from Phoenix in a Sacramento Bee article last year, “One of the things that struck me was how enthusiastic he was about how easy the pickings were, for taking businesses from California and bringing them over to Arizona. He was kind of almost giddy.” (http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1994615.html?mi_rss=Business) Yikes.
In fact, to make matters worse, non-profit organization The Tax Foundation ranked California in the bottom 5 (yea, we’re 47 out of 50) in their 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). The index is based on five factors: corporate income tax rates, individual income tax rates, sales tax rates, property tax rates, and unemployment insurance tax rates (this last one is the one that really hit California where it hurts). To read more about the SBTCI check out their site: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25212.html.
Other states, if they were smart, would definitely make a move to steal some of those businesses right out from under us. Well, last week Colorado finally got smart. Governor Bill Ritter declared last Friday to be, “Colorado loves California day!” Cute Bill, very cute. The announcement though was actually driven by the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp (MDEDC), and you can check out their Colorado loves California website right here: http://www.colovesca.com/
In an effort to take their message to the streets, 20 Colorado-ians dressed up as Cupid invaded downtown Los Angeles on Friday (wings and all) and handed out chocolates. (They call them “love ambassadors” at the MDEDC.) Here are some of the “auditions” (can we say so staged?) to become a cupid:
On a more serious note though, should California be seriously worried that business is going to start migrating elsewhere? Quite possibly. Joining Colorado’s campaign are several other states including Nevada and Arizona who claim that businesses have already reached out to them with questions about tax rates and other expenses.
Tina Sumner, an economic-development director from the city of Clovis even commented on meeting another economic-development official from Phoenix in a Sacramento Bee article last year, “One of the things that struck me was how enthusiastic he was about how easy the pickings were, for taking businesses from California and bringing them over to Arizona. He was kind of almost giddy.” (http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1994615.html?mi_rss=Business) Yikes.
In fact, to make matters worse, non-profit organization The Tax Foundation ranked California in the bottom 5 (yea, we’re 47 out of 50) in their 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). The index is based on five factors: corporate income tax rates, individual income tax rates, sales tax rates, property tax rates, and unemployment insurance tax rates (this last one is the one that really hit California where it hurts). To read more about the SBTCI check out their site: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25212.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
