Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Dave Wellenbrock Taking a deeper look at why Feinstein, Pelosi and McNerney prevailed

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Dave Wellenbrock

Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:14 am | Updated: 12:54 pm, Sat Nov 17, 2012.

Joe Guzzardi wrote a recent column for this paper entitled, “As California’s ship sinks, why do voters back Pelosi, Feinstein and McNerney?” Unfortunately, it is not a thoughtful piece. Maybe examination of the piece can help to inform our public debate and point to ways to improve it.

First, the question is skewed. It presupposes that the federal government is the reason that California is in fiscal, economic and social trouble. Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry McNerney are federal legislators, not California legislators.

It is not evident — nor widely believed — that california’s trouble are the result of federal legislation. indeed, as a number of states are doing pretty well, it would seem that the evidence is that states with our sorts of trouble got themselves into in largely on their own. this seems evident by looking at our state: We over-spent, we have had a dysfunctional Legislature, and we have a skewed tax system, among other problems.

Further on this, it seems a bit hubristic to say that two representatives out of some 400 and one senator out of 100 were able to rain the problems on California. They might have voted for policies that are inept, but they had to have company. So if we are to skewer these legislators, then we ought to add an awful lot of names to the list of folks that should not have been re-elected.

Second, the evidence against Pelosi, Feinstein, and McNerney is not well-marshalled. These legislators “all have egregious anti-American voting records.” These anti-American records, in the article, are having a differing view on immigration.

Having differing views is particularly American; the right to have differing views is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the listed differing views have wide support; a lot of Americans support those particular immigration policies. Whether they are good social policies is subject to debate; the right to have differing views is not subject to debate. And holding those differing views does not make one “anti-American.” There are differing views of the American Dream.

Indeed, there are good cases to be made against the three. For example, Pelosi did not do much about working on compromise while she was Speaker of the House. Further, when the previous farm bill came up, she brokered a deal to add certain California crops to the subsidy list as her price for getting the bill through, even though the crops were not in need of support and there was little push to have the subsidies. That is a principled reason to oppose her, but it is unmentioned.

Third, the re-election is attributed to some unfathomable “etched-in-stone resistance to voting for the other guy once in a while.” This reflects a fairly abysmal view of the voters of California, or at least of those who happen to support these three.

To be consistent, the list needs expansion. Tom McClintock was returned by a hefty margin, even though he was in the House while California was sinking. He should be there. My guess is that McClintock is not on the list because he does not support those anti-American immigration policies.

It is American right to rail against those in elected office. But the public debate is best furthered when the railings are principled and supported by persuasive arguments and facts.

If mr. guzzardi wants to know why mcnerney and pelosi and feinstein were re-elected, it would be better to examine the issue more closely. in the recent election, the opponents were not heavyweights. but it would be informative to try to determine why tom campbell, a very viable candidate, was defeated for the united state senate. he had well-presented positions on significant issues facing the united states. i was never convinced that those positions were adequately considered by the public. if they were so considered and he was defeated, that is the american way: We get to select our social policies.

But if they were not considered adequately, this is tragic. And the source of the tragedy is that we have debased our public debate by not considering the facts, by not making clear arguments, and by mis-characterizing the opposition.

Dave Wellenbrock of Lodi is an attorney.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

46 comments:

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:47 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I predicted that at least one right-wing poster in this forum would jump off the fiscal cliff when President Obama was re-elected.

    I WAS surprised to find who it was and to what extent he has become fiscally unsound.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:45 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Any topic can have the facts cherry-picked, as below from

    http://documents.bayareacouncil.org/acaeconimpact.pdf

    "On net, this analysis suggests that uponfull implementation in California, the Affordable Care Act will have a positive impact on California’s
    economy with variation across regions based largely on their socioeconomic makeup. Full implementation of the Affordable Care Act as compared to the non-reform scenario in 2010 would have resulted in 98,861 new jobs in California (a 0.6% increase in total employment) and $4.4 billion in additional gross state output.
    These results vary significantly by region, however. The bulk of the new jobs, 57,699, would be created.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:16 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Pat stated...This is true...except when you do it here in the LNS. If they don't like what you write your posts are pulled and no explanation is given.

    I am not sure, but I perceive LNS is attempting to set standards of discourse and civility. I perceive they remove posts they perceive may lead to other inappropriate posts.

    Unfortunately, there is little consistency and many removals appear inexplicable. I have seen some of my posts removed where upon reflection, I could understand. Others, not so. I'm still waiting to detect a pattern.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:58 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff, every comment I have ever stated that was about you was a direct response to what you threw my way. I asked you for an apology well over a year ago and your response was... for what? Until you apologize for intentionally attempting to belittle me by calling me a plagiarist, I will treat you as a malicious person with intent to harm me. For example...you attacked me first in this thread. “snicker”.. I responded in like kind. Had you not attacked me, I would not have responded. I always respond in like kind .

    Lastly, I have great respect for teachers. I appreciate the hard work and dedication to educating children. I do have concerns that your propensity to make fun of conservatives and have a far left perspective might influence how you guide your students.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:47 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I have to praise Mr Chang... he at least is honest and admits he sleeps through reality instead of distort it. His way is honest compared to the typical liberal on this thread.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:20 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1151

    [sleeping][yawn][sleeping]

    ZZZZZZzzzzzz......


     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:00 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    DB: "Exposing liberals as dishonest is very easy to do as all I need do is post truth to contrast with their statements."

    This is true...except when you do it here in the LNS. If they don't like what you write your posts are pulled and no explanation is given. IF a person writes something so agregious that it must be removed without giving an explanation the removal seems to be a form of journalism practiced by ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN as well as the bo administration...Benghazi anyone?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:46 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    BS[thumbdown]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:40 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Exposing liberals as dishonest is very easy to do as all I need do is post truth to contrast with their statements. Unfortunately, I need to take a hot bath 3 times a day with plenty of bleach to kill the germs they give me when I rub shoulders with this kind of vile ugliness.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:31 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    FEINSTEIN:
    Senator Feinstein is introducing legislation that will essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government.

    “Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to say, once again, in legislation, weapons of war do not belong on our streets…” September 5, 2012

    The amendment added to the Cybersecurity Bill was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

    S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

    The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg.

    Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
    [sleeping]

    PELOSI:
    In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech of corporations is protected by the First Amendment. Corporations that produce political books, documentaries, and other materials have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.

    Pelosi and the Democrats want a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling.
    [sleeping]
    http://www.infowars.com/nancy-pelosi-wants-to-amend-the-first-amendment/

    Lastly Ms. Bobin, Where did I say I was "blaming" McNerny for the NDAA. I merely pointed out that he voted in favor of it. [sleeping]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:04 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    An ultra liberal distorter states...Let me clarify... In liberal speak, this means, let me distort to cover my tracks...

    this liberal distorter wants people to believe … "reading between the lines" is synonymous with "critical thinking.. but of course, this is distortion at it's most ugly state.

    How convenient that this liberal states what she/it wants the reader to assume, that somehow, inserting something completely different than was actually stated some how translates into intellectual activity.
    No.. it is obvious that this liberal was inserting her/it's intentional distortion which in no way reflects reality... this liberal should be red faced but in all reality enjoys the distortion.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:24 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Continued re liberal calling me a liar...

    In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars. That is a very low estimate.

    Obamacares unfunded mandates are a fiscal time bomb set to explode state balance sheets across the country starting in 2014. States can prepare for the worst by slashing discretionary spending where possible and lowering existing health care costs by repealing their own burdensome health benefit mandates. But the only real solution is full repeal of Obamacare.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:20 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Continued re liberal calling me a liar...

    But that is just the benefit costs. Obamacare does not pay for any of the costs necessary to administer the expansion of the Medicaid rolls, rolls that are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent in states like Nevada, Oregon, and Texas. The Heritage Foundations Ed Haislmaier and Brian Blase found that just the administrative costs of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion will cost almost $12 billion by 2020. Some states are beginning to add the benefit and administrative costs together, and the picture isnt pretty:

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:19 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "what is being proposed by Feinstein?"

    Do you mean "Citizens United v. FEC?" The SC ruling that has allowed millions of dollars to be contributed to campaigns by anonymous donors?

    I'm surprised that one who has a dedication to conspiracy theories would be pro that ruling. But then again, it could provide endless foder for conspiracies.

    The NDAA was passed in the REPUBLICAN DOMINATED HOUSE by 283-136.

    And you are blaming Jerry McNerny?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:18 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    A liberal contributor on this thread accused me of being a liar because I stated that medicaid would dramatically effect California's financial stability because of Obamacare.
    Really?
    Well let's examine what a variety of states are saying.

    Facing a $25 billion deficit for their next two-year budget cycle, Texas lawmakers are considering closing the gap by dropping out of Medicaid. This system is bankrupting our state, State Representative Warren Chisum told The New York Times. We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall were anticipating, we may have to act this year, he said.

    And Texas is not alone. American Legislative Exchange Council director of the health and human services Christie Herrera tells NYT: States feel like their backs are against the wall, so this is the nuclear option for them. Im hearing below-the-radar chatter from legislators around the country from states considering this option.
    Medicaid already eats up a huge share of state budgets. In Texas, for example, more than 20 percent of the state budget is spent on Medicaid. The crisis facing states across the country is that Obamacare forces states to massively expand their already burdensome Medicaid rolls. Starting in 2014 states must expand Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals with family incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. At first, Obamacare picks up the first three years of benefit costs for expansion. But in 2017 states begin to shoulder a larger and larger share of these benefit costs, maxing out at 10 percent by 2020.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:09 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote; "How telling it is when thoughtless liberals admit that their reality is based on what is written between the lines and not the lines themselves... no wonder so many conservatives are befuddled when attempting to comprehend liberal think..."

    Let me clarify, Mr. Baumbach - "reading between the lines" is synonomous with "critical thinking." In order to analyze a piece of writing, one must exercise critical thinking skills. It is no wonder that the Republican Party in Texas advocates eliminating courses in critical thinking skills in public schools. How damaging would it be to have a population that could actually THINK and be able to figure out what they were up to.

    Joe Guzzardi writes TWO types of columns primarily: sports related and anti-immigration. It doesn't take a genius to be able to figure out his agenda in all of his columns.

    By his own words he has stated that he has "studied immigration policy for 25 years." He belongs to and writes for an organization called 'Californians for Population Stabilization," which is funded at least in part by Richard Mellon Scaife, a prominent right-wing billionaire who is the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

    Here is the Trib's website: http://triblive.com/x

    Go to the "Search" box and type in "Joe Guzzardi." See how many columns are written by Joe Guzzardi for that publication and how many LTE's he has written that are anti-immigration.

    Get to know the person you are blindly defending and realize that mocking those who know his agenda is just plain silly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:47 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Ingram stated......and these new laws we vote on, how can we make an informed decision when we can't read and understand the document and the titles often are complete BS designed to obscure the real intent...

    Well said Mr Ingram.

    To add to your thought, even lawyers have a difficult time. Who can forget the famous quote from Nancy Pelosi ... "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it ( re: The Affordable Care Act).. If the people who vote to make legislation law do not know what it is they are voting on, how is it possible to have laws that are intended to be in our best interest.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:33 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I liberal stated...Peddler - from Dictionary.com:"a person who tries to promote some cause, candidate, viewpoint, etc. "

    Clearly, when one is addressing a person that they consider
    a bad influence, and referrs to that person as a liar as well as many other derogatory names, the term peddler takes on a drastically different meaning...

    A peddler, is also known as a , cheapjack and monger with a significant negative connotation as if the person' s intent is to hustle or take advantage of people in pure selfish way that cross their path.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:19 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    What is being proposed by Feinstein is the most significant attack on the second amendment in history. [sleeping]

    Pelosi wants a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens vs. FEC. [sleeping]

    McNerney voted for the NDAA. [sleeping]

    Willfully ignorant mentally oblivious individuals re-elect these people.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:18 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    A liberal posted...I'm sorry that you do not have the ability to read between the lines...

    How telling it is when thoughtless liberals admit that their reality is based on what is written between the lines and not the lines themselves... no wonder so many conservatives are befuddled when attempting to comprehend liberal think... I am very appreciative that this posting brought to light how liberals find "facts"... they simply look between the lines and fill it in with whatever material they wish it to be.

    I finally am getting it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:04 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Maple - if we didn't know any better, one would think that you were about 5 years old.

    PS - the maximum unemployment benefit is $450 per week and one would have to have been making over $46,000 per year to be awarded that amount.

    The initial UI award is not guaranteed for any extensions and usually declines.

    A person making $8/hr (minimum wage) at a full time job would be entitled to $161 per week. Hardly a windfall.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:59 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    One might think an educated person such as Mr Tillet would articulate a point....or is there one?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:54 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Thank you for invoking my name, Mr. Docktor, but I have no idea what you are referring to.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:51 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Yes, Mr. Baumbach, your statements are less than truthful.

    California currently ponies up 40% of the annual Medi Cal budget. 100% Federal Funding for 6 years will provide some relief. In 2020, when the states cut is 10%, even with increased enrollment California will be a better in a better situation than the current 40% - which, by the way, does not INCLUDE the amount of money the state pays for people who do not qualify for Medi Cal, but end up in the ER and cannot pay.

    The new Medi Cal program - with expanded coverage to include those not eligible now - will be very different.

    I know that YOU are not aware of the intricacies, so your statements are based solely on emotion and a desire to fabricate the "facts" to bolster your arguement.

     
  • Bobcatbob Ingram posted at 9:51 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    99er Posts: 119

    Thanks for the post Dave and from what I know You are correct.

    Another problem You brought up was 'our very system' and how can 'we' the average citizen know 'who to blame' when things fall apart. Yes, I agree the real problem lies with the guy in the mirror, but how can we the voters know who is on 'our side' with this 2 party system which never allows us to finger as to who is the real hero, etc.

    ...and these new laws we vote on, how can we make an informed decision when we can't read and understand the document and the titles often are complete BS designed to obscure the real intent.

    Here's 3 solutions to handle ;
    1.Change the 2 party system voting to elect only 1 party, from the pres to the local dog catcher, 1 party....(then We KNOW what party to blame)

    2. Always vote NO on ANY new law, IF YOU can't understand it. (instantly new bills and proposal will be simply worded)

    3. Allow the CHIEF, may they be, Mayor or Governor or President to have line item veto ( to allow us to know what human to blame)

    I have faith if the American people know and understand the facts they will make proper choices.

    I realize there are probably 1000's of reasons why those proposals of mine are to liberal, to conservative, to socialistic and probably someone could prove those ideas are a lot like Hitlers ! So if You are going to 'prove' me wrong go ahead and when You done please show us how really intelligent You are by suggesting something better.
    Respectfully
    CW-2 Ingram (retired)

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Peddler - from Dictionary.com:

    "a person who tries to promote some cause, candidate, viewpoint, etc. "

    Sounds quite inoffensive as opposed to inferring that someone is addicted to a particular substance.

    I think the editor's judgment was most appropriate.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:37 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    /snicker

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:23 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I'm sorry that you do not have the ability to read between the lines, or at least have ANY knowledge of Joe Guzzardi's writings.

    Joe Guzzardi places California's decline squarely on the backs of immigrants and illegal immigrants who are purportedly sucking up all of the resources.

    One would just be silly to imagine that the quote above was written just to illustrate a few Census statistics.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:53 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    After reading Mr Chaney's post above which only has intent to antagonize and mischaracterize, no other value whatsoever, it is obvious Lodi News Sentinel does not desire free speech to respond in like kind. Interesting or would not ave deleted my response.

    You would think if the intent of censorship in this case is to keep civility and quality of content appropriate, it would delete the post at 8:31 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012. Calling someone a peddler is about as insulting and derogatory comment as I can imagine. Saying someone has fallen off the wagon as a reason for calling someone a peddler is actually more kind that saying his character is that bad to put someone down so badly.

    It makes me wonder about the perceptiveness of the editor.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:12 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Pennsylvania

    2012 Election results - Republicans 13 seats, Democrats 5 seats. Votes cast: Republican - 2,642,952, Democrat - 2,710,827

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania,_2012

    previous reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:09 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Regarding the recent elections, more votes were cast for Democrats. Interesting how the votes could swing (mildly, yes) one way, yet the seats swing dramatically the other. Can anyone say "Gerrymandering"? Just look at how the GOP changed Pennsylvania districts... abhorrent misuse of power.
    Last election 242 seats,[1] 51.4%[2] 193 seats,[1] 44.8%[2]
    Seats before 240 (since July 31, 2012) 190 (since August 15, 2012)
    Seats won 234[3] 199[3]
    Seat change Decrease 8 Increase 6

    Popular vote 53,822,442[4] 54,301,095[5]
    Percentage 48.2%[6] 49.0%[7]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:58 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    dont lie Ms Bobin... you cannot post one lie since there are none.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:55 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    More evidence that radical liberals rarely are truthful or coherent.

    A liberal wrote...I think that this column was very thoughtful in its consideration of Joe Guzzardi's column - what was missed by Mr. Wellenbrock, however, was the realization that the entire column was aimed at FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY and nothing else

    but in reality, Mr Guzzadi wrote...
    According to Census Bureau statistics, more than 6.1 million Californians live in poverty, putting the state's poverty rate at 16.6 percent, up nearly 1 percent from 2011. A family of two adults and two children counts as poor when its combined income is less than $22,811. Welfare usage including food stamps is on the rise. More than 25 percent of all California households depend on at least one welfare program.
    To re-elect and send back to Washington, D.C. the same congressional representatives who have presided over California's slow but steady decline into the fiscal abyss is the definition of lunacy.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 8:31 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    advocate Posts: 502

    After reading Mr. Baumbach's latest tirade, I know why there are few, if any, insurance peddlers in the business of politics.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 8:29 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    advocate Posts: 502

    And now Ami Berra defeating Mr. Lundgren suggests that many voters are getting fed up with the same old obstructionists' agenda. Although I did vote for Mr. Lundgren because he's always had a past record that I've always followed and thought he would win by a landslide. I think the voters are saying that it's time to work together and partisan politics will no longer be tolerated. The midterm elections in 2014 will tell the real story.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:56 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin was kind enough to substantiate my claim. State finances are already in shambles. After millions enroll and California must pay a minimum 10% ( will be increased as shortages are incurred), it will cause terrible economic consequences

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:32 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    msb: I see you are offended that I left you out....therefore in fairness I will amend my statement and include you as a pelosi type person. Your fake outrage should be aimed at your belove bo...you know the moron that feigned outrage at McCain and Graham when they dissed rice bowl...where was the outrage against the deaths of the four in Benghazi??

    Poor woman...someone asked her a hard question...one she did not answer. mr chivalry came to her rescue. However, the greater question to you msb..WHERE is YOUR outrage at the murders...and your outrage at bo because he is being so transpaque??? Just another Demophony!!!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:34 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Just cannot get off the misinformation train...................

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "states will be forced to pay a large percentage of millions of new Medicaid participants costs that may bankrupt our state."

    From Medicaid.gov:

    Financing

    Coverage for the newly eligible adults will be FULLY FUNDED by the federal government for three years, beginning in 2014, phasing down to 90% by 2020. Authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is extended through 2019 and funding is currently authorized through 2015. Additional federal funding for state Medicaid programs is also available for primary care, preventive care, community based long-term services and supports, and new demonstrations to improve quality and re-engineer delivery systems.

    Federal Funding for Newly Eligible Medicaid and CHIP Enrollees and for certain adults in expansion states:

    Most states that had previously expanded coverage for low-income adults will also receive an increased federal matching rate (which will phase up to 90 percent by 2020). Also offering states a choice of new approaches for how they can accurately access new federal funding for newly eligible individuals.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:26 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Wellenbrock wrote: "if they were so considered and he was defeated, that is the american way: We get to select our social policies."

    I must disagree with this statement. We DON'T get to select our social policies - we only get to select representatives who we BELIEVE are in line with our positions on social policy.

    That is why so many Republicans were either defeated or replaced this election cycle.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:12 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Interesting that, once again, Mr. Maple cannot write a single comment without the use of the word "moron."

    That explains a lot more than anyone would think or imagine.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:11 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Romney ran stating Obama would make job growth fail and that he(Romney) would create 12 million jobs nationally ( that includes California I believe)."

    Job creation is not Joe Guzzardi's point or his concern. His point, as he clearly stated in his column, was that FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY (which he wrongly believes Pelosi, Feinstein, and McNerny have pushed) regarding the high tech industry and agriculture specifically, is stealing American jobs.

    From Guzzardi's column:

    "They've lobbied for more foreign-born workers in the high-tech and agriculture industries, despite California's surplus of labor in both fields. Even though university tuition in California has soared in recent years, Pelosi, Feinstein and McNerney support the federal and state DREAM Acts that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to pay lower in-state tuition. To Pelosi, Feinstein and McNerney, border enforcement is a meaningless term that they've falsely dangled as a carrot in exchange for an alien amnesty."

    Mr. Baumbach wrongly concludes that "most California voters cast their ballet (sic) based on the letter "D" that was by their name..."

    Unless Mr. Baumbach has some overwhelming evidence to support such a supercilious conclusion, then he certainly should let us know what that is.

    Otherwise he is in the same category as Willard Mitt Romney who just yesterday, concluded:

    “The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:11 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Unfortunately, Mr Wellenbrock did not submit a thoughtful or accurate piece."

    I think that this column was very thoughtful in its consideration of Joe Guzzardi's column - what was missed by Mr. Wellenbrock, however, was the realization that the entire column was aimed at FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY and nothing else - except perhaps that Guzzardi thinks Pelosi and Feinstein are too old to think intelligently about public policy.

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "It presupposes that Mr. Guzzardi questioned the voters wisdom of backing Pelosi, Feinstein and McNerney based of their powers to affect federal legislation that has nothing to do with California's economic plight.. Clearly that is an absurd and thoughtless conclusion."

    It is not "clearly..an absurd and thoughtless conclusion." What Joe Guzzardi was griping about was federal policy - again - specifically - IMMIGRATION POLICY.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:03 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Krengel... Since I cannot find one item I consider factual, and since you claim I am not being factual, maybe you could itemize what you feel are facts. Certainly, you could not think it factual that California voters in general actually vote for federal politicians based only on Federal issues? You could not possibly consider it a fact that California's economic problems are independent and unaffected significantly by Federal legislation as Mr Wellenbrock suggests?

    One recent example is the Affordable Care Act of 2010 which effects about 1/6th of our entire economy. This legislation without doubt effects every state in a serious way economically as states will be forced to pay a large percentage of millions of new Medicaid participants costs that may bankrupt our state. That is a fact. There are thousands of federal mandates and regulations that effect California's economy. There are many Federal policies that effect California's economy such as tariffs levied on international trade... such as immigration rules and regulations. I wonder if the Dream Act effects California?

    Mr Wellenbrock stated... It is not evident — nor widely believed — that California’s troubles are the result of federal legislation. indeed, as a number of states are doing pretty well, it would seem that the evidence is that states with our sorts of trouble got themselves into in largely on their own.

    An objective observer after careful consideration would without doubt dismiss his perception as unreasonable and thoughtless.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:53 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrk: What I call "I would call absurd and thoughtless." is the fact that the Federal and State govs keep taking more and more of the money I earn from working 60 to 80 hours a week (as well as the money earned by the 12 peole I employ) and giving it to people who do not, will not and frankly don't care to work. THAT is absurd!

    I get a kick (depressive) out of the people who lable themselves unable to work because their foot hurts all the while watching the GIs coming back from combat who are missing missing arms and legs asking me for a job roofing!!!

    All of the morons mentioned in mrw's letter got re-elected for the same reason BO was re-elected...class warfare...and those who voted for him didn't want to give of their current freebies and those he promised they would get in the near future.

    Darrell: The "logical" people you address can't even spell logic.

     
  • Pete Krengel posted at 9:34 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Petermark Posts: 5

    I would personally like to thank Dave Wellenbrock for his well thought out response to a skewered and poorly researched editorial from Mr. Guzzardi.No need to go over again the well stated rebuttal by Mr Wellenbrock. His last statement , "if they were not considered adequately, this is tragic" Mr Guzzardi and even Darrell your weekly rants often do not consider the facts, do not make clear arguments and yes mis-characterize the opposition again and again.

    Calling voters stupid or Anti-American is what I would call absurd and thoughtless. Lets try to elevate the discussion beyond name calling. As of late that seems to be Mr Guzzardi's only avenue of discussion. Perhaps he and his editorial are close to retirement as the American voter in 2012 has called for persuasive arguments supported by facts and not unprincipled, derogatory comments .

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:29 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Letter stated... It is not evident — nor widely believed — that California's trouble are the result of federal legislation. indeed, as a number of states are doing pretty well, it would seem that the evidence is that states with our sorts of trouble got themselves into in largely on their own.

    Unfortunately, Mr Wellenbrock did not submit a thoughtful or accurate piece. It presupposes that Mr. Guzzardi questioned the voters wisdom of backing Pelosi, Feinstein and McNerney based of their powers to affect federal legislation that has nothing to do with California's economic plight.. Clearly that is an absurd and thoughtless conclusion.

    The Obama campaign ran on job creation and legislation that would improve every states economy. Romney ran stating Obama would make job growth fail and that he(Romney) would create 12 million jobs nationally ( that includes California I believe).

    Clearly, the California voter voted for California candidates they felt would support the vision and policies both candidates and parties were promoting. Obviously, most California voters cast their ballet based on the letter “D” that was by the name of the candidate no matter if they were state or Federal candidates. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but examining issues has absolutely nothing to do with why most people voted for anyone.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 21 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: What is President Obama thinkin…

If everything said about Portal is correct, it is most difficult to bypass the Rev. Wright, I do recall Barry dumping him for various re…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Kamran A.

article: Lodi Citizens in Action to discuss Shar…

Ok, I'll play along... Let's have you really smart person explain to us how me (or anyone else) having a particular belief is "insult…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Mike Adams.

article: Steve Hansen: Over-regulated medication…

You ever price eye drops prior to some sort of opthalmic procedure? For a 0.10 ml bottle of something you can't ever use again? They've g…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: What is President Obama thinkin…

Apparently Ron Portal does not believe bearing false witness is a sin or, more likely, he feels his God hates all the same people he does, …

More...

Posted Yesterday by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: What is President Obama thinkin…

Let us give thanks today. Thanks for an especially angry rant from a crackpot who gets his views of the world from fox news, rush limbaugh…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

CREATE AN EVENT

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists