McGoldrick’s “Congestion Pricing Plan” Really Means “TAX!”

San Francisco Board of Stupidvisor Jake McGoldrick is at it again.

In a guest column in the May 15th issue of the San Francisco Examiner, he asks people to keep an “open mind” about congestion pricing. Congestion what? Let me explain.

Congestion pricing is basically a user fee (read: tax) on drivers to drive on a city’s most congested streets. They use transponders to collect fees in much the same way that FastTrak works at the bridge toll plazas around the San Francisco Bay Area. The money raised theoretically is used to make improvements to the local transportation systems and other necessary public works projects.

This was a topic that came up last year in 2005 that I didn’t blog about because I was too busy. At the time, McGoldrick proposed having toll roads in downtown San Francisco as a way to raise revenue for the city. Also at that time, I don’t recall him really saying anything about making improvements to our city’s streets, just that he wanted to charge a toll so that it would reduce downtown traffic.

When I first heard about it, my first thought was, “Is he nuts? Why would you want to charge people to drive on our city streets?”

I believed that it was a bad idea then and I still believe that it is bad even now. What this would most likely do is drive more people away from San Francisco because this is yet another tax/penalty/money grab from the city’s politicians who are such the typical Democrap. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. They never met a tax that they didn’t like, as long as it didn’t apply to them. This tax would hit everybody in their pocketbook at a time when they are already finding it difficult to make ends meet. Gas is already expensive, bridge tolls are going up, parking meters and parking fines are through the roof. Do you see the trend here? I’m sure the stupidvisors would want to have an exemption for themselves because they feel that it shouldn’t apply to them. After all, they’re more special than either you or I.

McGoldrick goes on to cite how this “strategy” has been successful in Singapore, London and Stockholm. Although it works, theoretically, on a sliding scale – higher during more congested commute hours, less or free at other times – it still means that people are being taxed on something that is a daily necessity and when there are already high taxes being levied on property and business owners alike.

In his column, he states that local efforts to improve the city’s transportation system isn’t keeping pace with increasing car ownership rates. “As a result, workers, visitors and goods vehicles waste valuable time and energy waiting in traffic, to the harm of our economy, environment and stress levels.” Is he trying to sound progressive now? If anything, he’s using doublespeak. I believe that the harm to our economy is from the fines and tariffs that the city is seeking to enact on motorists.

By charging people to drive through downtown San Francisco, it sends the message that San Francisco only wants their money and then for them to get the hell out. It is very anti-business and anti-social. Businesses will get tired of having to pay more to conduct business here in the city and regular citizens will not want to have anything to do with San Francisco because they already have to commute long distances only to be charged just to drive through the city. Does this sound progressive?

Part of the reason why there are so many extra cars on the city’s streets is because so many people have moved out of San Francisco to find affordable housing. They want to buy a home so that they can raise their families but also realize that they cannot do that in San Francisco. I have heard of people moving one and-a-half to two hours away from the San Francisco Bay Area and then having to make that god-awful commute just to go to work. People are forced to drive to their jobs, jobs that they can ill-afford to give up now. And now they may be faced with having to pay yet another “fee” just to go to work? Isn’t that a load of crap?

Again, gas isn’t cheap, the bridge tolls will be going up to four or five dollars for cars soon (never mind the multi-axle trucks), and then McGoldrick wants to charge people another fee when they get off of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge? Hogwash! This is the reason why I don’t vote for Democraps: They want to tax you for everything, they don’t want to reduce expenditures where it makes sense to, and they don’t do things to HELP people and business. Rather, they hurt people and business alike. When will they ever learn?

This is a direct quote from his guest column:

“As with anything that is overused — and underfunded — we must consider the possibility that the price of road use is too low. A congestion charge may sound costly and inequitable at first. However, a road user fee can actually re-balance the equation to make the current system less costly in terms of motorist delays, lost sales, efficient goods movement and environmental damage, and more equitable in terms of faster buses and safer streets for walking, cycling, and driving than the current system.

Experience around the world suggests that road user fees can be an effective way to improve a city’s accessibility, environmental quality and economic vitality. Traffic congestion is down 18 percent in London and 25 percent in Stockholm. Transit use is up, and the programs are generating significant revenues for transportation infrastructure development. London continues to thrive, and business sales in the Stockholm pricing zone are actually up 5 percent because drivers have to pay in both directions across the pricing cordon — making that trip to the suburbs less attractive than shopping locally near home.”

Again, he is forgetting the fact that people have moved out of San Francisco for the very reason that it is unattractive and unaffordable to be here at all in any capacity.

How about this for a thought? Why not lose some of the top-heavy managers in some departments so that we can save money there? This city has far too many managers for its own good. Also, what about those union positions? That’s what drives up the cost of running this city: Having to pay those expensive union pay scale jobs is draining the city of money that it could better spend on other areas such as repaving the roads, maintaining public safety and upgrading the infrastructure.

Also, for the places that he cites as having successful results from charging user fees to drive on the most congested roads, one must remember they are densely populated areas with a geography unlike here in the United States. Sweden is very mountainous, and so their population centers are different from what you find here. They tend to congregate on the shores and waterways. Also, with Singapore, for all its vaunted modernism and progressiveness, its development isn’t kept in check such that it keeps the infrastructure in balance with its growth.

Even by his own admission, we are very different:

“But in order to move ahead in this direction, we need to be sure that the San Francisco solution fits our congestion problem. Although several conditions suggest a pricing system may work well here, San Francisco’s congestion profile, transit system and role in the regional economy are quite different from other places where pricing has been implemented. We must be careful to take these considerations into account when designing and evaluating potential pricing alternatives.”

So what does he want to do? Spend money on a study to find out if this will actually work here or not. Gee, spend more money needlessly? Sounds like a plan so typical of liberals!

Why not use common sense and scrap the idea and find better ways to be EFFICIENT instead of WASTEFUL? I guess that would make too much sense for our city’s liberal leaders.

Phil Angelides Redux

Okay, so his campaign ads are on the air again. Big deal, yes and no. Yes, because this indicates that he’s got some more money so now he is trying to woo Democraps and the undecided voters to be on his side.

That’s all well and good for him, but he’s still a danger to Californians. By that, I mean that he will still raise your taxes “He is the only one who will fully fund education…” Yeah, by raising TAXES!

His current ad has talking heads that show a “police officer,” a “firefighter,” and shows “educators” who are for him because he will “do what’s right.” Translation: He is kowtowing to the unions so that they will back him. He even goes out of his way to tell us that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are backing him up. Of course! The two biggest Democraps outside of the Kennedy family would back him because they feel he’s the best choice for the job of governor.

I could hardly agree.

Just hearing their names being touted like that sounds like so much desperation. But, since he has their backing and Steve Westly doesn’t indicates that Westly will have a little bit of a challenge ahead of him before the June 6 elections.

But, if anybody out there has any inkling of common sense, they will see that Angelides is still running his campaign based on raising taxes on everybody instead of practicing fiscal responsibility. Gee, isn’t he our state’s treasurer? Shouldn’t he KNOW what fiscal responsibility means? Trying to get more money into the state just so that it can be squandered away by Democraps in the State Assembly by raising taxes shows little to no fiscal responsibility at all. In fact, it just highlights their tax and spend mentality.

While I would prefer neither Democrap candidate to win, I know that one must be chosen to face off against Arnold Schwarzenegger later on when voters decide who gets to be governor. They should probably choose Westly, if that’s even really a good choice at all. If the public has any common sense, they would choose Schwarzenegger because at least he is doing something in the public interest, not self-interest.

Arnold’s been trying to fix the systemic problems that currently ail our state – mainly, its spending problem. As he stated early on when he first took office after ousting Gray Davis, “The state doesn’t have a money problem, it has a spending problem.” A lot of the spending is going to pay for the union salaries that are sucking the life out of our state’s coffers.

It is here that Steve Westly, in his ads, says that he would audit state government to identify waste. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Schwarzenegger already did? And, as State Controller, shouldn’t he already be aware of that? Both he and State Treasurer Angelides? Are the two top contending Democrap candidates who are vying for the governor’s office really that stupid and clueless? They are in positions that require them to be aware of the state’s fiscal health and how our money is being spent. If they have to make empty promises and use slippery slope tactics to try and win voters, then neither of them should get the peoples’ vote, Arnold should get peoples’ votes!

Going back to Angelides: I really hope his daughters can look at themselves in the mirror after election day because I don’t see how they can support somebody who would want to raise taxes on everybody who is a property owner or a business owner. Sure, he’s their dad, but I think that dragging one’s family into the foray that is the political arena is really something that should be banned. I mean, how can they sleep at night knowing that their father is a tax and spend kind of guy?

Is their expensive college education paying off? I guess not! If they had any good sense, they’d politely decline and quietly support him from the sidelines. By putting themselves out there like that, they are making a definitive statement: We agree with our dad and feel that everybody should be taxed!

And, now that it is coming down to the wire for elections, they are getting nastier and more negative in their ads. Each candidate is slamming each other even though they are fairly similar. Either way, having a tax and spend candidate (Angelides) versus a millionaire who will try to buy his way to the governorship (Westly) just won’t bode well for Californians. What about Schwarzenegger, who has lots of money himself?

Don’t forget, dear reader, that he doesn’t really stand to gain much in the way of political capital because he’s not as entrenched as these other guys are. They have special interests and have a background of it. Westly is a businessman, so is Angelides, but he’s a developer. If anybody has interests to be beholden to, it would be those two. Schwarzenegger may have been an actor, but he’s also got the chops to do try and make things right. However, his job is hampered by the Democraps who don’t want to see that happen.

Even when Fabian Nunez and Don Perata showed up for a press conference to back Schwarzenegger on his budget compromise, they did so grudgingly. They didn’t actually care for Schwarzenegger’s plan. They’d rather see their (the Democraps) plans be in place, which means that Californians stand to lose a lot.

So, do your part and vote the way you choose to. That is your right that is afforded to you (as long as you are not a felon). But, if you don’t vote and you continue to bitch and moan about state government and this, that and the other thing, then I want you to wrap an entire roll of duct tape around your mouth. You should shut up and not piss and moan because YOU didn’t vote. You only added to the problem, you didn’t try to add anything to the democratic process of elections by adding your voice.

See you at the polls.

How To Inconvenience The City’s Constituents

You may or may not have heard in the news lately that the Board of Stupidvisors, in yet another display of their lack of wisdom, approved the six-month trial period for closure of John F. Kennedy Drive to cars in Golden Gate Park. This is, supposedly, for the benefit of all San Franciscans so that they can enjoy the park more like they do on Sundays.

A little backgrounder: Golden Gate Park’s John F. Kennedy Drive is currently closed on Sundays from the eastern edge (near the Panhandle) all the way down to Transverse Drive which is just past and below where Park Presidio/19th Avenue cut through the park for heavy traffic. The traffic flow goes on an overpass that John F. Kennedy Drive runs beneath.

The leftists are saying (and I’m paraphrasing here), “It’s for everybody!” However, the residents who live adjacent to the park and the attractions within the park are saying, “You’re hurting us more than you are helping us!” There was a representative from the Conservatory of Flowers who attended the meeting to say that attendance is always down on Sundays when the road is closed compared to other days of the week. Some residents were also in attendance to complain and to speak out against the idea of the closure. Of course, their pleas fell on deaf ears (because the liberal Democrap stupidvisors only listen to their supporters, not those whose opinions should matter more).

I took my son to the Conservatory of Flowers on April 19 and I saw the petition that they had out for visitors to sign if they were opposed to the park’s closure on Saturdays. From what I saw, even those visiting from out of state were opposed to the idea. But, more telling were the signatures from within the city and from around the San Francisco Bay Area. No specific addresses or phone numbers requested, but they did ask for your name, city and state. Generic stuff.

Because I missed the first round of meetings on the issue, I called the mayor’s office (mayor Gavin Newsom’s office is 415-554-6141) and voiced my opinion about the issue. I told them that, as a resident who lives near the park and who has to drive through the park, it was an inconvenience on the weekends because of the sheer number of cars in the vicinity.

The local news talked to both sides and aired their opinions. The person who was in favor of the closure said “The park is for everybody!” Like, there are no other places that people can enjoy in the city? Only leftist liberals and socialists would talk this way. This is not to say that most people are inherently selfish, but they have to exercise some common sense. If you have to go further out of your way to get through the park or to get into the park to see some of the attractions, then you have to think about how you are going to deal with this. That’s common sense, not socialist doctrine that says that everything has to be for everybody. There are plenty of things to see and do in the city that’s for everybody that won’t inconvenience other people.

There are those who feel that there aren’t enough places that are family-friendly for them to go to. Excuse me? Not enough places? I guess Ocean Beach isn’t good enough for them? You mean Yerba Buena Gardens near San Francisco’s Moscone Center is also inadequate? What about the restored wetlands near Crissy Field that took millions to accomplish? And what about Aquatic Park and the Jefferson Street Pier at the end of Van Ness Avenue? Still not enough places? I could go on!

I find it incredible that they can make such a bold statement on television when they are obviously blatantly lying. Yes, accusing them of lying is rather bold, but that’s how I see it.

How can they possibly say what they are saying with a straight face? There are plenty of options for families to enjoy themselves indoors and outdoors!

The other thing that strikes me about their perspective that it’s fine to close Golden Gate Park is that they most likely don’t live anywhere near the park and so the concerns that the rest of us have who DO live near the park don’t matter to them. Why should they care about the local residents’ woes? They don’t have to deal with the consequences of the closure, that’s why.

One resident who was interviewed put it very succinctly: “We don’t invite friends over on Sundays because they can’t find any parking around here.” How true it is! If you can’t park on the concourse or on JFK Drive inside the park, then you will have to park OUTSIDE in the residential areas. And, as any San Franciscan knows, parking is at a premium in the city. The closure compounds the problem by putting more cars on the streets and hogging up spaces where the residents who truly need the parking will now not be able to find an available spot because of the increased/overflowing capacity. Those people who don’t live in the area and come to visit the park are forced to walk into the park to get to their intended destinations.

When I thought about the petition at the Conservatory of Flowers and one of the representatives from said establishment, I fully understood what they were aiming at. I forget her name, but she said that the people who want to come and visit the attractions within the park, not just the Conservatory, will have a harder time accessing them. This includes the elderly and those with mobility issues.

Now, on that particular issue, I REALLY empathize because my father is a stroke patient and if we want to take him anywhere, it needs to be convenient for us to get him in and out. If we have to push him in his wheelchair for four or five blocks just to get to the entrance to the park, do you think we’re really going to want to stick around and do even MORE pushing up hills and for long distances when the handicapped parking places are much closer to the attractions we want to get to? The elderly will tire sooner and families/groups will just say “screw it” and go elsewhere. That representative from the conservatory also said that attendance drops severely on Sundays when they close the park to vehicular traffic.

Still don’t get it? Do the math: If you can’t get to the Conservatory of Flowers, the newly reopened De Young Museum and the Japanese Tea Garden, you’re not going to want to waste your time and gas hunting for parking. Gasoline isn’t cheap these days and time is also another premium these days. If you want people to come, then make it a hospitable environment and people will come!

While the roller skaters, bicyclists and other pedestrian traffic have been able to enjoy the park on Sundays, adding another day to that tally is going to make life more difficult for more people than it will satisfy on the weekends. Is that a fair or good trade off? I don’t think so.

Closing the park only to appease a (relatively) small group on the weekends will make a greater number of people very angry – myself included. Of course, the Board of Stupidvisors would want to vote for the closure because it will make them look like they are listening to the citizenry, looking out for their best interests and trying to make the city a family-friendly place. What they are actually doing is NOT listening to the citizenry who have to live AROUND or NEAR the park, looking out for their (the Stupidvisor’s, not the citizen’s) best interests and making our city a family- and parking-hostile environment.

Keep the park open on Saturdays!

Chris Daly’s Gun Ban – A VERY Bad Idea!

This is a blog entry that I didn’t have time to comment on when the issue first arose, and I am having a difficult time finding enough news articles to link to for your informational viewing. However, whatever I have been able to find, I am providing here for your perusal to help you to come to your own (logical) conclusion regarding this issue.

San Francisco stupidvisor Chris Daly spearheaded a ban on gun purchases and ownership, and the sale and manufacture of guns and ammunition in the San Francisco city limits in last November’s 2005 election that passed with 58% of the vote. It was known as Proposition H.

This article from the San Francisco Chronicle gives a little preface to what was to be expected come November 2005. It was reported by the Associated Press on 12/15/2004.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL

Here is a website that was established by those who are opposed to Proposition H:
http://www.sfgunban.com/

For the text of the November 2005 San Francisco voter pamphlet:
http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdffiles/November8_2005.pdf
[Note: I had to do a bit of searching through the City of San Francisco’s website at http://www.sfgov.org to get to where the voter pamphlet was located! Be sure to select Elections from the City Agencies drop-down menu in the upper left hand corner of the page.]

Although there were other liberal stupidvisors who co-sponsored the city’s ordinance, Chris Daly was the biggest proponent of this and so I pin much of the blame on him for putting forth such a dumb idea that tramples every citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms (excluding convicted criminals, of course).

What was his premise for the ordinance? If we banned all guns in the city (except for those who require the possession of firearms for their jobs such as police, security guards, etc.), then there would be less crime and less gun-related violence. Gosh, it’s so simple! It’s a great idea! How wonderful! WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, CHRIS DALY, UTOPIA?! GET A REALITY CHECK!

Daly, along with stupidvisors Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano and Matt Gonzalez sponsored the ordinance in this fashion so that it didn’t have to get a whole bunch of signatures from registered voters to be placed on the ballot. Can we say sneaky??? It should be noted, however, that Alioto-Pier withdrew her support for the measure before it was placed on the November ballot. I feel, despite the fact that 58% of voters approved the proposition, that if it had actually gone through the usual process of being placed on the ballot through signature-gathering, I doubt that it would have made it. What rational and law-abiding citizen would allow their rights to be taken away in such a wanton manner? There is a rule in the city charter that allows four supervisors to place a measure on the ballot without having to go through the usual process. In other words, the stupidvisors are saying: “We believe that the local citizens are too stupid to figure this out. We’ll place it on the ballot ourselves because we know what’s best for San Franciscans.”

Who do the stupidvisors think they are? Do they think they are gods who are above the law? Do they really believe can usurp state law in favor of creating their own local city ordinances? If that’s the case, why don’t they go whole hog and totally ignore federal laws and create their own set of laws so that it fits their own version of reality? California state law already specifically prohibits local jurisdictions from passing laws that may or will conflict with state law; so, why is San Francisco trying to cram Proposition H down our throats? Because it is “feel good” legislation that appears to be appealing to all and will solve all of our social ills. Also, the stupidvisors think that it will buy them brownie points with San Franciscans because it looks like they are being tough on crime.

What a crock of bull!

If they really wanted to be tough on crime, why don’t they prosecute those who are actually breaking the law and keeping them behind bars? The District Attorney’s office has been very weak in this area. Former D.A. Terence Hallinan and the current D.A., Kamala Harris, have not done enough in this area. Hallinan was weak in enforcing drug laws and solving homicides while Harris has done nothing to stand up for San Franciscans. She even refused to seek the death penalty on a parole violator who killed an undercover SFPD officer, Isaac Espinoza. This issue still remains a sore point in the police department and the officer’s family. See, if that criminal didn’t have access to the gun that killed Officer Espinoza, then he would be alive today.

San Francisco now joins two other cities, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with handgun bans that basically do not work. Washington, D.C. banned handguns in 1976. According to the citations in the 2005 voter pamphlet on page 96, their crime rate rose to 60%. Chicago followed suit in 1982 and its crime rate also shot up (no pun intended) to 38% in 2003 compared to pre-1982 statistics. The stupidvisors basically pushed this ordinance by using emotional appeals instead of logical thought.

They used fear tactics and slippery slope arguments to get what they wanted. On page 97, under Proponents Argument in Favor of Proposition H, stupidvisor Chris Daly and the Coalition to Ban Handgun Violence make this argument: “…The New England Journal of Medicine found that a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more likely that a friend, family member or acquaintance will be killed than an intruder. In addition, suicide mortality increases fivefold with a handgun.” This excerpt is misleading because there is no way that they can go into greater detail on these points in a voter pamphlet. If one is to make this kind of argument, one needs to be able to explain the factors that go behind the statistics. Even I can’t go into great detail here in my blog without totally boring you, the reader, to death.

Well, now that San Franciscans have passed Proposition H, the Board of Stupidvisors want it implemented ASAP. It was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2006, but was already being challenged by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Years before, I was a skeptic about what the NRA did, but in this particular case, I agree with their stance that this is bad legislation. The stupidvisors totally ignored facts and statistics which show that this sort of law just doesn’t work. Now, its implementation has been delayed and is awaiting its turn in our courts system.

Why would criminals turn in their guns? The upholding of Proposition H would allow them to have unfettered control over their selected turf after people have been stripped of their firearms, those which were LEGALLY PURCHASED by LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE. There simply is no incentive at all for anybody to turn in their guns. Do you want to surrender your legally purchased firearm and leave yourself defenseless against criminals? Under this law, even those who are simply gun collectors – antique firearms and those guns which are now banned in the state of California including certain classes of guns – would have to turn in their weapons. If I were such a collector (which I am not), I would be thinking, “Hmm, I spent thousands of dollars over the years to amass a beautiful collection and now I have to lose it all. What should I do?” I would probably tell the stupidvisors a resounding “FUCK YOU!!!”

I asked a colleague at work whose partner has amassed a rather large collection of guns over the years for his opinion on Proposition H. Even he said that he felt that it was wrong for the stupidvisors to put such an ordinance in the books.

Remember, criminals are criminals for a reason: They don’t follow the rules like everybody else. And after getting in trouble with the law they continue to disobey the rules. In other words, they can’t play nicely with the rest of us. Also, does Chris Daly really think that they purchase their guns like everybody else? I mean, they obtain their guns ILLEGALLY, so they’re STILL committing a crime. And, what makes him think that they’re going to suddenly have a change of heart and decide to turn in those guns? To avoid “getting in trouble?” I can just hear them now, “Oh no! Chris Daly says I’ll get in trouble if I don’t turn in my gun! What should I do? I’m so scared! Bwahahahahaaa!!!” Do you see my point?

So, to subject the local citizenry to such an ordinance would be akin to tossing somebody into a lion pit with only a dinner fork as a weapon to defend themselves. Their rights are being decided by people (read: liberals) who are out of touch with reality, who think they are acting in the best interests of the people of San Francisco, and believe that they can do whatever they want despite what state and federal law may say about the passing of such ordinances.

One has to remember that as long as there is a liberal board of stupidvisors, they will NEVER act in the best interests of San Franciscans because they are acting only in their own best interests. They want to hold that office, the power that goes with it, and they also want to get that nice cushy $100,000+ salary and not be held accountable to anybody because they feel they know it all. They make emotional appeals that have little or no basis in fact and actually conflict with facts and reality (and, in this case, state law).

If they really cared, they would never have put Proposition H on the ballot. In this case, Chris Daly’s overzealousness in backing this ordinance is a travesty against law-abiding San Franciscans. For that, Mr. Daly, you should be fired as a stupidvisor!

Why Phil Angelides is Dangerous for Californians

If you've seen any of his television campaign ads (which, by the way, are no longer airing because he has run out of money for advertising), there is one where he states emphatically, "My first act as governor will be to roll back college tuition and fees...I'll increase financial aid...and double the number of high school counselors so kids are prepared for college."

For the record, I visited his website to view this particular ad and the quotation is taken straight from it. So, do not go accusing me of editorializing him when these are his spoken words in his ads that were on television and are now housed on his website. I won't be providing his URL because if you're smart enough to find and read my blog, you can figure out how and where to find his website. I won't be providing him with linked his because I don't believe in him or his words.

Allow me to elucidate...

First, it should be known that the California teacher's union is backing him, as are other big unions in the state. Also, the biggest liberals our state has for added measure. Those would be Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

Pelosi and Boxer are not too far behind as threats to Californians as far as Democraps go because they just feel that anything Republican is evil and is bad for you. Let's not go off on a tangent here and start talking about President Bush because he is not the focus of my blog, Governor Schwarzenegger is. Boxer is worse than Pelosi and way out of touch, I feel. The first words that come out of her mouth are negativity, negativity, negativity. But, does she offer any solutions of her own except to say that the Republican threat must be removed from office? NO! That's how closed-minded she is (what little there is left of it).

Regarding the teacher's union: They disagreed with Governor Schwarzenegger's policies, and that's okay. They're entitled to their opinion. However, when it came down to it, they HURT Californians because the pay raises that they want, the "restoration" of spending limits and their annual budget means that property owners will be hit with higher TAXES! Yes, that house that you grew up in will cost your parents more every six months when that property tax bill comes due. Why? Because Democraps feel that "the rich can afford to pay, let them shoulder the burden." Well, what about people who aren't property owners? Why won't they shoulder some of that burden? If one really thinks hard about it, the rich are the celebrities and athletes who earn millions of dollars and blow it all away on a frivolous lifestyle. It is not the working middle class that populates this state who should be considered "rich."

Let's look at the text I pulled from his ad: He says that he will roll back college tuition and fees. Is that really smart? I think it's really dumb. Consider the fact that the university/college has to PAY its professors, staff and for all the overhead it incurs on a daily basis. So, can they really afford to roll back tuition? They're going to have to make up for that shortfall somewhere along the way, right? Guess what that will probably mean? Yes, higher tuition fees for all!!! I mean, if you want to get the kids ready for college, shouldn't you be hiring MORE teachers and paying them a decent wage (so that they can stop complaining and threatening to go on strike every year)? Wouldn't that make more sense? I don't ever remember the last time when a counselor really got a student ready for college except to review their high school transcript of their grades and discuss their (limited) options. Teachers are the ones who do the work of preparing the teens for college because they are the ones who teach them the necessary skills to move up to the next level. Also, at the university/college campuses, the staff are union, so you have to pay for their union scale salaries, too. Do you see where this is heading now?

How about his next point: "I'll increase financial aid...?" Translation: More taxes! Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't just come from generous donors (which is what private institutions get some of their monies from), but financial aid in the form of Pell Grants (federal), CalGrants (state), Stafford loans and other forms of financial aid are generated through...TAXES!

And, let's look at the last point he makes: "...and double the number of high school counselors so kids are prepared for college." Of course he will! He wants to pander to the teacher's union so that he will get their votes! But, again, how do you think we will pay for all those unionized staff? Taxes! Our tax dollars will be going towards paying for their union scale salaries, which never seem to be enough. Oh, and did I mention that the teacher's union is backing Angelides?

Not ONCE did he ever mention that he would lower taxes on the working class (but he did say that he wants to tax the rich - please define "rich" for me, Mr. Angelides), nor did he state how he would try to increase employment in the state. He didn't even try to spell out some sort of plan to bring California back up to at least a respectable level in comparison with other states, just that he wants to "do good" for education. How? Please, tell me how? I haven't a clue from anything he put forth in his ad or any of the other ads that are viewable on his website.

In the end, he's empty in his words, hollow on his promises and his credibility doesn't even register. And it's not even election time yet! I am willing to bet that if he were to be elected, you will see taxes go up all across the board and our state will be in a worse financial situation than even when Gray Davis was in office. At least with Schwarzenegger, he managed to rein in the spending, avoided raising taxes and did more than Davis did during his time in office.

So, would you want Phil Angelides for your governor? I sure wouldn't!

Some resources on the net:
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/index.jsp
http://finaid.org/loans/studentloan.phtml
http://www.staffordloan.com/
http://www.salliemae.com/apply/borrowing/stafford.html

Why Police Are Correct To Use Deadly Force

On Tuesday, Mar. 7, Newark, CA police fatally shot 33-year-old Victor Macias when he was wielding what looked like a real gun and refused to follow instructions by police to put the gun down.

An account of the the story can be found at KTVU's web site: http://www.ktvu.com/news/7826686/detail.html

In the story, it says, "The family of 33-year-old Victor Macias of Fremont is upset the day after Macias was shot and killed by a Newark police officer during a confrontation at a strip mall." Well, I can understand that they are upset that a family member died; but, despite the fact that he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, he should have known better than to pull out and point a realistic-looking gun at a police officer. Add to that, he failed to follow police instructions to put it down.

The police statement said that Macias was at the Newark Square Shopping Center, asking people for drugs. Then, it appeared that he planned to rob one of the stores and he pulled out what appeared to be a gun. According to eyewitness accounts, Macias wasn't following officer's commands at the time he was shot. Later, when they retrieved the gun, they discovered that it was a toy replica.

By law, toy replica guns are supposed to have a bright fluorescent cap on the end of the barrel to distinguish it from a real gun, which was brought on by previous incidents where youths who flashed a realistic gun were fatally shot by police in what turned out to be cases where the replica was mistaken for the real thing.

The police department contends that the officer who shot Macias was well within his rights to do so. The family, obviously, disagrees.

Taken directly from the KTVU story, ""These officers are trained. They know what a toy gun looks like, and they know what a real gun looks like. They don't care," said Macia's cousin Jose Villanueva.

What a load of crap!

The photo of the gun Macias had in his possession was photographed alongside the real thing and it IS difficult to distinguish it from the actual firearm, especially when the bright cap is removed. So, for them to assert that the police police "don't care" is nothing short of shifting blame from themselves to somebody else.

If they knew that Victor Macias was a danger to himself and to others with his irrational behavior, they should have taken the toy away when they had the chance to. And, if they were a police officer and somebody pointed what looked like a real gun to them, would they have acted any different? I don't think so! Ask any rational police officer and they would tell you that their training would take over in such situations. So, for the family to make such a baseless claim, they can go screw themselves!

Victor Macias brought this onto himself. The family let him down by not being more watchful over him. And, what was he thinking when he removed the bright plastic endcap? Did he really think that he would be able to get away with committing a crime and then claiming that he was irrational at the time due to his schizophrenia?

As always, liberals will always shunt the blame from themselves onto others for their misfortunes. While it is sad that a life was lost, I do not feel that the police were at fault for using deadly force. What would the family say if Victor had a real gun and killed one officer before he was gunned down by other police officers? "Well, there's more of them and only one of him. He was outgunned." I'm willing to bet that would be their response, and they would still try to sue over the police department's use of deadly force.

Face it: You, the Macias family, let Victor down.

So, the next time that anybody thinks about trying to pass a toy replica gun for the real thing, expect to die if it is pointed at police who ARE packing REAL guns!

My hope is that this event will not curtail the way police handle suspects with guns. A knee-jerk reaction can always be expected from liberals who cry "POLICE BRUTALITY!!!" when the police are doing their level best to protect the local citizenry. In that note, I am pro-police. They have a tough enough job as it is, being embroiled in a spiteful lawsuit because somebody's family member was fatally shot when they failed to follow direct orders and pointed a weapon at them is something the police don't need. We need them out on the streets, not behind a desk on administrative leave while the shooting is investigated.

Quote of the Day

"Always look to the future, that's where you'll spend the rest of your life."
-George Burns

Vice President Cheney's Hunting Accident - NOT Attempted Murder

Okay, so he goes hunting at the well known Armstrong ranch in Texas for a weekend of R&R. No biggie, right? Until the media got wind that he accidentally shot a fellow hunter and friend, the millionaire attorney Harry Whittington, wounding him in the face, neck and chest.

Ordinarily, this would not even have made it into the news (hunting accidents do occur from time to time) unless, of course, you're the vice president, a Republican, or both. The media wasted no time jumping on this and trying to make it into something that it isn't: news. When I watched the local news (KTVU-Ch.2), they aired footage of the press gallery that questioned the Vice President's press secretary. One member asked the stupidest of all questions, "Is this a criminal offense that would warrant his stepping down?"

Sheesh, wouldn't THEY, the liberal media, just LOVE to see that happen? Why don't other people who have committed the same "offense" get fired from their jobs or be put before a firing squad? I mean, for crying out loud, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! If anything should be a criminal offense that would warrant a person's stepping down are the media that purport to cover the news.

A non-story becomes a news story and they're crying for blood because they didn't know about it immediately. Well, spank everybody for just trying to take care of the accident and leave them be in peace!

The Vice President's medical staff, who followed him, provided medical care for Mr. Whittington until he was transported to Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial in Corpus Christi. From other reports, Cheney was apologetic for the mishap and even visited Whittington in the hospital before returning to Washington, D.C.

From what was understood, Mr. Whittington had gone into the tall grass to retrieve his quarry and failed to let the Vice President know. This is a cardinal rule for hunters: KNOW where everybody is. The news account from Yahoo! can be found here.

I wish I had linked the news story from the previous day, but that already fell out of the queue (or was it removed in favor of this one which has the more inflammatory headline of 'Cheney Violates Cardinal Rule of Hunting'?).

The reason why he didn't make the statement himself was that Katharine Armstrong, owner of the property where the group was hunting, said that she would make the statement to the local paper for him, and he agreed to that. Also, when you read the Yahoo! news story, it also states that the head of the local Secret Service office contacted the sheriff's office to report the accident, they came out to interview the Vice President on Sunday morning, the day after the shooting incident.

There was no cover-up, as much as the media and liberals would love to claim. This was simply and unfortunate and, obviously, embarrassing accident. But, because Dick Cheney is the Vice President and a public figure, he will always be under more scrutiny than the average Joe Schmoe. Of course, even MORE so because he's a Republican.

The media should be taken out to those same fields and see how much better they fare in the same situation...me, I think they should just be shot.