While we have always known that Governor Schwarzenegger does not think too highly of worker's rights, he recently announced a plan that would make the state's 200,000 employees the lowest paid workers in all of California.
Under the Governor's proposed executive order, which could be signed at any minute, state workers' pay would be slashed to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour until a state budget is passed.
Luckily, State Controller John Chiang has stood up for all of the state's workers by openly defying the Governor's plan. While the Governor states he must do this to bridge the gap until a budget is approved, the Controller contends that the state has enough money on hand to cover bills through September.
In the meantime, state workers are asking for help from all Californians. Members of SEIU Local 1000 will be holding informational picket lines at DMV offices tomorrow starting at 7:30 a.m. If you have time, stop by to support all state workers. The offices are located at:
Chula Vista
30 N. Glover St., Chula Vista
(near N. 4th Ave. & Hwy. 54)
El Cajon
1450 Graves Ave., El Cajon
(near Hwy 67 & Bradley Ave.)
San Diego -- Clairemont
4375 Derrick Dr.
(off Genesee Ave. N. of Balboa Ave.)
San Diego -- Otay Mesa
6111 Business Center Ct.,
(off Hwy. 905 & Corporate Center Dr., 2 ½ miles E. of I-805)
Showing posts with label Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thursday - Quick Hits
Yeah right! State agency finds no wrong doing in lottery at Liberty Station. UT
Rincon tribe scores big win against governor regarding gaming deal. UT
City council votes to make Redevelopment Division into its own agency. UT
No f-bombs this time, as Mayor Sanders and Steve Francis shake hands following candidate forum. UT
Must be a Republican appointed judge, as he rules in favor of Manchester regarding the Navy Broadway complex. UT
City of Oceanside to decide this month on an operator for its municipal airport. UT
Mayoral race in Oceanside starting to take shape. NCTimes
Rincon tribe scores big win against governor regarding gaming deal. UT
City council votes to make Redevelopment Division into its own agency. UT
No f-bombs this time, as Mayor Sanders and Steve Francis shake hands following candidate forum. UT
Must be a Republican appointed judge, as he rules in favor of Manchester regarding the Navy Broadway complex. UT
City of Oceanside to decide this month on an operator for its municipal airport. UT
Mayoral race in Oceanside starting to take shape. NCTimes
Monday, March 17, 2008
Monday - Quick Hits
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Schwarzenegger Says: Toll Road Good for the Environment
Today, Governor Schwarzenegger has decided to end his neutral stance regarding the controversial Foothills South tollway project. In a letter to the Coastal Commission the governor states, "I have concluded that this project is essential to protect our environment and the quality of life for everyone in California,." he further claims, "[t]he project can be built in a manner that will enhance and foster use of the coast and protect coastal resources."[Link]
Schwarzenegger's position regarding the protection of San Onofre State Beach should come as no surprise here. It was just last week the governor proposed closing 48 state parks as part of his plan to balance the state budget.[Link] This governor like to talk about the environment, but it actually comes to action his ring hollow.
Cross-posted at Calitics
Schwarzenegger's position regarding the protection of San Onofre State Beach should come as no surprise here. It was just last week the governor proposed closing 48 state parks as part of his plan to balance the state budget.[Link] This governor like to talk about the environment, but it actually comes to action his ring hollow.
Cross-posted at Calitics
Friday, December 28, 2007
Friday - Quick Hits
City supports state's position regarding medical marijuana, files amicus brief. UT
Shipyard failed to properly monitor atmospheric conditions aboard ship that led to explosion. UT
Encinitas $20 million new library is scheduled to open in February. UT
With start of new rail service in North County, focus is now on safety. UT
Gov Schwarzenegger's communications director and assistant chief of staff is leaving administration and is being replace by someone who worked for wingnut organization "Freedom Watch." UT
Escondido to undergo building boom in 2008. NCTimes
Vista considering expanding patchwork redevelopment area from 19% of city to 37% of the city. NCTimes
Shipyard failed to properly monitor atmospheric conditions aboard ship that led to explosion. UT
Encinitas $20 million new library is scheduled to open in February. UT
With start of new rail service in North County, focus is now on safety. UT
Gov Schwarzenegger's communications director and assistant chief of staff is leaving administration and is being replace by someone who worked for wingnut organization "Freedom Watch." UT
Escondido to undergo building boom in 2008. NCTimes
Vista considering expanding patchwork redevelopment area from 19% of city to 37% of the city. NCTimes
Friday, December 21, 2007
Sheila Kuehl on the Speaker's and Governor's Healthcare Bill
So far, this appears to be the best explanation of what the bill is all about.
The Speaker's and Governor's Healthcare Bill: Part of a Series of Essays by Sheila Kuehl
This is my seventh and last essay for 2007. As I write, the Assembly has just passed Speaker Fabian Nunez's healthcare bill and it's on its way to the Senate and a hearing in the Senate Heath Committee in January. A number of people have called and emailed asking for my take on the bill and this essay will give some analysis.
Giant Leap for Health Coverage? Or for premiums...
The press has described the bill in breathless prose as a "giant leap" for health coverage. Unfortunately, this is not quite the case, depending on who you are and how and where you work. Each of the sections below will explain some of the provisions of the bill actually harmful to regular, working-class and middle-class families. And it provides less help than advertised for poor families, as well.
Coverage for everyone?
The press characterizes the bill as providing or extending coverage to all but a few Californians.
This is a mischaracterization, nothing is provided. Instead, all Californians would be required to buy insurance with no caps on premiums, no regulation of the cost of insurance or medical expense, no maximum deductibles, and no floor on how little coverage you can buy and satisfy the legal requirement. If you do not buy insurance within 62 days after the requirement kicks in, the Franchise Tax Board is authorized to collect premiums determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board by garnishment of wages or mortgage liens.
Your employer would be required to spend from 1% to 6.5% of payroll (depending on the size of the payroll) to buy insurance policies for employees. Employees would be required to take the insurance and to pay whatever supplemental premiums, co-pays and out of pocket costs are not paid by the employer. There are no caps on what the employee would pay, only for the employer. There is a vague term about hardship letting people out of the mandate, but no definition is offered and, as in Massachusetts, if you are excused from the mandatory purchase of insurance, you simply have no insurance!
If your employer does not wish to spend 1% to 6.5% of payroll on your insurance, he or she must pay the same amount into a state fund, and employees of those employers will be required to buy their insurance through the state fund, again with no cap on premiums and no floor on coverage.
Is there at least minimum coverage required in the bill?
No. For the State Fund, for those employers who choose to pay into it, the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board will set the minimum coverage (what you get for your premiums, what conditions, services, treatments, are covered by your insurance), which will not appear in statute. For those who buy insurance on the open, private market, and those whose employers pay total or partial premiums for insurance chosen by the employer, as well as for self-employed folks, there is no minimum coverage in the bill. One woman reported to me that she had a bare-bones, catastrophic policy and, upon being rushed to the hospital, received the bill for the ambulance ride that got her there, placed on her chest, as she was carried into the hospital.
How is the bill to be financed?
There is no funding in the bill. Instead, there is the promise of an initiative, no language available yet, to tax cigarettes at an additional $1, $1.50 or $2 a pack, tax hospitals in order to draw down federal money which would then go back, to a great extent, to the public hospitals, and require employers to pay a portion of their employees' premiums, as indicated above. There is also a hope that the federal government will provide more money for children's insurance. Instead, of course, the federal government is cutting children's insurance such that the California Legislature will meet in emergency session in January to disenroll children from Healthy Families. Everything else would be paid for by premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
In addition, if the Director of Finance finds that the state cannot afford all the promises made in the bill, the bill goes away. Or does it? There needs to be clarification that, if the initiative fails, we're not still stuck with an individual mandate to buy insurance.
But how do poor people fare.....today's uninsured?
Better, but still a hardship. Healthy Families coverage for children would allow those whose families who earn up to $40,500 for one adult and one child to be covered (children only) by state or federal money. (Federal cuts mean we already have to kick kids off this program, see above). Since the bill allows all children, even those with undocumented parents, to be covered, but the feds won't pay for those children, there will be increased state costs in Healthy Families. (See budget discussion below)
Families whose income is at or less than $43,000 for a family of three would be subsidized for their premiums only. This means they would be required to pay an unspecified amount for premiums and receive an unspecified amount from the state budget to help. There is no subsidy for co-pays, deductibles or out of pocket (uninsured) expenses associated with their policies, which could be sizeable if they bought a minimal policy.
Families who earn between $43,000 and $68,680 for a family of three would be allowed to pay full boat for their uncapped premiums and then deduct any part of the premium that exceeds 5.5% of their income as a tax credit, refunded dollar for dollar by state money. (Again, see budget discussion, below). There is no tax credit for their required co-pays, deductibles or out of pocket (uninsured) expenses, which could be big if they purchased a minimal policy.
But insurance companies would be required to take everyone
That is correct. However, they are allowed to offer minimal coverage set by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (minimum coverage that may be offered is not specified in the bill) and there is no control over their premiums or deductibles.
In addition, they are allowed to adjust their premiums, not by medical condition, but by age and other demographic factors.
The companies are required to spend 85% of premiums on care, but they maintain they do that now, and count marketing, information technology and other kinds of administrative overhead as care. The bill would allow this characterization to continue.
Unions seem to like the bill, don't they?
Well, some of them. SEIU, who has organized and hopes to organize healthcare workers, is positively salivating over the bill, to the extent that their national leader, Andy Stern, is engineering moving out the current state leader, who has questioned the bill, in favor of a new leader who will go along with it. AFSCME has also come on board with the bill, thinking that public employees will benefit. (However, with all the hits the bill brings on the state budget, this may be short sighted). About half of the unions in the California Labor Federation are with it, and half are against it but not taking a firm position. The California Nurses, the California School Employees and the Teamsters, among others, are strongly in opposition.
Many other troubling sections in the bill.
Troubling (1) rescission
While we are struggling to keep insurance companies from rescinding policies of beneficiaries who do nothing wrong except try to use their insurance, the bill takes a step backward by applying the no retroactive rescission language only to HMO's and not to all insurers.
Troubling (2), no choice of doctors or hospitals
Your insurance company tells you who is in their provider network. Employers are not required to give a range of choices. The state fund would give a range of choices, as soon as they are determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board.
Troubling (3), more unsupervised healthcare workers
Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants would be allowed, by the bill, to give written instructions (not personal supervision) to medical assistants in retail clinics, such as those proposed for Wal Mart, and the assistants would be allowed to give medication. Currently they can do so in specific clinic settings. The bill removes this requirement.
So, what's next?
The bill goes over to the Senate, into the Senate Rules Committee, which then refers it to the Senate Health Committee and any other committees that should hear it before it goes to the Floor. There may be a hearing on the bill in Senate Health on January 16th, but only if the language of the bill is in its final form according to its author, the Speaker, the requested analysis of the impact of the State Budget by the Legislative Analyst's Office is complete, and the Committee also has the language of the proposed initiative that will, supposedly, fund the bill. Any organizations wishing to support or oppose the bill may send their letters to the Senate Health Committee in Sacramento. The bill may be read online at www.leginfo.ca.gov. Press the button for Bill Information and type in ABX1 1 and click on what comes up. The author is Speaker Nunez
The Speaker's and Governor's Healthcare Bill: Part of a Series of Essays by Sheila Kuehl
This is my seventh and last essay for 2007. As I write, the Assembly has just passed Speaker Fabian Nunez's healthcare bill and it's on its way to the Senate and a hearing in the Senate Heath Committee in January. A number of people have called and emailed asking for my take on the bill and this essay will give some analysis.
Giant Leap for Health Coverage? Or for premiums...
The press has described the bill in breathless prose as a "giant leap" for health coverage. Unfortunately, this is not quite the case, depending on who you are and how and where you work. Each of the sections below will explain some of the provisions of the bill actually harmful to regular, working-class and middle-class families. And it provides less help than advertised for poor families, as well.
Coverage for everyone?
The press characterizes the bill as providing or extending coverage to all but a few Californians.
This is a mischaracterization, nothing is provided. Instead, all Californians would be required to buy insurance with no caps on premiums, no regulation of the cost of insurance or medical expense, no maximum deductibles, and no floor on how little coverage you can buy and satisfy the legal requirement. If you do not buy insurance within 62 days after the requirement kicks in, the Franchise Tax Board is authorized to collect premiums determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board by garnishment of wages or mortgage liens.
Your employer would be required to spend from 1% to 6.5% of payroll (depending on the size of the payroll) to buy insurance policies for employees. Employees would be required to take the insurance and to pay whatever supplemental premiums, co-pays and out of pocket costs are not paid by the employer. There are no caps on what the employee would pay, only for the employer. There is a vague term about hardship letting people out of the mandate, but no definition is offered and, as in Massachusetts, if you are excused from the mandatory purchase of insurance, you simply have no insurance!
If your employer does not wish to spend 1% to 6.5% of payroll on your insurance, he or she must pay the same amount into a state fund, and employees of those employers will be required to buy their insurance through the state fund, again with no cap on premiums and no floor on coverage.
Is there at least minimum coverage required in the bill?
No. For the State Fund, for those employers who choose to pay into it, the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board will set the minimum coverage (what you get for your premiums, what conditions, services, treatments, are covered by your insurance), which will not appear in statute. For those who buy insurance on the open, private market, and those whose employers pay total or partial premiums for insurance chosen by the employer, as well as for self-employed folks, there is no minimum coverage in the bill. One woman reported to me that she had a bare-bones, catastrophic policy and, upon being rushed to the hospital, received the bill for the ambulance ride that got her there, placed on her chest, as she was carried into the hospital.
How is the bill to be financed?
There is no funding in the bill. Instead, there is the promise of an initiative, no language available yet, to tax cigarettes at an additional $1, $1.50 or $2 a pack, tax hospitals in order to draw down federal money which would then go back, to a great extent, to the public hospitals, and require employers to pay a portion of their employees' premiums, as indicated above. There is also a hope that the federal government will provide more money for children's insurance. Instead, of course, the federal government is cutting children's insurance such that the California Legislature will meet in emergency session in January to disenroll children from Healthy Families. Everything else would be paid for by premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
In addition, if the Director of Finance finds that the state cannot afford all the promises made in the bill, the bill goes away. Or does it? There needs to be clarification that, if the initiative fails, we're not still stuck with an individual mandate to buy insurance.
But how do poor people fare.....today's uninsured?
Better, but still a hardship. Healthy Families coverage for children would allow those whose families who earn up to $40,500 for one adult and one child to be covered (children only) by state or federal money. (Federal cuts mean we already have to kick kids off this program, see above). Since the bill allows all children, even those with undocumented parents, to be covered, but the feds won't pay for those children, there will be increased state costs in Healthy Families. (See budget discussion below)
Families whose income is at or less than $43,000 for a family of three would be subsidized for their premiums only. This means they would be required to pay an unspecified amount for premiums and receive an unspecified amount from the state budget to help. There is no subsidy for co-pays, deductibles or out of pocket (uninsured) expenses associated with their policies, which could be sizeable if they bought a minimal policy.
Families who earn between $43,000 and $68,680 for a family of three would be allowed to pay full boat for their uncapped premiums and then deduct any part of the premium that exceeds 5.5% of their income as a tax credit, refunded dollar for dollar by state money. (Again, see budget discussion, below). There is no tax credit for their required co-pays, deductibles or out of pocket (uninsured) expenses, which could be big if they purchased a minimal policy.
But insurance companies would be required to take everyone
That is correct. However, they are allowed to offer minimal coverage set by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (minimum coverage that may be offered is not specified in the bill) and there is no control over their premiums or deductibles.
In addition, they are allowed to adjust their premiums, not by medical condition, but by age and other demographic factors.
The companies are required to spend 85% of premiums on care, but they maintain they do that now, and count marketing, information technology and other kinds of administrative overhead as care. The bill would allow this characterization to continue.
Unions seem to like the bill, don't they?
Well, some of them. SEIU, who has organized and hopes to organize healthcare workers, is positively salivating over the bill, to the extent that their national leader, Andy Stern, is engineering moving out the current state leader, who has questioned the bill, in favor of a new leader who will go along with it. AFSCME has also come on board with the bill, thinking that public employees will benefit. (However, with all the hits the bill brings on the state budget, this may be short sighted). About half of the unions in the California Labor Federation are with it, and half are against it but not taking a firm position. The California Nurses, the California School Employees and the Teamsters, among others, are strongly in opposition.
Many other troubling sections in the bill.
Troubling (1) rescission
While we are struggling to keep insurance companies from rescinding policies of beneficiaries who do nothing wrong except try to use their insurance, the bill takes a step backward by applying the no retroactive rescission language only to HMO's and not to all insurers.
Troubling (2), no choice of doctors or hospitals
Your insurance company tells you who is in their provider network. Employers are not required to give a range of choices. The state fund would give a range of choices, as soon as they are determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board.
Troubling (3), more unsupervised healthcare workers
Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants would be allowed, by the bill, to give written instructions (not personal supervision) to medical assistants in retail clinics, such as those proposed for Wal Mart, and the assistants would be allowed to give medication. Currently they can do so in specific clinic settings. The bill removes this requirement.
So, what's next?
The bill goes over to the Senate, into the Senate Rules Committee, which then refers it to the Senate Health Committee and any other committees that should hear it before it goes to the Floor. There may be a hearing on the bill in Senate Health on January 16th, but only if the language of the bill is in its final form according to its author, the Speaker, the requested analysis of the impact of the State Budget by the Legislative Analyst's Office is complete, and the Committee also has the language of the proposed initiative that will, supposedly, fund the bill. Any organizations wishing to support or oppose the bill may send their letters to the Senate Health Committee in Sacramento. The bill may be read online at www.leginfo.ca.gov. Press the button for Bill Information and type in ABX1 1 and click on what comes up. The author is Speaker Nunez
Friday, December 14, 2007
Governor Declares Fiscal Emergency
SacBee has it that Governor Schwarzenegger has just declared a Fiscal Emergency for the state of California. So what does the heck does that mean? It means he's invoking Prop. 58 (passed in 2004):
It will mark the first time Schwarzenegger has used the "fiscal emergency" authority that he asked voters to create by passing Proposition 58 in 2004. The provision allows the governor to declare an emergency when revenues are "substantially below" what was anticipated when the budget was signed. Such an emergency would summon the Legislature into special session.I guess that pretty much assures us that no endemic failings in the budget process will be explored or fixed. Not surprisingly, the Governor prefers quick and easy abdication of responsibility to substantive leadership. Thank goodness we dumped that fiscally reckless Gray Davis or we might find ourselves in some trouble right now.
If lawmakers fail to send the governor legislation addressing the budget problem within 45 days, they cannot take action on any other bills or adjourn until they do so. (SacBee 12.14.07)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Be Careful for What You Wish for....
I think Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly nicely sums up the predicament regarding the state budget shortfall for next year. How a manageable $3 billion dollar shortfall has now turned into a $10 billion shortfall.
Democrats deserve blame for mismanaging California's budget in the early 00s, but it's hard to overstate just how irresponsible and infantile Schwarzenegger and California Republicans have been since then. In 2003, in the middle of an existing budget crisis, Schwarzenegger ran a demagogic and pandering campaign based on cutting California taxes by $4 billion. Then, to fix the shortfall this caused, he supported the 2004 bond measure. The net cost to the state of this GOP flight to fantasy now adds up to $7 billion per year.
If it weren't for Schwarzenegger and his fellow GOP tax fanatics, next year's projected shortfall would be $3 billion — or possibly even less. That would have been manageable. Instead we careen from crisis to crisis thanks to the government-by-temper-tantrum practiced by modern California Republicans. Thanks a lot, guys. [Link]
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Ghost of Prop. 13 continues...
As the housing slumps continues to worsen, a looming $10 billion state budget deficit awaits the Governor and Legislature.[Link] I wonder, whatever happened to the campaign promise by Governor Schwarzenegger to eliminate the structural deficit problem? It is apparent that this problem still exists:
So now that the Governor is face with projected deficits for the remainder of his term, it will be interesting to see which Arnold Schwarzenegger takes the lead in solving this problem. Is it going to be good Arnold who works on a bipartisan basis to comes up with a solution that includes both taxes increases and budgets cuts, or are we going to see the bad partisan Arnold who is only going to propose budget cuts? Which one will it be?
The analyst said $2.7 billion of the state's reserve fund will be eaten up by lower-than-expected tax revenue through next summer. The state will take an additional $1 billion hit on falling local property taxes from shrinking home prices. Additionally, the state must make up for lower property tax revenue so schools will remain fully funded. [Link]
So now that the Governor is face with projected deficits for the remainder of his term, it will be interesting to see which Arnold Schwarzenegger takes the lead in solving this problem. Is it going to be good Arnold who works on a bipartisan basis to comes up with a solution that includes both taxes increases and budgets cuts, or are we going to see the bad partisan Arnold who is only going to propose budget cuts? Which one will it be?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Vigil for Health Care
Tell Governor Schwarzenegger:
Sign Affordable Health Care Legislation Now
COUNTLESS CALIFORNIANS have fallen victim to soaring health care costs. Yet Governor Schwarzenegger has failed to give us affordable health care this year.
JOIN WORKING FAMILIES across the state for a state-wide vigil to honor the victims of health care by lighting candles, delivering flowers and sharing personal health care stories. to make our voices heard and demand action.
WHEN: October 17th-19th, 2007
WHERE: The Governor’s Offices - 1350 Front Street, San Diego
CONTACT: Ryan Mims, San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council - (619) 228-8101 or rmims@unionyes.org
Events during the 48-hour vigil will include:
Wednesday, 6:00 p.m. - Candle-lighting ceremony, and personal health care stories
Thursday, 11:30 a.m. - Prayer circle and reflection
Friday, 11:30 a.m. - Conclusion ceremony, and delivery of memorial to the Governor's office
***Come by when you can - morning, noon or night!***
Bring your families, co-workers, neighbors and friends.
Because if health care isn’t affordable, it’s not real reform.
Sign Affordable Health Care Legislation Now
COUNTLESS CALIFORNIANS have fallen victim to soaring health care costs. Yet Governor Schwarzenegger has failed to give us affordable health care this year.
JOIN WORKING FAMILIES across the state for a state-wide vigil to honor the victims of health care by lighting candles, delivering flowers and sharing personal health care stories. to make our voices heard and demand action.
WHEN: October 17th-19th, 2007
WHERE: The Governor’s Offices - 1350 Front Street, San Diego
CONTACT: Ryan Mims, San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council - (619) 228-8101 or rmims@unionyes.org
Events during the 48-hour vigil will include:
Wednesday, 6:00 p.m. - Candle-lighting ceremony, and personal health care stories
Thursday, 11:30 a.m. - Prayer circle and reflection
Friday, 11:30 a.m. - Conclusion ceremony, and delivery of memorial to the Governor's office
***Come by when you can - morning, noon or night!***
Bring your families, co-workers, neighbors and friends.
Because if health care isn’t affordable, it’s not real reform.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Please don't eat your young
The Democrats in Washington, D.C. are about to complete their first year as the majority of both chambers. In addition, next year's election they could take back the White House and win enough seats in the Senate to stop a Republican fillerbuster. The House could even get closer to over-riding a Presidential veto, but that is still far off.
In Sacramento, the Democrats could take the additional seats needed to have a 2/3 membership in both chambers and make the Republicans useless for good.
However, the Democrats are going to follow the lead of the Republicans and eat their young. The Republicans are about to eject Mayor Jerry Sanders, because he has finally seen the light and supports gay marriage, they are ejecting Assemblymember George Plescia, because he supports Carl Demaio for coming out of the closet (yes, he is gay), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for supporting health care reform and Mayor Rudy Giuliani over a woman's right to choice.
The Democratic Party and activists should first focus on finding where they can agree and pass legislation, then to fight about their differences. Remember, the Republicans will have enough to fight Democrats over.
Don't eat your young and just elect more of your Democrats!
In Sacramento, the Democrats could take the additional seats needed to have a 2/3 membership in both chambers and make the Republicans useless for good.
However, the Democrats are going to follow the lead of the Republicans and eat their young. The Republicans are about to eject Mayor Jerry Sanders, because he has finally seen the light and supports gay marriage, they are ejecting Assemblymember George Plescia, because he supports Carl Demaio for coming out of the closet (yes, he is gay), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for supporting health care reform and Mayor Rudy Giuliani over a woman's right to choice.
The Democratic Party and activists should first focus on finding where they can agree and pass legislation, then to fight about their differences. Remember, the Republicans will have enough to fight Democrats over.
Don't eat your young and just elect more of your Democrats!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)