These are my links for April 4th from 18:32 to 18:36:
Will Jerry Brown do conservative talk radio on his tour? – So Guv Brown is hitting the road to visit conservative California and try to get them to goose their representatives so he can pass his budget plan. For some reason this reminds us of Albert Brooks telling his wife in "Lost in America" that "it's time to get out. We have to touch Indians." (Partial H/T to our Pittsburgh homeboy Dennis Miller.)
Jerry already has an invitation from one of the uh, chiefs: Conservative radio host/Chronnie Award winner Eric Hogue. He's invited the Guv to be on his noon "Capitol Hour" (1380 KTKZ) show this week for a full hour. Says Hogue:
"I know this seems very self-serving, but I thought it to be (somewhat) news worthy considering …
Hogue just told us that "This morning I spoke with his scheduling department; they informed me that they (Gov's scheduling staff) is considering the opportunity, and they would return with a phone call later today, or tomorrow."
=====
Good Luck Eric.
What I would really want to see would be Jerry Brown doing KFI's John and Ken.
California Redevelopment officials are offering pig in a poke – When Gov. Jerry Brown proposed to abolish more than 400 local redevelopment agencies and redirect billions of dollars in property taxes, the state's redevelopment industry shifted into political overdrive.
Redevelopment officials claimed that abolition would devastate efforts to improve local economies and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
However, independent analysts agree that redevelopment, while lucrative to subsidy-seeking developers, provides no substantial improvement to the state's overall economy.
The agencies skim more than $5 billion a year off the top of the property tax pot each year, and the state must make up about $2 billion of that hefty diversion in extra payments to schools.
Brown is saying, in effect, that the state can't afford to subsidize local development schemes and wants the money back.
======
Read it all – CA Redevelopment Agencies are Big Government at its worst.
These are my links for April 4th from 14:24 to 15:23:
CA GOP Saves Eminent Domain and Redevelopment Agencies – The truth is California Republicans do not believe in limited government. They do not stand up for property owners. They are the party of corporate welfare. They oppose higher taxes, but that’s the only guiding principle of the party these days. And even that is suspect. Many Assembly Republicans, such as the pro-union members of the “no more cuts” caucus (Jim Silva, Brian Nestande and Paul Cook), vote in a way that virtually mandates higher taxes at some point. Then they get on their high horse and sign those bogus tax-fighting pledges. And you wonder why the GOP is fading away in this state?
If the GOP could not provide more than one vote to end redevelopment, then we know that their claims about pension reform and spending caps are bogus too. They will never provide the margin of victory on these matters, either. When push comes to shove, they will be bought off again and will offer similar excuses for why they really support reform but just couldn’t vote for it this time. Yet Republicans wonder why they have been relegated to irrelevancy, the laughingstocks of the California political world. Sure, they usually are better than Democrats, but they offer no cohesive and believable alternative to the Party of Unions.
Certainly, Republicans continue to hold firm against the governor’s proposed tax-extension vote, but I’m guessing we’ll get that vote eventually. For instance, the state’s unprincipled business community, led by the Democrat-friendly California Chamber of Commerce, is promising to support those Republicans who go soft on taxes. The Chamber just wants business-as-usual, and is perfectly happy if legislators tax the rest of us more – as long as its members’ special privileges are protected. That’s no way to build a broader movement.
The Chamber loves redevelopment also and redevelopment is a core issue. Anyone who supports it cannot claim to be a conservative, not if the term conservative has any meaning. It is the epitome of bad public policy, in that it gives governmental powers to the most powerful and politically well-connected players at the expense of the average citizen.
======
The California GOP needs new and conservative leadership.
Has the left captured California redistricting? – The worst the panel could do is decide to protect all incumbents, which is basically the status quo. Even random changes would seem to be an improvement. … P.S.: However the lines are drawn, California’s legislative delegations will be heavily majority-Dem because the state is heavily majority Dem. That’s not the point. (The point, or points, are a) more moderates from both parties; b) more competition, within the parties and between them, translating into c) less incumbent lock-in, more voter ability to throw a bum out) …
=======
No, the Left hasn't captured the redistricting commission and ANY change will be an improvement for the RIGHT and the GOP.
With an April 8 deadline approaching for a possible shutdown of the federal government, the public remains divided over whether congressional Republicans or the Obama administration would be more to blame if a shutdown occurs.
Currently, 39% say Republicans would be more to blame if the two sides cannot agree on a budget and the government shuts down, 36% say the Obama administration, and 16% volunteer both sides.
These opinions are little changed from late February. However, opinions are far different now than they were during a similar dispute in 1995, shortly before the government did shut down. In November 1995, a few days before the government shut down, 46% said it would be mainly the Republicans’ fault while 27% said the Clinton administration would be more at fault, according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 30-April 3 among 1,507 adults, finds that most (55%) want the lawmakers they agree with on this issue to be more willing to compromise, even if it means they pass a budget they disagree with. Far fewer (36%) want the lawmakers they agree with to stand by their principles, even if it means the government shuts down.
President Obama is sponsoring a meeting tomorrow at the White House to supposedly work out a deal between Democrats and Republicans. However, the President is playing the mediator and not the leader, so who knows how this will turn out.
On the other hand, Tea Party House members, prefer to stand on principle rather than compromise. Here are the numbers:
So, what does it all mean?
President Obama’s deal had better be a good one or the government WILL shut down for a while on Saturday. There really is no RISK electorally to Tea Party conservative members of the House.
These are my links for April 4th from 11:17 to 12:41:
Verizon: Full Steam Ahead on Net Neutrality Lawsuit – Will Re-File Lawsuit – It's full steam ahead for Verizon's judicial challenge to the FCC's controversial network neutrality rules – despite a procedural hiccup on Monday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed out the company's legal challenge because Verizon jumped the gun by submitting it too early.
A Verizon spokesman blamed the dismissal on the FCC, which he said was unclear about when an appeal should be filed. He confirmed that the telecom giant plans to resubmit its suit, but this time it will wait until the commission publishes its new Internet rules in the federal register next month.
In December, the agency's three Democrats adopted net neutrality safeguards designed to bar Internet providers from blocking or degrading online competitors. Proponents say the move was necessary to protect the Internet from being controlled by major corporations, while critics – including many Republicans – dismiss the action as unecessary government overreach.
====
As I said the first time.
Net neutrality rules spared — for now – Although a D.C. appeals court has just thrown out Verizon's lawsuit against the new net neutrality rules, it's worth noting that the suit has not been thrown out for any reason relating to the substance of the case. National Journal reports:
A D.C. court of appeals has thrown out Verizon’s challenge to recent net neutrality rules, saying the company filed the lawsuit prematurely.
Verizon launched the legal challenge before the rules, which were enacted in December, were filed in the Federal Registry.
=====
So, the litigation will be refiled undoubtedly.
Smearing Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plans – Liberals are already lining up to attack Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, even though it won't be released until Tuesday.
But before getting to that, it's worth clarifying a misunderstanding about what he's actually going to propose with regard to Medicare.
Despite press accounts to the contrary, Ryan made clear on Fox News Sunday that his proposal would not include the idea of converting Medicare into a system in which beneficiaries would receive vouchers for the purchase of private insurance, which was included in his "Roadmap" plan. "That's not what we're proposing," Ryan said. "Our reforms are along the line of what I proposed with Alice Rivlin, the Democrat from the Clinton administration in the fiscal commission, which is a premium support system. That's very different from a voucher. Premium support is exactly the system I as a member of Congress and all federal employees have. It works like the Medicare prescription drug benefit, similar to Medicare Advantage today, which means Medicare puts a list of plans out there that compete against each other for your business, and seniors pick the plan of their choosing, and then Medicare subsidizes that plan. It doesn't go to the person, into the marketplace. It goes to the plan. More for the poor, more for people who get sick, and we don't give as much money to people who are wealthy."(…)
It's also important to note that Medicare as we know it won't be around for future generations anyway, because it's financially unsustainable. So the real policy debate we need to having is whether we want to move in the liberal direction, which relies on higher taxes and more centrally-imposed cost controls, or a more free market approach in which taxes are kept low and health care costs are contained by creating a real consumer-driven market for health care. That debate is beyond the scope of this post, but the important point is that Medicare won't survive in its current form no matter what.
======
Exactly, correct.
Reform now or a more disastrous result in the future.
Attorney General Eric Holder today will announce that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in a military commission, CBS News has learned. A source says the commission will be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Trying Mohammed in a civilian court and closing the Guantanamo prison were once some of the Obama administration's top priorities, but political realities have hamstrung both goals.
This coincides perfectly with Obama's re-election announcement.
======
Yeah, real change you can believe in —> to win the future.
President 2012: Mitt Romney’s ongoing health-care travail – All-but-declared GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney shot back at President Barack Obama [Saturday] for his increasingly frequent words of praise for the health-care reform law Romney put in place as governor of Massachusetts.
“He does me the great favor of saying that I was the inspiration for his plan,” Romney said at a speech in Las Vegas. “If that’s the case, why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you ask what was wrong? Why didn’t you ask if this was an experiment, what worked and what didn’t?”
Actually, the president did one better. He consulted with the expert who designed Romney’s Massachusetts plan, MIT professor Jon Gruber.
What is bizarre, however, is Romney’s reference to costs. His plan did nothing to contain costs, a goal that Gruber said was not part of the plan. So is Romney confessing that his own plan would “bankrupt” his state?
I asked a Romney spokesperson:
1. The president did consult with the chief adviser to then-Gov. Romney. What could Romney have told the president that Jon Gruber did not?
2. What were the things that “didn’t work”? That “did work”?
3. Which category is the individual mandate in?
======
Read it all and yes, Mitt Romney has a hard time defending RomneyCare against President Obama.
treatment centers - public benefit addiction treatment resource directory, offering comprehensive listings of treatment centers for drug addiction, alcoholism and dual diagnosis.
Comments Off 
Entries (RSS)