Bravo, Hannah-Beth!

I am glad to read something from someone who finally gets it -- our investment in our children's education is the greatest investment we can make in our future.

So she pretty much said nothing more than "We should not cut education to balance the budget." Apparently, she agrees with Audra Strickland on that point.

She offered no solution to the budget crisis other than:

1. Raise taxes on yachts and private jets. So then the rich people will buy their yachts and jets out of state, causing the regular working class people here in CA who build them to lose their jobs.

2. Raise taxes on oil extracted here in CA. Excellent, so already high gas prices will go up a little more, making it even harder for poorer families to pay for the gas to drive their kids to school, raise the higher food prices a little more for them as well, and raise the costs of bussing kids to school.

Even with her "suggestions", the money raised would hardly put a dent in the deficit, so she really offered no real solutions to the crappy budget in CA. Those that she does offer end up hurting those in CA who can least afford it.

What a waste space in the Acorn.

I commend HBJ's shot across the bow of those political halfwits who would devastate California's future in exchange for a cheap pocket book issue. Starting in the 1970s the far right ideologues began a campaign to convince America that using tax dollars for the education of our children was a crime. They've been immensely successful in grabbing the dialog and they'll continue to be so until California once again starts thinking of education as an investment. There's a big difference! We don't SPEND ON education, we INVEST IN education.

Sorry, Ventura Freedom, but I have no sympathy for the multi-millionaire purchasers of pricey yachts and private planes who avoid paying sales tax altogether through this loophole while our teachers lose their jobs and kids are kicked out of the Healthy Families program. Your attitude is like saying "Let's just not bother to tax rich people because they'll always find a way out of it."

The oil extraction and windfall profits tax would have generated $1.2 billion a year from an industry which is making obscene profits. California is the only state where oil is drilled that does not have an extraction tax.

You are worried about the costs of busing children? I can tell you right now that if this disastrous budget is implemented, many school districts are looking at charging parents for bus service for their children.

Hannah-Beth also spoke of ending tax breaks for multinational companies. There are many examples of special interest tax credits which are not serving a useful purpose and she just cited a few of them in her article, which was more about advocating for education.

One thing she advocates are reforms which will free up categorical funding and allow school districts better control over their funds.

The first solution I saw Audra Strickland proposing was to dump the children of illegal aliens out onto the streets. Then she wrote another "useful" piece about the state's inability to keep track of all its cars and she complained about funding for art projects.

Ah shucks, Marie. What is so bad about parents paying for bus service to get their kids to school?

Ventura Freedom no one is buying the crap you and the GOP are selling. You only care about the rich and about protecting your big oil buddies who give you money for your sleazy candidates while ripping us off. Every time the oil companies raise the price at the pump you bend over and drop your pants and scream "Please sir, give me another!" Well we are all sick and tired of you and your rich friends destroying our Country and in November we will elect Hannab-Beth because your boy Tony makes us all sick!

You tell 'em, not Ventura Freedom. An oil tax is good for the State of Texas, but not fair in California? Go figure.

I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, CAP-812, but in Ventura if you start billing people for things they have always gotten for "free," like bus rides for their children, they howl. I personally don't mind, but many people do.

I agree with you Marie, people with holler. But then again, is the Legislature's purpose to make people happy all the time or to get the budget in shape? Leave it to the residents and I'm sure we will go bankrupt for sure. That is why we elect representatives so they can do what is best for the State and not the special interest. Teachers and free school buses are special interests just like oil men and real estate developers.

Teachers and school buses are "special interests"? What a ridiculus statement. By your logic everyone and everything is a special interest. The term special interest is a made up term to describe anything a politician does not like and in practical terms it means nothing because it has been so badly overused.

A major problem is the GOP gave us Arnold who said he could cut taxes, balance the budget, and increase spending all by "opening the books" instead of making tough choices.

Maybe if he wasn't going after teacher tenure or flying to Ohio to campaign for George W. Bush he could have been dealing with the budget.

He is a tough spot but I expect great leaders to make choices that don't please everyone.

Arnold is the worst sort of politician. He's a self-serving opportunist who will tell the voters whatever they want to hear, promise them whatever it is they want most and then lie, lie, lie to pass the blame elsewhere when caught out. He was against Stem Cell Research until 70% of voters wanted it to happen. He's held up parole for tens of thousands of non-violent prisoners that could have been freed, simply to justify handing over billions to private prison operators. He made his name in politics by convincing voters to take back the vehicle registration tax, without explaining that doing so would create an immediate $4B deficit. Then he's managed the State's deficit by taking another $4B from and education so that he can turn that same amount over to NY bond brokers in the form of interest payments.

It never ceases to amaze me the absolute absence of any intelligence in your responses in this blog. Especially you Marie. You are such a rabid partisan that you completely mischaracterize what I wrote. I'm not concerned about rich people or oil companies being "hurt" financially by paying higher taxes.

The reality is that the cost of higher oil taxes will be passed along to us all, really hurting those that can least afford it. If yacht and jet buyers go out of state, the regular joe workers here that build/sell them will end up losing jobs.

Taxson Jackson has NO solutions and will tow the Democratic line that there is no waste in state government that needs to be cut.

In response to Brian & gs-
I agree in part with you. Arnold is more interested in his legacy and being loved by everyone than doing what's right for the state. He is a huge failure.

You may recall, however, democratics, independents and reps gave us this guy in 2003. Just because he checked the box with the "R" on his voter registration doesn't mean he stands for any of our principles.

Also, you so conveniently forget that a dem controlled legislature hasn't passed a balanced budget during this time either.

I've never tried to blame the Repubs for Arnie's or Bush's despicable tenures (though I've made clear that they allowed the GOP to be co-opted by Bush & Co.). I also agree that CA voters of all parties owe their children for a long time to come for being so easily bamboozled by Schwarzinoggin's PR machine.

As with Congress, the State majority can't pass legislation or force budgets if they don't have enough votes. That's why SD 19's such a hot race. It's one of the few contestable races statewide where the Dems have a good chance of picking up extra seats and making the Senate minority & veto proof. If that happens there won't be any blocked budgets or legislation.

Ventura Freedom,

Your vitriol is not helping your case. I would have a lot more respect for you if you could be civil. I would also have more respect if you would bother to do any research besides spouting Republican talking points, which you do every time you're on this blog.

The Legislative Analyst's Office did a study in 2006 on the effects of eliminating the "sloophole" and found that the effects would be negligible on industry itself, but that tax revenue would increase.

As far as the oil extraction tax goes, Stanford's Paul Romer, who is a senior fellow from the conservative Hoover Institution wrote that the market for oil is global, and the price of oil is set by global supply and global demand. California produces less than 1% of all the oil produced in the world, so a tax added to the extraction of oil in California would have a miniscule effect on global supply and demand and thus our prices at the pump.

I don't think I read you wrong at all. I think you're more worried about offending campaign contributors than you are about "regular Joe workers."

Despite what you may think, I am not a particularly partisan person. What I value more than anything is integrity and the willingness to work really hard. Hannah-Beth has these qualities and many more. I have seen no evidence of this from her opponent.

Go get 'em Marie!

Strickland pays his wife, she pays him and the Indian tribe pays them both. Integrity? Ha Ha Ha. Strickland just ain't got any.

As I've stated so eloquently before on this blog, Hannah Montana is virtually unknown outside of Santa Barbara. She is going to need to get some name recognition outside her little hovel of limousine liberals in Montecito if she expects to garner more than 35% of the vote.

My prediction is that Tony Strickland is going to win this thing and win it handily. His views and philosophies are far more in line with those within the district than Taxan Jackson's.

Well, I'm hardly a limousine liberal. More of a Ventura Soccer Mom.

You guys are just grumpy about the two very negative letters to the editor that appeared in the Star today about Mr. Strickland.

Here's the link to the other one. Interesting comments underneath.

Yeah, the Democrats sure know how to jam the letter box. These letters mean absolutely nothing. What matters is the vote in November, which is when Tony will stride into office once again. Gimme a break!

Tony Strickland and the GOP are owned by the oil companies and they do their bidding. Next time you fill up at $4 a gallon you can thank Tony and the GOP.

This Republican isn't voting for Tony. And neither are a lot of other Republicans.

Hmmm, kind of interesting. When Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker and the Democrats reclaimed Congress, gas prices were $2.36/gallon. Now, they're $4/gallon. Who's kidding who?

Hey Mango, When your good buddy Bush came into office gas was a $1.46 a gallon! Check your facts next time so you don't look so foolish! They asked him yesterday why he is still putting oil into the strategic reserve and driving up prices and he refused to answer. Clinton used to release oil from the reserve to lower prices and then return supplies when prices dropped! Bush and the GOP spent from 2001-2006 in charge and they are the one's to blame!

With friends like Not Mongo the Dems don't need enemies.

With Bush & the Republican Congress gas goes up 90 cents in six years.

With Pelosi & the Democrat Congress gas goes up $1.64 in 18 months.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Osborn's groupies have it all figured out. The only thing they are wrong about is that Bush distains the American people, doesn't have a clue about how ordinary people live and gave the petroleum industry, including and especially the Saudis, everything they asked for.

Actually, Mongo, since Roger Clemens was accused of using steroids gas has gone up $2.40/gal. Two of the problems with the present administration is (1) that they and their followers and dumb as snot and (2) that they think the American people are dumber than snot.

Yeah! The Blog's back!!!!

Another point worth noting about the "do-nothing Dems" is that they promised to get us out of Iraq immediately and fix soaring gas prices once they regained control of the House - neither of which they accomplished. Who's ruining the country again?

Geez, Mango and Ron really are slow and in complete denial. Every attempt by the Dems to bring down the price of gas or end Iraq is blocked by the GOP by filibuster or veto. Why can't you two just admit that the real terrorists are the GOP? They have down more harm to this Country than Bin Laden!

Not-

To be accurate there has been no attempt by the Democrats to bring down gas prices. There could be, more exploration, more refineries, nuclear energy, but there has been no energy policy proposed by the Democrats, nor will there be. If they lead and accomplish a comprehensive energy plan they lose it as a campaign issue.

And anyway Not, Pelosi and Reid get control by promising everything, then deliver nothing, and somehow it's the Republican's fault? Did Pelosi and Reid somehow forget how Congress works when they were campaigning?

They continue to prove they are the worst of the worst.

All right wing babble. Refineries are built by the oil industry. They have sufficient capacity to meet production and, in fact, have been closing refineries. This decision has been made by the owners, the oil companies; after all, we are a democracy and they have that right. Exploration? Get off it. The oil companies make more money exploring in 3rd world companies where they can still hit billion barrel fields. They decide where they want to explore for oil. Nuclear energy? Leave it to the utility industry. Sure we have safety standards. Do we want to have a disaster like they had in Russia? Get with it and quit your babble. Our Country is in a mess, but Bush and his goons have made it much worse than it should have been.

I think everyone who begrudges the oil companies for making a profit should hand over any profits on their house. I don't see that happening. In fact I see a lot of foreclosures because people got greedy. What is obscene is the amount of money private individuals have made on real estate. And I don't think this is a Dem or Rep phenomena.

But getting the thread back on track. Looks like HB is starting to make her presence known here in Ventura County. Is Tony doing the same in Santa Barbara County?

I hear Tony's radio campaign ads on a couple of Santa Barbara stations (including 99.9 KTYD) and I've seen that he will be speaking at UCSB and City College.

Katie, what would you think of the following? A man buys a house for $100K and then sells that house to his holding company for $120K. This man also owns the brokerage firm that handles all the transactions and every month he turns this same house over to another of his firms for a 20% markup. After doing this for 10 months the man now decides that the US dollar isn't doing so well so he needs to add a 50% markup to the price of his house and then goes to a bank he owns to secure a balloon mortgage to buy the house, again. Then he takes the money and defaults...thus screwing the bank.

This is what the oil companies do. each one is a vertical operation that lobbies, pays bribes, directs foreign, domestic & military policies, explores, drills, extracts, transports, refines, distributes....and then demands DOLLAR payment in the equivalent of EUROS (a 50% markup due to declining $$ values). Then they take that money and screw the "bank"...the USA.

If US oil firms decided to do so they could call Cheney tomorrow and say, "We don't need Iraq. Bring the troops home." The nightmare would be over, the Dollar would recover and fuel prices would fall at least 30%.

GS, and what would happen if people turned in their gas guzzlers, rode their bikes and commuted? And they could stop using convenience food and packaging.

Bush doesn't wave a magic wand and cause all the evils of the world. It is nice for many to blame him for all their woes but it doesn't work that way.

We don't agree on much, but we do definitely agree on getting involved locally! And maybe the changes will filter up.

The foreign oil markets and OPEC are largely responsible for the situation we, as consumers, find ourselves in with the oil companies. What would help is if we opened the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to exploration and drilling. There is 10.4 billion barrels of oil beneath its frozen tundra waiting to be extracted. We need to get to this oil and send it to market as quickly as possible in order to reduce oil and gas prices and help our faltering economy.

Currently, we get 56% of our oil from foreign countries, including the volatile Middle East and Venezuela. Is it any wonder we're paying such outrageous prices. This is not Bush's fault. It's the fault of the enviro-Nazis who refuse to let us turn over a leaf without a full blown environmental impact report and studies that go on for years and years.

We have not built an oil refinery in this country in over 30 years. Guess why? The environmental regulations and requirements are so onerous to try and build one that it is cost-prohibitive. It makes more sense for the oil companies (and is far more profitable) to do what GS described than go the homegrown route.

The Republicans took advantage of the quirks in our economy just like the VCRCC lawyer took advantage of the quirks in the election laws. Republicans believe our tax dollars are being wasted on education and public safety. They believe they have every right to steal it. and they do.....

Alaskan oil, if pumped out as fast as we can, would amount to less than 1% of the World's daily supply (there's a good article on TalkingPointsMemo.com today). How would that help us reduce the price of oil?

The problem is NOT a shortage of oil but the economic realities of a devalued dollar (that adds at least $35 to the cost of a barrel of oil) and an overheated commodity market (that adds between $15 and $25 to the price of each barrel).

I expected more from you, Ms. Teague. You are not living up to the expectations that your organization upholds when you spew the Bush dogma. The VP knows what he is doing, even if Bush doesn't. How wrong you are about petro economics.

And Mongo, you speak nonsense when you attempt to blame environmental regulations on a "shortage" of refineries. Where do you see the oil backing up if we are short refining capacity? Shell has been closing refineries, not wanting to build new ones. You might just learn a thing my listening to the family that founded the US oil industry more than 100 years ago. They said it best today. The industry is short sighted for the immediate dollar and has its head stuck up its derrick.

CAP-812, you are the one speaking nonsense here. If there was more refining capacity (vis-a-vis more refineries), there would be more incentives for oil companies to engage in domestic exploration and drilling. Without the capacity to refine the crude, there's no purpose in going after it. The enviro-Nazis won't allow more refineries to be built, however.

The second part of the equation, of course, is opening up more areas for drilling, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the coastal waters off California. This is where the environmental wackos and their Democratic cronies in Congress are blocking the way.

You need to do your research next time and stop spouting off like a typical liberal reactionary, which just makes you look foolish.

No fool here, Mongo. You are just plain wrong. Domestic exploration is limited by the perceived and probably accurate conclusion that the U.S. doesn't have the capacity for discovery of any significant oil fields. Production is on a decline and therefore no additional refineries are needed. It is you who spews dogma and not fact, Mongo. It is you who are the fool.

So two days ago Elton Gallegly writes and op-ed piece trying to blame everyone except himself and the GOP for the high price of gas. He said "We need to conserve." Today the LA Times reports that Elton drives a massive gas guzzling SUV that our taxes pay for and now Elton is crying like a little girl because he will have to give up his SUV for something that gets better mileage and conserves. Once again the GOH (Grand Old Hypocrits) say "Do as I say, not as I do".

Mongo, any quick look on the Web will show that there are LESS refineries in the US today than just ten years ago and its mostly due to BigOil consolidating their operations by shutting marginal producers. CA used to have 29 refineries. Now it has 21. Why would BigOil want to increase refining capacity if it means lowering their selling costs? If they had access to more Alaskan oil they'd simply keep it off the market, or worse, sell it overseas.

The ONLY way to lower the price of oil is to strengthen the Dollar and limit commodity exploitation. Doing that would bring the cost of a barrel of crude down to about $50. When China's equities & commodities markets began to overheat last year China simply placed a temporary surcharge on each trade. The market cooled to manageable levels and the surcharge was withdrawn.

Now, before you start ranting about communist vs capitalist, remember that your power, gas, water and almost every other public service adds a surcharge to help control supply & demand. The only difference is that China's was temporary while ours never seem to go away.

Lawmakers being forced to give up gas-guzzling cars

A little-noticed amendment to last year's energy bill requires House members who lease vehicles to select those that emit low levels of greenhouse gases.

By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 1, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley likes his taxpayer-funded Ford Expedition. He isn't worried that it's not the most fuel-efficient car. It's reliable, suits his mountainous district and is cheaper to lease than many other vehicles.

"It's not a Cadillac. It's not a Lincoln. It's a Ford," the Republican congressman said with exasperation.

But like it or not, Gallegly and other lawmakers will have to give up gas-hungry SUVs and luxury sedans for leased vehicles that are more eco-correct, such as Toyota's Prius.

And some are in a high-octane fit about it.

"A Prius isn't made in the United States," Gallegly complained.

Have you heard of the latest potential source for domestic oil production? Bakken Field in W. North Dakota, E. Montana and Canada.

Since 1951, about 1.5 Billion barrels have been produced in the Williston (ND) Basin. The new analysis on just the Bakken zone indicates about 4 Billion barrels recoverable. The Alaska Arctic Preserve has estimated 14 Billion recoverable barrels.
We get about 1 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY from Saudi Arabia.

It would take 3 years to produce 1 Billion bbls at a MILLION BBLS PER DAY. That means that is would take 42 years to produce the Alaska field dry and 12 years to produce the BAKKEN ZONE dry taking
1 MILLION BBLS PER DAY from each field.

Side story - I met Montana's former Governer Racicot at the Reagan Library. I told him my mother was born in Glendive, Montana. He chuckled and said, "Glendive isn't the end of the world, but you can see it from there!"

Maybe oil production will actually be allowed there on a large scale (since it's close to the end of the world), allowing us to take better control of our energy needs and costs. I still advocate supporting development of alternative fuels for the long term, but this might allow us to be a bigger player when dealing with OPEC in the meantime.

As I'm sure you know, Leslie, Bakken has bee known for nearly sixty years. The problem has always been the very low porosity of the reservoir and therefore the extremely low production from vertical wells. As new technology becomes available, this field can produce additional oil. I don't know of any government/environmental constraints on development of this field; it is purely economic constraints. As far as Canada, the strip mining of their tar sands is their issue and I haven't seen the Canadians offering the U.S. any great concessions.
Every election year one party or the other tries to offer a simple explanation for something complex. With respect to oil, the U.S. uses far too much, has reserves far too small and continues to fail to advance alternative energy for the benefit of short term profit. I shudder to think that the oil industry doesn't give a darn about the American consumers. It just wouldn't be Republican, would it Leslie?

Well, the reason Bakken is becoming viable is because those reserves 2 miles below the surface ARE more reachable with new directional drilling techniques.

Unfortunately, the United States nearly killed its own oil industry, putting a half million oilfield workers into unemployent lines before alternative energy careers were available. Those weren't tycoons in the unemployment lines, and I would venture a guess that a bunch of those truckers, drillers, engineers and equipment suppliers were Democrats too.

The international oil companies are making profits on drilling in other countries - providing jobs overseas instead of at home, because at home they are treated like the devil. Get that situation under control (actually encourage drilling, provide more jobs and share profits with local governments) and everyone wins. Demand higher air quality standards so that the oil obtained lasts longer. Increase incentives for developing alternative energy sources.

And for heaven's sake, our legislators need to come up with a comprehensive energy program that protects our economy AND our environment. Yes, it's a complex problem and no, it's not easy. But if we elect the smartest, hardest working legislators (you know, the ones that care about the people, and not just the next election) we might do better than we are right now.

Leslie-
My uncle on my mothers side lives in Glendive. I been there and agree, you can see the end from there.

This all sounds great, but the energy situation has a more complicated solution than just drilling some holes in a remote part of Montana or Alaska. Our leaders, in debt to the energy industries for their campaign funding, are reluctant to admit the truth and resistant to acting on it in any way that might endanger the status quo which has put them and keeps them in power.

The real answer lies in a revolution of thought on the part of voters and shareholders of energy companies: (1) in the way they think about energy itself; (2) on the quality life of they will leave for their children and grandchildren; and (3) the love of their country.

One way to start that revolution of thought might be with a book that dares you to open your mind: "Keeping the Lights On" by Walt Patterson.
(Click on the link to find out more.)

The U.S. nearly killed the petroleum industry? You smoke too much peyote. The oil industry suffered because oil prices were very low and U.S. production costs were very high. Now the industry is doing fantastic and the U.S. economy is in the toilet. I suppose the U.S. government killed the construction market now and the auto industry? Come off the throne and put down the pipe. Too much rhetoric from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Elton Gallegly needs an expedition to get across our district?

Give me a break. He just doesn't care about cutting back on oil consumption.

Maybe a jeep if there was some rough roads.

And the whole not made in America line? What about one of the many fuel efficient American cars?

Prediction for November. Hannah-Beth Jackson 53% Tony Strickland 47%. Winner Jackson! Also Elton never goes anywhere in this District except his house.

You scored that correctly, Not Osborn. You are a good analyst.

See you on the beach tomorrow. Surf's up.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

Enough with the philosophical quotes, R.J. I could throw out a lot from William F. Buckley, Jr. too that would make your Democrat Party look like the perennial losers that they've always been too.

You just don't get it, Mongo. Why am I not shocked!

I'll bet someone must have told you that Buckley was a real smart Republican that used big words and so you throw his name out there figuring that will score you some kind of point.

Now I will tell you something else that you probably did not know: O'Rourke is a very old fashioned Republican (like Buckley), the kind that thinks George W. Bush has ruined the economy, his party and endangered the nation's future. It's not just philosophy either. He talks with and to more Republicans in a year - at conferences and conventions - than you will in your lifetime.

Click on the link and order one of his books so you would actually know who he is and maybe even understand the point he was trying to make in the quote I entered above.

Brian:

HBJ's Editorial is entitled "Even in Deficit, Education Must Remain Priority." I would agree, but I would go even further.

Under any economic conditions, during the most intractable deficits to the periods of beneficent surpluses (will we ever see them again??) education must remain a priority. For as Einstein said, "..If you think education is expensive, imagine the cost of ignorance."

The urgent public policy problem facing the State is not simply whether education should remain a priority, it is presicsely how education will remain a priority, and to what qualitative and quantitative effect?

The Governor's 2008-09 budget(released in January of 2008) allocated nearly $58 Billion of the roughly $104 Billion total State budget towards education spending statewide. By any standard, a hefty proportional investment in education as a percent of total State dollars. However, that assumed that the Governor and State Legislature would work together to reduce a then current $14 Billion deficit in the State's 2007-08 existing budget. According to published accounts during the last few days, the Governor is now claiming that the current year's deficit has ballooned to $20 Billion. That's a $6 Billion jump in the current fiscal year's projected deficit in a little over 4 months!

I find HBJ's Editorial packed with polemics, but parsiminous in practical solutions to the State's fiscal problems. The sheer scope of the ballooning State deficit this fiscal year far exceeds any revenue gains that could be achieved simply by closing the sloophole tax breaks, and the far more significant oil company tax loopholes (both of which I strongly support closing).

Accordingly, where are HBJ's solutions for closing the rest of the State's budget gap? As a voter in the 19th SD, I am looking for real, practical, common-sense, solutions to the State's budget problems, not simply partisan polemics, devoid of quantitative descriptors and fiscal substance. So far, I've seen neither coming from either HBJ, nor Tony Strickland. I'm waiting...

NostraDEMUS

You don't get it either, Captain. I'm not interested in your stupid, biased quotes from people that no one's ever heard of that are used to make your political points. How elitist is that? I'm not going to read your books either to try and convince me that your liberal perspectives are on target either.

Face it, my man. People form their opinions and ideas from more than just reading books and articles that reinforce their points of view before they take another drink from that large vat of Kool-Aid.

You're right, I'll never get it, if "getting it" means throwing my own independent thought processes and judgment out the window in favor of latching on to some liberal political idealogue that you worship.

You really don't know who P.J. O'Rourke is!!!

The point is not if I know who he is or not, Captain. The point is your elitist attitude.

By the way, I do know who P.J. O'Rourke is. He's political writer and satirist and sometimes TV personality (I've seen him on "Hard Ball" a few times), with some Republican credentials, who has recently found cause to besmirch the Party. Big deal! How enlightening!

Buckley was a brilliant intellectual, but if any of you out there really want to know what William F. Buckley thought of George W. Bush, his policies and the neo-conservative movement in general, do NOT take Mongo's word for it.

Click on the attached link and see what Buckley had to say for himself.

NostraDEMUS,
Hannah-Beth's editorial was meant as an advocacy piece for education funding. Brian has titled this entry "...Hannah-Beth's take on the budget," but that was really a misnomer. It wasn't intended as an exhaustive analysis on how to fix the budget, which would take many more column inches than the Acorn could spare.

I know she is a fan, as I am, of recently retired Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill. Hill has proposed an alternative budget which many of us feel is a good starting point.

Mongo said:

"I'm not interested in your stupid, biased quotes from people that no one's ever heard of that are used to make your political points."

P.J. O'Rourke isn't biased against conservatism, he is a small government person. That is why he has attacked the modern Republican Party.

He is very well known and has many best sellers.

Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean the rest of us hadn't either. I have read some of his books and although I don't agree with them they are really funny.

It isn't elitist to quote well known authors.

It is elitist to try and lord it over the rest of us and that's the way your post came across.

Besides, the subject of this thread was supposed to be Hannah Beth Jackson, not P.J. O'Rourke. Let's see if we can get back on topic here.

Marie:

I have read your passionate advocacy of HBJ's candidacy on numerous blog-postings over the past several months, which is both your constitutional right and political preference. And I respect your right to advocate for HBJ in each and every blog-post you make.

But frankly, as a voter in the 19th SD, I'm more interested in hearing HBJ's concrete views on how she would close the budget gap, which is now approaching $20 Billion, rather than your take on why and how she wrote the op-ed piece. After all, she is a candidate for 19th SD, not you.

HBJ had an opportunity to explicitly lay-out her concrete views on how she would close the budget gap in the op-ed piece she wrote for the ACORN, but she didn't. That's her choice.

But to be fair, I've not seen anything current nor comprehensive from Tony Strickland either. Again, as an informed and concerned voter in the 19th SD, I'm very interested in hearing how both HBJ and Tony Strickland plan on solving the State's budget shortfall, with an emphasis on specifics.

After all, both served in the State Assembly for six years, so both should have the sense and sensibility to offer common-sense, concrete proposals to resolve this hugely difficult and hugely important State fiscal problem.

I've yet to see either one offer anything like that, so as I said earlier, as a voter of the 19th SD, I'm still waiting...

NostraDEMUS

I think PJ O'Rourke is very funny. William F. Buckley Jr. didn't think too much of the Republican party as of late. I think he was more of a Goldwater Republican if I'm not mistaken. I frankly could not abide his writing style but he was well-loved by many conservatives. I love what his son did with "Thank you for Smoking" though!

Both Tony and HB are writing for votes right now and I don't think they want the voters eyes to glaze over. Hopefully, their respective websites will offer up some more concrete suggestions that have a chance of being inacted.

Katie,

Do you know how you will be voting in CA 19?

When is CPAC planning on rating the candidates?

If I can interject here, Katie will be voting for whoever is not the Republican nominee. Pretty easy to do the math on that one.

Mongo,

You like to comment on about people that you know nothing about - like William F. Buckley, P.J. O'Rourke and now, Katie Teague.

Katie is a loyal Republican who like the other observant and open-minded among us, sees her traditional party members changing their affiliation to DTS because their long-held values have been nearly totally disregarded by the hijackers that currently have grabbed control. However, that control will end (nationally and probably locally) in November as a result of their own hubris.

As usual, Katie can't defend herself. She has to rely on her little minions to stick up for her. Why don't you let her speak for herself, Captain Kangaroo? Or, is she capable?

BTW, dream on about the County Republican leadership changing in November. You guys will all be owned again...

"You guys will all be owned again . . ."

This does not sound like someone in the party of "The Great Emancipator."

Since you're a couple a notches shy of hip, Captain Kirk, let me explain. "You guys will be owned" is current vernacular for "you'll be defeated." Capiche?

Nothing personal, Mongo. I am just "pulling your chain." (In the vernacular, that means I am having a bit of harmless fun at your expense.)

P.S. - The word is "capice."

Oh my God, he's pulling the English teacher thing on me. I thought only Marie did that?

It's actually an Italian word, but don't worry about it.

Bouna notte, l'amico.

Buona notte! (Spell check!)