I have started the steady habit of contacting my representatives over the last few weeks. One Republican Party official told me that I could call like-minded legislators all week, but I would be wasting my breath "preaching to the choir." If I did not contact and comment to my representatives, which I do not like, I might get results.
Congressman Henry Waxman's staff are quite cordial, as are the staff for
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi and
State Senator Ted Lieu.
On February 11, I called Sen. Lieu's office to ask when he would be hosting a townhall meeting. Right away, I was informed that Lieu does not hold townhall meetings.
"He does not represent a town", the secretary reported to me when I asked to know when the state senator would be paying a visit to the South Bay. Since Sen. Lieu does not "represent" a town, he is thus not obliged to hold a "townhall" meeting.
I then explained that Congressman Henry Waxman
just visited the Hermosa Beach area a little over a week ago. I then mentioned that
Presidential candidates often hold town hall meetings, too.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a YouTube star in part because of his frequent visits with his voters. Not afraid to mix it up with constituents, who two-to-one favor his opposition, Christie still commands a high favorability rating with voters.
I was still amazed that my state senator would not be paying a visit any time soon, since Sen. Lieu must know (as should every voter in the South Bay and the Beach Cities) that he has
received new "deferral areas" for a new state senate district, a change in venue resulting from the Citizens Redistricting Commission. No longer overseeing Carson and Long Beach, Lieu is now accountable to voters in the Palos Verdes Peninsula all the way to Beverly Hills.
 |
| Does not "Do Townhall Meetings" |
Lucky (or unlucky) for me, Sen. Lieu still represents me, too.
Of course, I understand why Sen. Lieu may be reluctant to meet face to face with his constituents. He has authored one nanny-state interventionist bill after another, often with no regard for the time wasted or the costs accrued, or even the litigation enacted as a result.
Perhaps Lieu does not want to explain why he cares about shark fins instead of our public schools. Instead of supporting school choice and rescinding the "gun free zone" provisions at our public schools, he wants to add more financial burdens to schools which do not have an adequate disaster preparedness plan.
He has pressed for
financial transparency from Super PACs. Perhaps he does not want to explain the extensive amount of campaign support that he receives from unions, the same special interests which resist school reform, which oppose pension reform, and which helped kill SB 1530, law which would expedite removing teachers guilty of gross misconduct in the classroom. No wonder he would resist a "right-to-work" law, which would help create jobs and keep money in workers' wallets.
He wanted to triple our car tax, making it harder for working families to keep their wheels on the road. I wonder how he feels about the bullet train boondoggle, too.
Perhaps Lieu does not want voters to realize that he cares more about
bears being chased up a tree instead of California businesses being chased out of the state because of high taxes, excessive regulations, and the unending Sacramento spending spree.
Lieu feels entitled to
ban tanning for minors, and he feels qualified to ban gay aversion therapy for adolescents, but he has done nothing for the minors who are burning away their future in sub-standard schools, who receive an underfunded college education, who enter an undemanding and unprofitable workforce.
He banned the
private sale of pets, but wants to microchip them for their protection. What good is Fido with a tracking device if the master has to eat dog food because he cannot afford anything else?
Sen. Lieu claimed
in one post that the State of California has "only" a billion dollar deficit left following the forced passage of Prop 30. Why does he consider any deficit an improvement? Why has he not pressed for less spending and lower taxes all around? Does he really assume that California voters are going to fall for the same creative accounting gimmicks proffered by Governor Brown in his last "State of the State" address.
Twice I demanded to understand why State Sen. Lieu will not be holding a townhall meeting in the South Bay. A perfect venue for him would be the
Redondo Beach Main library, since Redondo Beach belongs to his former and his new state senate district. Right in the middle of the clashes over business, economic recovery, environmental regulations (AES, anyone?), and the struggling public school system, Redondo Beach would be a perfect place. Without a doubt,
Mayor Mike Gin and his city council would welcome him.
I am sure that Beach Cities and South Bay residents would love to give him more than a piece of their mind. However, apparently Sen. Lieu does not do "townhall" meetings.
Call State Sen. Ted Lieu. Make him change his mind:
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056
District Office
2512 Artesia Blvd., #320
Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3279
Phone: (310) 318-6994
Fax: (310) 318-6733
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Call you tomorrow!
I called State Senator Lieu's Redondo Beach office.
I was glad to receive a cordial greeting from the office staff once again.
I told the person who received my call that I am glad that Senator Lieu responded to my request, but that I was not interested in meeting with him by myself.
I want him to set up a townhall meeting, one where his constituents can confront him and ask him questions about his legislative record and his priorities, including his foolish and misguided attempt to triple our car tax.
The Redondo Beach staffer directed me to Lieu's Sacramento office.
When I spoke to a Sacramento staffer, I requested once again a townhall meeting in Redondo Beach.
Right away, the Sacramento staffer responded:
"Oh, you're the blogger."
Oh brother -- is this what it takes for a state legislator to start taking his constituents seriously?
He rebuffed my requests for a townhall meeting.
"Oh, so you do not want to meet with the state senator?"
The time for talking about issues is long gone. It's time for the state senator to explain himself and his stance on pursuing inane boutique bills while the state of California is sand-bagged with high taxes, higher regulations, and the height of overspending.
I then brought up the attempted tripling of our car tax. The waffling and sputtering I got from this question was just too much not to discuss.
The staffer wanted to give me a lecture on the failing transportation and infrastructure in the state of California -- as if it's the taxpayers' fault. Working families are balancing their budgets and tightening their belts. Why can't our legislators do the same? He then continued to remind me about the failing schools and the massive cuts which they have endured, as if I was not aware of them already.
Do the staffers in Lieu's Sacramento office really believe that voters are just going to sit back and take in this push to raise our taxes until no one has anything left?
I offered a very simple suggestion -- implement Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's reforms, and allow cities and school districts more freedom to renegotiate medical benefits and pension formulas. He interrupted me again:
"Senator Lieu supports collective bargaining," the staffer answered.
Of course Lieu supports the union lobby, since most of his campaign dollars come from unions, like the ILWU, the SEIU, and even the CTA. I have written on this straining train of dollars for some time. Lieu wants transparency from Super PACs, but how can anyone trust him to vote in line with the best interests of the voters as long as the union lobby pays his way and crushes the opposition with overspending advertisements of their own?
The most insufferable response that I received from this staffer, one which should outrage voters, Democrat or Republican, was:
"We have balanced the budget."
State Senator Ted Lieu himself admitted that the budget is not balanced:
You may want to add that in the New Year, California voters can look back and know that California created more jobs than any other state, at a higher rate; that our credit rating went from negative to stable to positive; and that we whittled down a $60 billion budget deficit four years ago to $1.9 billion this year, with projected surpluses starting in 2014.
--Sen Ted Lieu
Governor Jerry Brown also admitted that the "balancing act" was anything but. Here is Brown's own assessment:
"As you go up the line you lose control and build bureaucracy," the governor said. "We want to put the money into local schools, but create greater control."
Brown also said the state's deficit is gone for the first time in years, adding it could reduce its debt substantially by 2016.
"The deficit's gone; the wall of debt remains," Brown said, noting the state's $36 billion debt could be reduced to $4.3 billion by 2016. (Bold added)
The biggest problem, of course, with any assessment, is that all of that projecting assumes that high income earners will stick around to remain high taxpayers. Different reports have suggested that all of these tax increases are not working.
Investors Business Daily reports:
As tempting as it might be to buy this story line, the answer is no. In reality, the Brown approach is the latest in a series of "kick the can down the road" budgets that ignore the buildup of debts. It rewards public-employee unions with pay and benefit increases — while shielding them from desperately needed pension reforms — and ignores deep problems within the state's economy.
But what about the comments from those budget analysts? IBD responds:
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office agrees the budget is basically balanced, but the agency's head, Mac Taylor, noted "it doesn't pay all of the wall of debt within the time period. It builds up very little of a reserve by the end of that period, and it does nothing regarding our various retirement-related obligations."
The liberal-sympathizing Huffington Post published this AP report covering "Brown's balanced budgets":
After years of cutting education and social services to close deficits, California's budget is finally in balance as long as state lawmakers follow Gov. Jerry Brown's guidance to hold the line on spending, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget analyst said Monday. (Bold and underlined added)
In other words, the budget is balanced as long as the legislature balances the budget. This is worse than "begging the question" -- this is "insulting the California voters."
The report continues:
Last week, Brown released a $97.6 billion state spending plan for the new fiscal year and projected a $1 billion reserve. Two months ago, the Legislative Analyst's Office had projected a more cautious outlook that forecast a $1.9 billion deficit.
Taylor said Monday that higher tax revenue, increased savings and repayment of loans account for the slight differences.
The higher tax revenue has not been collected yet! The increased savings have not been saved yet! The repayment of loans has not been repaid yet! And Governor Brown wants to increase spending, too? The whole situation reminds me of indolent rich kids who are making their spending spree plans by expecting to inherit huge sums when their wealthy parents die. Such crude cynicism and lavish speculation is not only outrageous, but dangerous and immoral.
Yet Lieu's staffer in Sacramento still stands by his empty and essentially false assertion that the California state legislature has "balanced the budget".
State Senator Lieu should start hiring new staffers, because with the people heading his office now, they are handing his opponents one win after another for the 2014 election.
Of course, Senator Lieu could stop hiding behind his staff and stage a townhall meeting (not an "event", not a "ribbon cutting") right here in Redondo Beach, where he can explain why he claims that the budget is balanced, when his own words and the Legislative Analysts' Office suggest that it is not. He can then explain why Sacramento wants to demand liability insurance from gun owners, or why he wants to legislate about abandoned ships, microchipped pets, tanning salons, and hunted bears. He can also explain why he wanted to triple our car tax, or why his colleagues are already undoing the meager pension reforms which they just enacted.