At Last! Democratic Party Rift in California ~ Issue July 22, 04 — This woman seems to see the problem with the Democratic party clearly and even the GOP is a similar manner. While this article is about California, it applies almost everywhere. Good reading. Almost definitive.
Last year, the Ideological Democrats pushed through a law to allow food stamp recipients, eating on the taxpayer dime, to own luxury cars. Anyone who disagreed with the new law, argued one assemblywoman, didn’t care if people “have enough to eat.” Davis signed the law. Yet when it comes to laws to help the economy create jobs, they freak out. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rightly says creating jobs is the best way to fix California, but in the tiny minds of the Ideologues, creating jobs is “pro-business.”
via T.C. Moore
This woman sounds like a Schwarzenegger apologist. Yet, in another article, even she concedes the governor “promises the moon, then backs out.” and “Just promising. Then not promising.” So yes, of course local Democrats don’t have the money to do what they want. That is because the governor has slashed money he PROMISED them earlier. He dragged this state into debt when he PROMISED not to. And to add injury to insult he cuts taxes for huge corporations. (seems like a fairly common Republican pattern) Read a better editorial about it here.
I’m confused. What is the columnist’s point?
First, the column was written (datelined) JULY 22, 2004. I think that is a little dated.
Second, she complains that Food Stamp recipients may now own “luxury cars”. Ok, now what qualifies as a luxury car? I don’t live in California so I have no idea. Would a ten year old Cadillac qualify.
Outside of major cities, most of the United States does not have efficient Public Transportation. Our nation’s economy has developed around the car and the need to travel to most places of employment. Like it or not, dependable transportation is required to get and keep a job today.
Third, it appears one of her heroes is a Supervisor rooting out (I believe) Worker’s Compensation fraud. I am sick and tired of hearing about “fraudulent Worker’s Compensation cases. Studies have consistently fond that less then 5% of all cases involve fraud. Let’s start talking about the 95% of genuine injured people. Let’s start talking AND enforcing the Employer’s responsibilities to provide a safe work environment.
I make no apologies for illegal acts of any kind, whether it is from a corrupt corporate executive filling his pockets, some sleazy spammer selling snake oil, or a journalist putting their name to plagiarized articles. But only a very small percent of Corporate Executives are criminal, not all advertising is fraudulent, and most journalists write their own material. Don’t ignore the bad, but don’t preclude that everyone is bad.
Fourth, she commits a great journalist blunder. She quotes a “local government Democrat” without naming him, and uses that quote to tarnish a Democratic leader. Hiding behind unnamed persons is cowardly. It is what poor journalists do that cannot think of anything more intelligent to denigrate someone they disagree with.
Fifth, she is still blaming Gray Davis. Face it Jill, He is gone. Forget about the damage the Republicans have caused the country over the last 4 years. Because it is still Gray Davis’s fault. So get over it.
Sixth, now naming her quote source, she has found someone else to bolster her argument. Well dear, many people feel that way about their state representatives. AND EVEN MORE FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT THEIR FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES ! And I bet quite a few feel that way about their local representatives too. So what is it you are trying to say? Is it that a local Republican doesn’t think highly of the Democrats?
Seventh, please explain one thing to me. Are the same people offended by the Democrats questioning Schwarzenegger’s use of “girly men” or his sexual harassing nature the same ones most upset that same sex marriage might be unconstitutional?
The first line is the give-away:
“Last year, the Ideological Democrats pushed through a law to allow food stamp recipients, eating on the taxpayer dime, to own luxury cars.”
It’s so transparent yet people always fall for it.
A law banning — let’s say — flamethrowers will get portrayed as this:
“The left wing extremists are pushing through a law which will permit government agents to enter your home to deny you the right to protect your daughter from being raped. Call your congressman and tell him to vote against HR3987.”
Hank
Of course poor people should own luxury cars. Who wants to live in a stinkin’ Honda?
I sent this along to John because it was the first article of hers that I read. It also seemed like trenchant analysis of California party dynamics, vs. the usual knee-jerk attack and defense as typified by Pat’s response.
Yet no one has commented on her central thesis, that Sacramento Democrats are out of touch with their local brethren. These are differences between politicians in the same party, not between elected officials and their constituents. In fact the point is that local politicians are closer to their constituents and their pragmatic concerns, versus Sacramento and Washington pols who are guaranteed re-election against non-existant opposition in gerrymandered districts. There are other articles on her site where she says the same about Republicans as well.
Also, there are more balanced articles on her website, like this latest one:
http://www.jillstewart.net/php/issues/issue012405.php
Though she is clearly rooting for Schwartenegger and his reforms, as most of us center-right people in California are, she is also direct in her critism. And it seems unusally thoughtful for what we consider political discourse these days. Trying to help through constructive criticism, instead of just tearing everyone down, calling them duplicitous liars as Arianna does in Edward Dinovo’s link.
I had an interesting conversation with a diehard Democrat yesterday, where I brought up Schwarzenegger’s reform of redistricting: trying to get rid of gerrymandered, safe districts and replacing them with reasonably shaped, competitive districts that will stimulate healthy political debate. Her initial response was to distrust anything Schwarzenegger supports, and “redistricting” reminded her of the shameful redistricting that happened in Texas recently, which is the antithesis of Arnold’s reform. Once I explained what was going on, she seemed a bit more open to the possibility.
Perhaps reading center-right and center-left columnists could open us up to the possibility that some ideas on the other side aren’t all bad.
But you have to be open to the possibility.
Rather than address the content of Pat’s comments, they are dismissed as “knee jerk”, while Stewart’s words are blessed as “trenchant” — this is the sort of intellectual dishonesty we have learned to expect from the right. I think far more trenchant is Hank’s comment. If we want to talk ideology, we should talk about those ideologues who want to put legal limits on what models of car certain people can own — these are rather sick people, if you ask me. The tax payer’s dime supports all of us driving on public roads — with special subsidies for people driving Hummers — among many other things. That some people — often single women with children who have been unable to collect child custody payments — are avoiding starvation via public monies seems ok to me, regardless of what kind of car they own. And these people are themselves taxpayers — sales and employment taxes. But I guess that thought only occurs in the “tiny minds” of “Ideological Democrats”. I think “knee jerk” is actually too slow a reaction to such low-intelligence drivel.
As for the gropenator’s attempt to use $70 million of taxpayer’s money for a special election that would result in pre-census redistricting to produce more Republican seats, I think the initial reaction from a “diehard Democrat” (“diehard” apparently means “informed and principled”) was appropriate. When you “explained what was going on”, I suspect you did not include any of the points made here: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/002961.html
> (”diehard” apparently means “informed and principled”)
Clearly it doesn’t mean modest or humble.
The redistricting plan sounds like a good idea to me. Use an independent group to redraw the district lines. Iowa has been doing it for quite some time. The problem is that the current districting is controlled by Sacramento and thus (at the moment) the democrats. The problem with any redistricting plan is that whomever is in power stands to lose the most.
I dismissed Pat’s points because they don’t address the core issue raised in Stewart’s article (and John’s original post). I found Pat’s points to be trivial and off-topic, while I found Stewart’s article to be illuminating (6 months ago and today). That’s what I think, Honest. I’m not sure what intellectual dishonesty means in this context.
Fine, so I will address Pat’s and your points:
Pat:
First: The article is still as relevant today as it was 6 months ago.
Second: Why do both of your posts spend 30-50% of their space on luxury cars, when that took up 2 sentences in the original article.
A “luxury” car could be quite easy to define: one with a blue book value over say $15K-20K. If someone had lost a job and was drawing down their assets to survive, or was living on taxpayer dollars, you might expect them to sell such a car and replacing it with a cheaper one that runs OK, while using the difference to live. A reliable used car can be had for 2-3k these days.
Third, California had some of the highest worker’s compensation rates in the entire US. Premiums have doubled and tripled in the past 5-10 years, crippling small businnesses. Whether it’s due to fraud or a definition of injury that is too broad, the system is abused and the premiums reflect that. Her latest article that I link to above mentions that Arnold’s reforms to that system are slowly working, and premium s are coming down.
Fourth, journalists use anonymous sources all the time. Quotes are independently confirmed by fact-checkers and spot-checked by the staff of newspapers that carry syndicated columns. To screw up on such a quote would damage her reputation and syndication business substantially. Obviously a politician criticizing their own party does not want their name to be used, for fear of reprisals. Does that mean they are lying about their own opinion? You imply that she made the whole quote up, but I don’t see why she should have to. There’s plenty of other evidence for her argument.
Fifth, she is still blaming Grey Davis because California’s current budget mess is a direct result of Davis and the legislature’s decisions in the late 90s. They gave in to the unions and special interests, boosting pay and creating programs we couldn’t afford. Then when the economy turns around, which was completely forseeable, they blame the budget problems on “the economy.” Instead of giving modest increases and saving for a rainy day, they spent every last penny, and, worst of all, locked us into unsustainable spending for years to come.
Sixth, I addressed this in my first post above. The quarrel is between policiticians in the same party, not constituents.
Seventh, I don’t understand the sentence, I don’t care about the topic, and it has nothing to do with the original post.
Jay:
1st paragraph: See my 1st paragraph above. Also, Laws should be enforced for fat cats, too. I think that too much time is spent enforcing rules and squeezing out fraud and waste in programs that are relatively tiny, compared to, say, ending larger programs that probably should not even exist. However, lying in order get government handouts pisses off hard working people, on both sides of the aisle. And workers compensation is not a small program. It has a huge affect on business in this state, and politicians don’t do enough to keep programs small, reasonable, and effective, instead of larding on ever more benefits. Why should any government program , workers comp or Medi-Cal, cover accupuncture and other benefits considering premium add ons in the private sector?
2nd paragraph: Considering how much our government is overspending, $70 million to make politicians more accountable is a drop in the bucket. I agree with Thomas’ comments, too.
While you may not like what I said, I hope my response addresses the concern that I was “dismissing” anyone. Now I understand why more debate doesn’t occur, or it seems like we are talking past each other: to address each and every point is too time consuming.