Post 17: The last of them

Alas, this will be my last post on my political blog -- officially, that is.

Unofficially, I'd like to keep blogging. And I can definitely see myself pursuing this more in Washington, D.C. while I have much more free time on my hands.

Something that's really bugged me in the past couple days is the whole deal of Poizner bringing up Whitman's voting records as campaign ads, mostly because I would just like to know where everyone is getting their facts.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Whitman remembers voting in at least two presidential elections, the most recent being 1988. If she wants to stick to that claim, she needs to be able to prove it.

Steve Poizner says she hasn't voted in more than two decades. Where is he getting his facts from? 

Nevertheless, things don't look so hot for Whitman with regards to her records. Who would put their trust in a politician who hasn't bothered to be a citizen first?

In the news today, former vice president Dick Cheney has officially endorsed Whitman. Whether that will benefit her, harm her or have little effect I'm not completely certain. However, my best bet would be that it won't do anything to further or to hinder her cause. 

In less-timely news, though still on the governor's race beat, Meg Whitman did finally meet with the board of editors at the Orange County Register as asked. She was, if you for some reason remember one of my first posts, the first candidate for governor to turn down the invitation in living memory at the Register. Bad move on her part, If I do say so myself. 

An ABC poll last week showed that Poizner was only trailing Whitman by two point. TWO POINTS! She was smoking him by 50 points not long ago.

Perhaps these campaign ads out by Poizner will be just enough to push him over the top. I wonder.

Less than one month left in the Golden State.

-- Katie

Post 16: The national debt

While the national debt has always frustrated me, I don't think I fully realized how massive it really is until I visited New York City last month.

There, the national debt, in ever-increasing numbers, hangs on the side of a building just outside the hub of Times Square. I don't think I really comprehended the horrid state of the national debt until it was broken down into how what my family's portion of that national debt really is -- $104,777. That's my family's income for an entire year, more or less.

For many families, that's twice as much as they make in a year. 

$12.4. Million? No way. Billion? Not even. It's in trillions. $12.4 trillion dollars. Now, I've had a difficult time finding consistent numbers on how much of that has been accumulated since Obama came to office. Some things have said $1 billion. Others $2 trillion. I've seen up to $10 trillion, which I think was just poorly worded journalism.

Nevertheless, the point is that the national debt is increasing. 

I'm writing this in light of President Obama's urging Saturday to pass Democrats' financial regulatory legislation with the argument that it would prevent future recessions and protect small businesses community bankers and credit card users.

But beyond that, I've been contemplating the state of the national debt in light of the recent crumbling of the economy of Greece. 

Experts have been drawing similarities between Greece's economy and ours, something that frightens me, to say the least. Is our economy heading south thanks to an ever-accumulating national debt? I know not. The thinking of most analysts I've seen seems to be along the lines of "We aren't Greece ... yet," has an NPR news analysis piece put it. 

Nevertheless, it's kind of bizarre to think about.

But I have to correct my current number. Perhaps I should have just changed it up top, but it seems more dramatic to do it this way. :)

That$12.4 trillion was true when I was in New York in April. But according to the National Debt clock, it's now $12.94. Trillion. Wow.

Now, perhaps there is some disparity between the two measurements. I'm not in NYC at the very moment as I sit here in Eagle's Nest expounding my thoughts, so I can't check the clock on Wall Street. But I can only imagine it's not too far off the track from that nearly $13 million.

I would like to hear from Obama less about health care and even education reform and more about how he can trim the national debt. 

As my mother always likes to say, 'What would the Founding Fathers think?"

Perhaps one of the most interesting things I've found while researching the national debt is an amusing blog post called "Give me liberty or give me debt" on the Meet the Founding Fathers website. 

George Washington stated,

"Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt."

Oh, how far we have come from having politicians who think like that. 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/the-saturday-word-financial-regulations-and-budgets/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/greek_tragedy_not_necessarily.html

http://thefoundationforum.com/2009/04/ffqf-give-me-liberty-or-give-me-debt.html

Post 15: Governor's budget cuts

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger revealed his budget Friday (today) -- a budget that hits children and those on welfare hard.

The plan would cut $83.4 billion from the state budget. From everything I've read thus far on the budget cuts, most of the newspapers are pretty biased against the governor's decision. The paper seem to victimize the poor and everyone else affected by this plan.

Personally, I think the budget crisis is forcing the governor's hand to do something that probably should have been done a long time ago. I know I kind of go against the flow of most Californians, and even Christians who let compassion overrule their common sense when it comes to politics.

Another prong of the governor's plan would pull 60 percent of state money from mental health programs. 

Unfortunately, people don't understand that there are simply things that must be done to fill the gaps of the $20 billion mess that this state has run itself into. 

It's also fascinating to me to see other states paying attention to California. California has always been a bit of a trendsetter, and other notice it, whether we think about it much or not. I saw articles in newspapers from New York and Michigan, just to name two, that featured pieces on the state budget crisis and Schwarzenneger's recent announcement. 

Here are a few of the numbers on the governor's new plan:

-- 60 percent of state money for mental health programs will be pulled

-- 1.3 million people on CalWorks will no longer receive government aid

-- $63.71 million will be cut from in-home care programs

-- $2.8 billion from K-12 education

Personally, I'm more than fine with the governor's decisions. However, I do have some problems with the things that "won" in the state budgets.

Parks was one of them, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, I'm all for cuts in essentially any area. But it does concern me that the budget seems to favor things like parks over people.

Something else that concerned me perhaps more than anything was the moving of 15,000 inmates -- only the non-violent ones, mind you -- from state prisons. That would save another couple billion dollars.

Unfortunately, just because an offender is labeled as "non-violent" doesn't mean they are not harmful to society. 

One area I was pleased with, however, was the governor's attention to colleges and higher education. State school systems as well as Cal Grants will see more favorable funding in the 2010-2011 budget.

The fiscal year officially begins July 1.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/schwarzeneggers-budget-eliminates-welfare-cuts-other-programs.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/14/MNO81DETHB.DTL

Post 14: Primaries at a glance

Thew New York Times is not typically the first site I go to when I want a good graphic. But for the upcoming elections, they actually had a quite stellar one.

The interactive map of the United States is colored, showing which states are leaning what way. Tossup states are yellow, while liberal-leaning and conservative states are coded in various shades of blue and red. 

California is, surprise surprise, a light blue shade. But it is not a dark blue shade. But that's only for the senate seat. What does that mean? Boxer had better step up her campaign and Republicans had better take advantage of the lack of enthusiasm over the incumbent whilst they still can.

In terms of the race for governor, California is a creamy yellow color, along with states like Iowa, Colorado and Arizona. The state, according to analysts, is a toss up. Perhaps surprisingly, the only states reporting dark blue colors for the governor's race were Arkansas and New York.

The rest of the states didn't have primaries, or were various shades of red and yellow.

Participation of college students in the voting process is something that has concerned me in the past. And with primary elections approaching rapidly, I begin to be more worried about that.

Students are the future of the nation; they need to be thoroughly involved with their leadership and support their knowledge bas.

Well, I'm wiped. So that's it for now. 

Some states, like Ohio and Indiana, have already held their primary elections. The majority of states have June elections, California included. But some primaries happen as late as the end of August.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

Post 13: Oh, the Clintons

So, while I know I really should be devoting my attentions to the developing Supreme Court nomination story, I couldn't help but laugh at this one.

President Clinton is now being so gracious as to offer time with himself to anyone willing to pitch in to cover the costs of his wife's presidential campaign.

"Hillary’s campaign still has a few vestiges of debt that I know she would like to see paid in full. Will you reach out today to help Hilary this one last time?” he wrote to past supporters.

Hillary Clinton, according to the Federal Election Commission, still had $771,000 in outstanding debt as of April 1. 

My reactions to this story were pretty immediate. First of all, it's just kind of funny. But second of all, it's really embarrassing for the Clintons.

I would like to know whose idea it was for this "day with the former president" was.

And apparently, this isn't the only time Clinton has done this for his wife.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton isn't allowed to fundraise. But that doesn't bar her equally famous husband to do so.

It's been intriguing for me to watch Mr. Clinton assume a more behind-the-scenes role in the past few years as his wife has taken center stage.

I wonder how much he feels overshadowed by his wife -- how much he feels the need to draw attention back to himself.

There are probably few couples in American history -- certainly American politics -- with as much individual fame as Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have.

It's understandable that Mr. Clinton would want a bit of the limelight back.

Just a few thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEromR3JZ8http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/bill-clinton-woos-donors-on-wifes-debt/

Post 12: The word is in

President Obama has selected the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's Elena Kagan. Kagan, if everything goes through as expected, will be the youngest member at "just" 50 years of age, and the third woman on the court. 

This, of course, benefits Democrats to have someone so young sitting in on the senate; she has lots of time left to serve her lifelong time in the nation's most powerful judicial court. 

I knew none of the options for the next Supreme Court member were exactly good ones. I wasn't expecting anything terrific to come out of this. The woman is a huge fan of executive power, which doesn't sit well with my citizen-centered mindset. 

But I suppose things could be worse -- as they always could be. 

Obama, as some publications (New York Times including) say, wasn't necessarily looking for the most liberal-minded candidate he could find. Kagan has won the support of Republicans at some levels.

Some interesting facts about Kagain:

- She was the first female dean at Harvard Law School

- She will be the first member of the Supreme Court with no judicial experience in about 40 years

People are saying Kagan is a safe pick. At the same time, people aren't too sure of her stance on many of the key issues. It's even uncertain as to how liberal or conservative she will be. In some ways, she was almost a shoe-in. But in others, she's a bit of a surprise bag.

Sotomayor was extremely clear on her positions. Kagan? Not so much. Sotomayor had a heart-wrenching tale about going from poverty to success. What does Kagan have? We'll see. She has lots of experience -- as an academic and as a government official. None as a judge. Maybe that's what Obama was looking for. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?hp

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011860809_kagan14.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/09/ap-kagan-obamas-supreme-court-pick/

Post 11: They come and they go

The big news in the political world was the fact that Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah did not receive endorsement from the GOP. 

It's a big deal because Bennett, a moderate Republican, has had three terms in the state. And he won't have a fourth.

Furthermore, this makes Bennett the first incumbent for senator not to be reelected in 70 years in Utah. 

Republicans, it sounds like, are fed up with Bennett's failure to follow through and his collaborations with the Democratic party. 

The country on the whole, from what I've observed, is having a sort of backlash against the Democratic party.

We've seen it elsewhere.

Republican Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in the race for the senate in Massachusetts, upsetting the entire Democratic party.

The Tea Party movement has caught on like a flame. People are becoming more conservative, not less. 

Some analysts think Calif. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is up against the toughest race of her political career. 

I'm still very skeptical about the direction I see our nation heading. It frightens me, actually. But it's comforting to think that, perhaps, the people are beginning to be frightened, too. Perhaps, our nations leaders have gone too far. Perhaps, people are starting to awaken to the dangers of a nation with no morals and no self-restraint.

I don't think I've even been so curious about the outcome of a political race that wasn't a presidential one. 

It's just fascinating to see that the nation is becoming so conservative that it chooses to reject Republicans with a record of service in the senate. So great was the discontent within the GOP that it was willing to take on nearly complete strangers in lieu of a veteran they don't think they can put their faith in anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-utah-senate-20100509,0,5006134.story

http://www.gop.com/