I'm totally feeling LeBron James' decision to pack up and go to Miami. First, I adore Miami -- the food, the people, the beaches, and the attitude. Miami is like living in the Caribbean but without the passport and currency hassle.
Reading the negative responses from the Cleveland Cavaliers' owner and from many people in Cleveland -- a city I also like, but not nearly as much as Miami -- all I can say is this: LeBron is not a slave, and Cleveland is not a plantation.
LeBron lived up to the terms of his contract. Cleveland had seven years to put together a team worthy of his talent. The brother wants a ring, and Cleveland can't get him to the championship. His choice was as clear to him as it is to me: Do you want to retire as a Jordan or as a Barkley? Hell, even Kevin Garnet got ghost so he could get a ring. If Cleveland had done its part, maybe LeBron would have stayed. But you can't say he didn't give it his all or that Cleveland gave him what any champion wants -- a championship. To brand him as disloyal and wish him ill, well, that just shows you why Cleveland will always be, well, Cleveland. Even Chris Webber gets much love from Sacramento even after he left the Kings. Cleveland needs to show some class instead of some ass.
And maybe it's because I'm in the funk I'm in that I totally get LeBron's choice. I'm one of the 200,000+ employees that California's spray-tanned dictator, Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger, wants to pay minimum or no wage until there's a state budget. I do my work and expect to be paid. I'm all for pitching in during tough times, but I'm not willing to do more than anyone else -- I'm not willing to take a pay cut when other state employees at the Capitol and some state agencies don't have to. Either we're all in, or I'm out. I want to do the work that I do, and I want to do it in an environment where I am supported, not denigrated. I am not a slave, and the State of California is not a plantation.
Just as LeBron's last disappointment on the way to a championship got him looking around, this latest state fiscal crisis has got me looking around for new employment. I've made it very clear to my boss and anyone else who will listen that if I don't have a paycheck instead of a "budget impasse loan" on August 1, I'm gonna make like a free agent and get ghost. Like LeBron. Because I am not a slave.
Showing posts with label Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Who Moved My Velveeta?
Last Friday, on a Furlough Friday no less, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed that, instead of furloughs and a 14 percent and change pay cut, state workers take a 10 percent pay cut and no furloughs, citing his growing concern that the furloughs might not be legal (Ya think? Gee, what was your first clue?). My initial response was, to borrow a line from a Schwarzenegger movie, “Fuck you, asshole!” I thought, “He must think I’m Boo Boo the Fool – that I’m going to take a pay cut AND continue to work the same number of hours like nothing’s changed when the legality of the first pay cut is still in question? I don’t think so. Homie don’t play that.”
My dear, sweet sister, the Writing Diva, has expressed her concern for my situation on her blog. Not only do I work for a general fund state agency (those most at the mercy of layoffs and the like), but I have the least amount of seniority in my classification within my agency and I’m third from the bottom in the entire agency in terms of seniority. If layoffs come, I’m screwed and tattooed. I discussed my sister’s concerns for my job security with BMNB, and he was quick to allay her/my fears. “Oh, no, we’re licensed professionals – that means we’ve got a license to go make some money. If the state acts funny, you can go do contract work. You’d make more money doing contract work than you would working for the state, anyway. Or you can go work for the feds – they pay more. Worse comes to worse, we’ll just go back to Colorado. We’ve got options.”
Can you see why I love this man?
After discussing the Governor’s proposal with my state worker siblings and unleashing a steady stream of profane language at the Governor’s unwillingness to avail himself of all the LEGAL options to reduce the state payroll – golden handshakes, hard hiring freezes, reducing all boards to necessary quorums -- I thought back to a book I’d read a long time ago and it hit me:
He’s moved my Velveeta.
I haven’t been in state service long enough to know whether Spencer Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese?” became required reading for state workers as it was for private sector employees a decade ago. It’s a fable about two mice and two Littlepeople (the term in the book, not mine) and how they react to change. The mice and the Littlepeople get up every morning, put on their running shoes and jogging suits, and walk through a maze to find cheese, which just happens to be in abundance in Cheese Station C. The mice, Sniff and Scurry, never assume the cheese will always be in Cheese Station C, so they keep their running shoes tied around their necks and their jogging suits on, and they continue to monitor how much cheese there is or isn’t every day while they dine on it. The Littlepeople, Hem and Haw, get comfortable with the cheese always being there to the point that they expect the cheese to always be there. They stop keeping their running shoes tied around their necks and they hang up their jogging suits. Why not? There’s cheese in abundance.
Then, one day, the cheese is gone. How Sniff, Scurry, Hem and Haw react to the loss of cheese is the lesson in dealing with change. I won’t ruin the story for you, but there’s much to learn about change, and fear of change, from it. The cheese, as you can guess, is a metaphor for what motivates you – job security, success, pay, etc. In state service, the cheese is definitely Velveeta – work with lower pay relative not only to private industry but to other government agencies, with difficulty in advancing and getting training, in exchange for better benefits, job security and regular pay. Well, the “Velveeta” has been moved – job security and regular pay are definitely on the chopping block.
I’m not in control of the state budget. I’m not in control of my union. I’m not in control of the judges who will rule on the numerous furlough law suits and, possibly, the pay cut law suits to come.
What I am in control of is how I react to the shifting career sands under my feet. And, perhaps unbeknownst to my dear sister, I’ve been “sniffing” and “scurrying” in anticipation of these changes to the state work force.
I truly believe that the state worker life of my parents’ generation is going to be no more. I foresee a decrease, if not total elimination, of pensions. I see seniority going by the wayside in exchange for job security for the most productive state workers. If the state were truly innovative, it would trash the entire civil service exam system and hire, promote, and fire much like the private sector – a results-oriented approach to human resources. The problem is that those at the top – the appointed folks and the CEAs – don’t want metrics, goals, and consequences like those in the private industry. So there will be two standards – one for those at the top, and a tougher, results-and-production-oriented standard for those on the bottom.
I don’t intend to stay at the bottom. By that, I mean I don’t intend to be at the mercy, financially or otherwise, of those at the top.
Like Sniff, I’ve been sniffing out the coming changes, and like Scurry, I’ve been planning accordingly. I met with a CalPERS representative to find the best way to get service credit and, as a result, the most in pension payments and healthcare benefits in retirement, for the least amount of hard time (time actually working) and money. I set my retirement date from state service, or any CalPERS entity for that matter, based on that information. I’m in Tier 1, so as soon as I vest (I’ll have five years of service credit on May 1), I’ll buy another five years’ service credit at my salary now, which will be the lowest cost assuming that one day salaries will increase. I will possibly do another fifteen years and retire after 20 years of service and an additional 5 years of purchased service credit for a pension benefit of 50% of my average salary for the 3 highest earning years in state service, plus health care benefits. That’s assuming I stick with state service and that the pension and benefits formula stay the same, and I don’t make that assumption; I just make sure I know the best option if it does. In either event, I intend to hang on in state civil service until I vest, since I doubt the state can adopt a budget fast enough or send me a pink slip fast enough to lay me off before May 1. The state doesn’t work that fast. And even if it did, there’s always contract work until I can return to state service and vest.
Like Haw, I’ve asked myself, “What would I do if I weren’t afraid?” and planned accordingly. I’ve been working to expand my knowledge in my small legal field and in other legal fields I find interesting in order to make myself more marketable in the event I do get laid off. I’ve also been studying to take another licensing exam that I won't discuss, and I’m contemplating taking the Colorado bar exam just in case BMNB and I decide to move back to Colorado. A bookstore near where I work is going out of business, and I’ve been stocking up on professional licensing exam books and the like at 50-60 percent discounts. I’m also thinking of doing some teaching on the side now that I’ve had a nice long break from it, and I will be looking into the ethics of returning to the private sector and using what I’ve learned in state government to represent clients before my agency. And I’m still working on my writing and publishing. In other words, I don’t assume that my Velveeta won’t be moved. In fact, I not only assume that the Governor AND the Legislature will move my Velveeta; I assume that I will need to go out and find some new and better Velveeta outside of and in addition to state service Velveeta.
All I know is that I long ago tired of being afraid of what was going to happen – what the Governor and the Legislature were going to do to state workers -- and decided to take control of the one thing I could control – my own human capital. And once I did, I felt a whole lot better. The Writing Diva need not worry.
And when this all shakes out, I fully intend to enjoy some wine with my Velveeta.
My dear, sweet sister, the Writing Diva, has expressed her concern for my situation on her blog. Not only do I work for a general fund state agency (those most at the mercy of layoffs and the like), but I have the least amount of seniority in my classification within my agency and I’m third from the bottom in the entire agency in terms of seniority. If layoffs come, I’m screwed and tattooed. I discussed my sister’s concerns for my job security with BMNB, and he was quick to allay her/my fears. “Oh, no, we’re licensed professionals – that means we’ve got a license to go make some money. If the state acts funny, you can go do contract work. You’d make more money doing contract work than you would working for the state, anyway. Or you can go work for the feds – they pay more. Worse comes to worse, we’ll just go back to Colorado. We’ve got options.”
Can you see why I love this man?
After discussing the Governor’s proposal with my state worker siblings and unleashing a steady stream of profane language at the Governor’s unwillingness to avail himself of all the LEGAL options to reduce the state payroll – golden handshakes, hard hiring freezes, reducing all boards to necessary quorums -- I thought back to a book I’d read a long time ago and it hit me:
He’s moved my Velveeta.
I haven’t been in state service long enough to know whether Spencer Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese?” became required reading for state workers as it was for private sector employees a decade ago. It’s a fable about two mice and two Littlepeople (the term in the book, not mine) and how they react to change. The mice and the Littlepeople get up every morning, put on their running shoes and jogging suits, and walk through a maze to find cheese, which just happens to be in abundance in Cheese Station C. The mice, Sniff and Scurry, never assume the cheese will always be in Cheese Station C, so they keep their running shoes tied around their necks and their jogging suits on, and they continue to monitor how much cheese there is or isn’t every day while they dine on it. The Littlepeople, Hem and Haw, get comfortable with the cheese always being there to the point that they expect the cheese to always be there. They stop keeping their running shoes tied around their necks and they hang up their jogging suits. Why not? There’s cheese in abundance.
Then, one day, the cheese is gone. How Sniff, Scurry, Hem and Haw react to the loss of cheese is the lesson in dealing with change. I won’t ruin the story for you, but there’s much to learn about change, and fear of change, from it. The cheese, as you can guess, is a metaphor for what motivates you – job security, success, pay, etc. In state service, the cheese is definitely Velveeta – work with lower pay relative not only to private industry but to other government agencies, with difficulty in advancing and getting training, in exchange for better benefits, job security and regular pay. Well, the “Velveeta” has been moved – job security and regular pay are definitely on the chopping block.
I’m not in control of the state budget. I’m not in control of my union. I’m not in control of the judges who will rule on the numerous furlough law suits and, possibly, the pay cut law suits to come.
What I am in control of is how I react to the shifting career sands under my feet. And, perhaps unbeknownst to my dear sister, I’ve been “sniffing” and “scurrying” in anticipation of these changes to the state work force.
I truly believe that the state worker life of my parents’ generation is going to be no more. I foresee a decrease, if not total elimination, of pensions. I see seniority going by the wayside in exchange for job security for the most productive state workers. If the state were truly innovative, it would trash the entire civil service exam system and hire, promote, and fire much like the private sector – a results-oriented approach to human resources. The problem is that those at the top – the appointed folks and the CEAs – don’t want metrics, goals, and consequences like those in the private industry. So there will be two standards – one for those at the top, and a tougher, results-and-production-oriented standard for those on the bottom.
I don’t intend to stay at the bottom. By that, I mean I don’t intend to be at the mercy, financially or otherwise, of those at the top.
Like Sniff, I’ve been sniffing out the coming changes, and like Scurry, I’ve been planning accordingly. I met with a CalPERS representative to find the best way to get service credit and, as a result, the most in pension payments and healthcare benefits in retirement, for the least amount of hard time (time actually working) and money. I set my retirement date from state service, or any CalPERS entity for that matter, based on that information. I’m in Tier 1, so as soon as I vest (I’ll have five years of service credit on May 1), I’ll buy another five years’ service credit at my salary now, which will be the lowest cost assuming that one day salaries will increase. I will possibly do another fifteen years and retire after 20 years of service and an additional 5 years of purchased service credit for a pension benefit of 50% of my average salary for the 3 highest earning years in state service, plus health care benefits. That’s assuming I stick with state service and that the pension and benefits formula stay the same, and I don’t make that assumption; I just make sure I know the best option if it does. In either event, I intend to hang on in state civil service until I vest, since I doubt the state can adopt a budget fast enough or send me a pink slip fast enough to lay me off before May 1. The state doesn’t work that fast. And even if it did, there’s always contract work until I can return to state service and vest.
Like Haw, I’ve asked myself, “What would I do if I weren’t afraid?” and planned accordingly. I’ve been working to expand my knowledge in my small legal field and in other legal fields I find interesting in order to make myself more marketable in the event I do get laid off. I’ve also been studying to take another licensing exam that I won't discuss, and I’m contemplating taking the Colorado bar exam just in case BMNB and I decide to move back to Colorado. A bookstore near where I work is going out of business, and I’ve been stocking up on professional licensing exam books and the like at 50-60 percent discounts. I’m also thinking of doing some teaching on the side now that I’ve had a nice long break from it, and I will be looking into the ethics of returning to the private sector and using what I’ve learned in state government to represent clients before my agency. And I’m still working on my writing and publishing. In other words, I don’t assume that my Velveeta won’t be moved. In fact, I not only assume that the Governor AND the Legislature will move my Velveeta; I assume that I will need to go out and find some new and better Velveeta outside of and in addition to state service Velveeta.
All I know is that I long ago tired of being afraid of what was going to happen – what the Governor and the Legislature were going to do to state workers -- and decided to take control of the one thing I could control – my own human capital. And once I did, I felt a whole lot better. The Writing Diva need not worry.
And when this all shakes out, I fully intend to enjoy some wine with my Velveeta.
Copenhatin', Or When The Polar Bears Eat Sarah Palin's Pets
The poorer nations at the Copenhagen Summit (Is the term "lesser developed countries" considered politically incorrect?) want the richer nations to not only accelerate their decrease of greenhouse gas emissions, but to pay the poorer nations for having to adjust to climate change. The U.S. wants China to reduce its emissions more, and China is waiting for the U.S. to take greater steps, to wit, some form of legislation from the U.S. Senate. Good luck with that. I'm sure Joe Lieberman would be opposed to that, too. And Sarah Palin, the Britney Spears of politics, is dismissing climate change and the "politicized science" behind it (Is that similar to "politicized memoir-writing?") while taking swipes at California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is, well the Arnold Schwarzenegger of politics.
And while all this Copenhatin' is going on, some polar bear is swimming a marathon trying to get to an ice floe. Trust me, evolution is on the bear's side. When they can't find seals or walruses to eat and ice floes to get to, they're gonna come on land. We and our pets are next. And since Sarah's pets, assuming she has any, are closer to the polar bears than ours, well, she should have a greater stake in climate change legislation than the rest of us in the lower 48. To borrow from a Stanford joke, I don't have to outrun the polar bear -- I just have to outrun Sarah Palin and her pets. Assuming she has any.
I don't think effective responses to climate change are going to come from Copenhagen, Kyoto, or any other city with some trumped-up summit where nations play prisoner's dilemma with respect to ratifying any resulting treaty. Instead of climate scientists, we need some economists skilled in game theory to figure out how this Copenhagen thing is going to play out.
No, effective responses to climate change are going to have to come from you and me. We're going to have to make those small changes that, when heaped one upon the other, like one-dollar contributions to the Obama campaign, make big changes. We're going to have to hold industry accountable for greenhouse emissions and pass up their products that contribute greatly to the problem. We're going to have to buy locally, eschew our cars for mass transportation, and get used to those funny light bulbs. Because if we wait for the fools and climate change pimps in Copenhagen to act, there won't be any economy or much of anything else left to fight about. Because if we wait for people who don't represent our interests to act in our interests, we're doomed to not only be disappointed, but to join the food chain in a way I don't even want to contemplate.
Although it would be funny watching Sarah Palin trying to outrun a polar bear.
And while all this Copenhatin' is going on, some polar bear is swimming a marathon trying to get to an ice floe. Trust me, evolution is on the bear's side. When they can't find seals or walruses to eat and ice floes to get to, they're gonna come on land. We and our pets are next. And since Sarah's pets, assuming she has any, are closer to the polar bears than ours, well, she should have a greater stake in climate change legislation than the rest of us in the lower 48. To borrow from a Stanford joke, I don't have to outrun the polar bear -- I just have to outrun Sarah Palin and her pets. Assuming she has any.
I don't think effective responses to climate change are going to come from Copenhagen, Kyoto, or any other city with some trumped-up summit where nations play prisoner's dilemma with respect to ratifying any resulting treaty. Instead of climate scientists, we need some economists skilled in game theory to figure out how this Copenhagen thing is going to play out.
No, effective responses to climate change are going to have to come from you and me. We're going to have to make those small changes that, when heaped one upon the other, like one-dollar contributions to the Obama campaign, make big changes. We're going to have to hold industry accountable for greenhouse emissions and pass up their products that contribute greatly to the problem. We're going to have to buy locally, eschew our cars for mass transportation, and get used to those funny light bulbs. Because if we wait for the fools and climate change pimps in Copenhagen to act, there won't be any economy or much of anything else left to fight about. Because if we wait for people who don't represent our interests to act in our interests, we're doomed to not only be disappointed, but to join the food chain in a way I don't even want to contemplate.
Although it would be funny watching Sarah Palin trying to outrun a polar bear.
Why a Dead Kennedy is Worth More Than A Living Schwarzenegger
Like many Americans, I mourn the passing of Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy. Like many Americans, I celebrate his life, mostly because I knew -- I ALWAYS knew -- what he stood for – working people, children, education, the disabled – and he never wavered in his commitment to these people and causes, even if he couldn’t get everything he wanted in the legislation he sponsored on their behalf. He deserves to be remembered as the “Lion of the Senate.” My hope is that he is welcomed into heaven by his family, that they are all young and healthy again, playing touch football and just being the Kennedys. I hope his brothers John and Robert welcome him with open arms, saying, “Well done, Ted. You carried on for us. Well done.”
Unlike Ted Kennedy or the Kennedys in general, I can’t even begin to tell you what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stands for, because it appears to change depending on the political winds. Despite his body-building moniker, “The Austrian Oak,” Governor Schwarzenegger, unlike Senator Kennedy, doesn’t appear to be very oak-like when faced with the winds of opposition, perhaps because, unlike an oak, he isn’t rooted in any particular belief system or values. He professes a love of California, but what exactly does that mean? Senator Kennedy loved Massachusetts, but he appeared to love his causes and his country as much. What cause does Governor Schwarzenegger love other than the limelight and being married to a Kennedy? Memo to the Governor: A sense of purpose does not occur by osmosis or marriage.
Does Governor Schwarzenegger wake up each morning knowing what he’s fighting for? Does he have a vision for California that exceeds his next political ambition or his term in office? Does he know what he wants to be remembered as fighting for? Is there any particular group – the working class, educators, children, the disabled, any group at all? – that can say, “Governor Schwarzenegger stands for us, and we can count on him to do so no matter what?”
Somehow, I don’t think so.
Whom, exactly, does Governor Schwarzenegger serve?
I never had to ask that question with Senator Kennedy. Because his agenda was clearly defined, it is more likely that others will come behind him and carry the torch, just as he did for his late brothers, to honor him, just as he honored his brothers.
That is why a dead Kennedy is worth more than a living Schwarzenegger.
Unlike Ted Kennedy or the Kennedys in general, I can’t even begin to tell you what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stands for, because it appears to change depending on the political winds. Despite his body-building moniker, “The Austrian Oak,” Governor Schwarzenegger, unlike Senator Kennedy, doesn’t appear to be very oak-like when faced with the winds of opposition, perhaps because, unlike an oak, he isn’t rooted in any particular belief system or values. He professes a love of California, but what exactly does that mean? Senator Kennedy loved Massachusetts, but he appeared to love his causes and his country as much. What cause does Governor Schwarzenegger love other than the limelight and being married to a Kennedy? Memo to the Governor: A sense of purpose does not occur by osmosis or marriage.
Does Governor Schwarzenegger wake up each morning knowing what he’s fighting for? Does he have a vision for California that exceeds his next political ambition or his term in office? Does he know what he wants to be remembered as fighting for? Is there any particular group – the working class, educators, children, the disabled, any group at all? – that can say, “Governor Schwarzenegger stands for us, and we can count on him to do so no matter what?”
Somehow, I don’t think so.
Whom, exactly, does Governor Schwarzenegger serve?
I never had to ask that question with Senator Kennedy. Because his agenda was clearly defined, it is more likely that others will come behind him and carry the torch, just as he did for his late brothers, to honor him, just as he honored his brothers.
That is why a dead Kennedy is worth more than a living Schwarzenegger.
Y'all Gon' Make Me Lose My Mind . . . .
Y’all gon’ make me lose my house
Up in heh, up in heh
Y’all gon’ make me starve my kids
Up in heh, up in heh
Y’all gon’ make me really flip
Up in heh, up in heh
Where’s my gun? Where’s my clip?
Up in heh, up in heh
- a parody of “Party Up (Up in Heh)”, with apologies to DMX
I try. I mean, I really do try. When famous African Americans do some really dumb stuff, I try to have an open mind and judge fairly. I have been trained to do this by my parents, who always believed that we should judge our own fairly because no one else would.
But I’m really having a hard time judging California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and all the other California legislators for that matter, fairly. In a time when general fund state employees and many other state workers are dealing with three furlough days a month, I find it hypocritical at best that Speaker Bass and other legislators would give some legislative staffers raises. Are the Speaker and the legislators really that politically tone deaf to what is supposed to be a budget crisis?
Now, maybe I don’t have all the facts. Maybe these salary increases resulted from promotions, not raises. I hope that’s the case.
But if it isn’t the case, between the Governor setting out layoff scenarios of up to 20,000 state employees and rank-and-file state workers finding it hard to cope with close to a 15% pay cut, I’m surprised that more state workers haven’t gone postal on our legislature and our Governor. Now, as an officer of the court, I can’t encourage or condone violence, or, in the case of state workers, even striking, given the terms of our union contracts. But, to borrow from Chris Rock, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand it.
You can only push people so far before they lose it. I mean really, really lose it.
Do they not get that some state workers might lose their homes behind these furloughs? That there are state workers who are now patronizing food banks in order to feed their children? That most state workers aren’t making $60,000 a year?
I’m surprised that some single parent mom state worker, trying to feed three kids and buy back-to-school clothes on $25,000 a year as an Office Assistant before furloughs, hasn’t tried to stalk the Governor at his public appearances or tried to “meet” him at the Executive Airport as he slithers, uh, I mean, flies, back to Santa Monica. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me lose my mind, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I’m surprised that some state worker hasn’t put a “Thinking of You” greeting card at the bottom of her cat’s litter box for a week, retrieved it with gloves, and popped it in an envelope and mailed it to one of the legislators who gave their staff raises. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me go all out, up in heh, up in heh . . . . .
I’m surprised that thousands of purple-shirted state workers haven’t stormed the Capitol chanting “Y’all gon’ make me lose my mind, up in heh, up in heh,” armed with brown paper lunch bags filled with dog poo to be flung at their state leaders. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me act a fool, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I’m surprised that the Governor and legislators haven’t been egged at their fundraising appearances back in their districts. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me lose my cool, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I wouldn’t be surprised if, should the Governor make his annual appeal for state employee contributions to the California State Employee Charitable Campaign (CSECC), state employees were to give their contributions directly to CSECC charities, wipe their behinds on their CSECC forms, and send them directly to the Governor. Asking for charitable contributions from the very people whose salaries you cut by almost 15%? Crazy. Yep, I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
I don’t think the Governor and the legislators really get how close they’ve pushed state workers to the edge. You can only push people so far before some really weird and tragic shit jumps off. I couldn’t condone it, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand it.
Up in heh, up in heh
Y’all gon’ make me starve my kids
Up in heh, up in heh
Y’all gon’ make me really flip
Up in heh, up in heh
Where’s my gun? Where’s my clip?
Up in heh, up in heh
- a parody of “Party Up (Up in Heh)”, with apologies to DMX
I try. I mean, I really do try. When famous African Americans do some really dumb stuff, I try to have an open mind and judge fairly. I have been trained to do this by my parents, who always believed that we should judge our own fairly because no one else would.
But I’m really having a hard time judging California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and all the other California legislators for that matter, fairly. In a time when general fund state employees and many other state workers are dealing with three furlough days a month, I find it hypocritical at best that Speaker Bass and other legislators would give some legislative staffers raises. Are the Speaker and the legislators really that politically tone deaf to what is supposed to be a budget crisis?
Now, maybe I don’t have all the facts. Maybe these salary increases resulted from promotions, not raises. I hope that’s the case.
But if it isn’t the case, between the Governor setting out layoff scenarios of up to 20,000 state employees and rank-and-file state workers finding it hard to cope with close to a 15% pay cut, I’m surprised that more state workers haven’t gone postal on our legislature and our Governor. Now, as an officer of the court, I can’t encourage or condone violence, or, in the case of state workers, even striking, given the terms of our union contracts. But, to borrow from Chris Rock, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand it.
You can only push people so far before they lose it. I mean really, really lose it.
Do they not get that some state workers might lose their homes behind these furloughs? That there are state workers who are now patronizing food banks in order to feed their children? That most state workers aren’t making $60,000 a year?
I’m surprised that some single parent mom state worker, trying to feed three kids and buy back-to-school clothes on $25,000 a year as an Office Assistant before furloughs, hasn’t tried to stalk the Governor at his public appearances or tried to “meet” him at the Executive Airport as he slithers, uh, I mean, flies, back to Santa Monica. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me lose my mind, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I’m surprised that some state worker hasn’t put a “Thinking of You” greeting card at the bottom of her cat’s litter box for a week, retrieved it with gloves, and popped it in an envelope and mailed it to one of the legislators who gave their staff raises. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me go all out, up in heh, up in heh . . . . .
I’m surprised that thousands of purple-shirted state workers haven’t stormed the Capitol chanting “Y’all gon’ make me lose my mind, up in heh, up in heh,” armed with brown paper lunch bags filled with dog poo to be flung at their state leaders. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me act a fool, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I’m surprised that the Governor and legislators haven’t been egged at their fundraising appearances back in their districts. I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
Y’all gon’ make me lose my cool, up in heh, up in heh . . . .
I wouldn’t be surprised if, should the Governor make his annual appeal for state employee contributions to the California State Employee Charitable Campaign (CSECC), state employees were to give their contributions directly to CSECC charities, wipe their behinds on their CSECC forms, and send them directly to the Governor. Asking for charitable contributions from the very people whose salaries you cut by almost 15%? Crazy. Yep, I couldn’t condone it, but I would understand it.
I don’t think the Governor and the legislators really get how close they’ve pushed state workers to the edge. You can only push people so far before some really weird and tragic shit jumps off. I couldn’t condone it, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand it.
The Golden Butt Kick
It ain’t over for me
No it ain’t over for me
I’ma step up my game and get what’s comin’ to me . . .
“It Ain’t Over,” from the movie “Hustle and Flow"
Any moment now, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign yet another stop-gap state budget that now incorporates three furlough days per month for most state civil service employees. The possibility of four of five furlough days per month in the next budget cycle looms.
As one of my college friends used to say, “Whoopdee shit.”
If I thought for a moment that every single state employee, whether they work for an agency or the Legislature OR AS A LEGISLATOR, was going to be furloughed three days a month or face equivalent salary cuts, the furloughs might be palatable. If I thought for a moment that the furloughs were a temporary stop-gap measure intended only to close the budget gap, maybe I could get with them.
But I have it on good authority that the furloughs aren’t intended just to deal with short-term budget shortfalls. Au contraire, Pierre stateworker. The furloughs are intended to get rid of stateworkers, period.
The kind folks at the Department of Finance, whose quant jocks have done all the projections to determine how many furlough days it would take to get stateworkers off the payroll without paying unemeployment benefits, refer to the furloughs, with laughter no less, as “The Golden Butt Kick.”
Anyone with any significant history with California civil service knows that in times past, the state has rid itself of excess state workers by offering “The Golden Handshake,” whereby state workers within shooting range of the minimum service credits needed for retirement were given service credits merely for saying an early goodbye to state service. I would presume that many stateworkers were waiting for a Golden Handshake this time around.
Instead, we got The Golden Butt Kick.
And it’s working. My sister who works at a state agency has been seeing an increase in retirement parties where she works. Anyone who can afford to get out of state civil service is going. Attorneys like myself, already underpaid relative to other government attorneys, are looking for opportunities with the federal government or other local entities. It simply doesn’t make sense if you are at the height of your earning years not to look around to see if you have other options, especially if you are highly educated or have special skills. Why take a pay cut if you don’t have to?
And so it goes for me. I’m looking. Consider my butt kicked. It would be sheer financial foolishness for me to continue to subsidize the State of California with my lower wages for stupidity not of my making, especially if I can find something that pays as much as I used to make before the furloughs. I’m not greedy; I just want what I had before. And it would be stupid for me not to look around and see if I can get it.
It’s especially galling for those of us who played by all the financial rules. BMNB and I waited to buy our house until the boom was over. In the interim, we saved our money, cut coupons, shopped at Winco, and made no big ticket purchases other than cars necessary to replace our aging vehicles. We buy furniture at the Habitat for Humanity REstore. We haven’t vacationed since we married. We rarely ever use credit cards. To just sit and let the State of California take money out of my pocket because other people were stupid with their money? I don’t think so.
So, in the words of Terrence Howard’s pimp in “Hustle and Flow,” I’ma step up my game and get what’s comin’ to me. And it ain’t no three-day-a-month furlough.
No it ain’t over for me
I’ma step up my game and get what’s comin’ to me . . .
“It Ain’t Over,” from the movie “Hustle and Flow"
Any moment now, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign yet another stop-gap state budget that now incorporates three furlough days per month for most state civil service employees. The possibility of four of five furlough days per month in the next budget cycle looms.
As one of my college friends used to say, “Whoopdee shit.”
If I thought for a moment that every single state employee, whether they work for an agency or the Legislature OR AS A LEGISLATOR, was going to be furloughed three days a month or face equivalent salary cuts, the furloughs might be palatable. If I thought for a moment that the furloughs were a temporary stop-gap measure intended only to close the budget gap, maybe I could get with them.
But I have it on good authority that the furloughs aren’t intended just to deal with short-term budget shortfalls. Au contraire, Pierre stateworker. The furloughs are intended to get rid of stateworkers, period.
The kind folks at the Department of Finance, whose quant jocks have done all the projections to determine how many furlough days it would take to get stateworkers off the payroll without paying unemeployment benefits, refer to the furloughs, with laughter no less, as “The Golden Butt Kick.”
Anyone with any significant history with California civil service knows that in times past, the state has rid itself of excess state workers by offering “The Golden Handshake,” whereby state workers within shooting range of the minimum service credits needed for retirement were given service credits merely for saying an early goodbye to state service. I would presume that many stateworkers were waiting for a Golden Handshake this time around.
Instead, we got The Golden Butt Kick.
And it’s working. My sister who works at a state agency has been seeing an increase in retirement parties where she works. Anyone who can afford to get out of state civil service is going. Attorneys like myself, already underpaid relative to other government attorneys, are looking for opportunities with the federal government or other local entities. It simply doesn’t make sense if you are at the height of your earning years not to look around to see if you have other options, especially if you are highly educated or have special skills. Why take a pay cut if you don’t have to?
And so it goes for me. I’m looking. Consider my butt kicked. It would be sheer financial foolishness for me to continue to subsidize the State of California with my lower wages for stupidity not of my making, especially if I can find something that pays as much as I used to make before the furloughs. I’m not greedy; I just want what I had before. And it would be stupid for me not to look around and see if I can get it.
It’s especially galling for those of us who played by all the financial rules. BMNB and I waited to buy our house until the boom was over. In the interim, we saved our money, cut coupons, shopped at Winco, and made no big ticket purchases other than cars necessary to replace our aging vehicles. We buy furniture at the Habitat for Humanity REstore. We haven’t vacationed since we married. We rarely ever use credit cards. To just sit and let the State of California take money out of my pocket because other people were stupid with their money? I don’t think so.
So, in the words of Terrence Howard’s pimp in “Hustle and Flow,” I’ma step up my game and get what’s comin’ to me. And it ain’t no three-day-a-month furlough.
A Federal Bailout for California: My Proposal
DRAFT
Dear President Obama and Chairman Bernanke,
On behalf of the citizens of the State of California, I’m asking for a bailout for the California state government in the amount of $42 billion. Specifically, I’m asking for a $42 billion zero-interest loan from the Fed window, repayable over 20 years and collateralized by the state’s real estate and other holdings and its pension fund. I’m not asking for stimulus fund monies with their numerous restrictions on public spending. Make no mistake – we want that money, too, on top of the $42 billion bailout.
Yes, I am fully aware that $42 billion is no small sum. However, compared to the $700 billion the federal government is spending on toxic assets, zombie banks, hubris-filled insurance companies and failing auto manufacturers, I think the positive economic impact that will come from assisting a state that houses 12.5% of the nation’s population will provide, in the parlance of financiers, “more bang for the buck.”
Mind you, I am not an expert on public finance. In fact, I’m not certain, but believe I had Chairman Bernanke as my macroeconomics professor at the Woodrow Wilson School over twenty-two years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I slept through most of the class and, in the finest of Ivy League traditions, I think I received a “C” for my slumber. That said, I feel compelled to make this request. Although our governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, has an amazing grasp of the obvious when he says that the state must live within its means because it can’t print its own money, he fails to take the next analytical and practical step: Borrowing from the government that CAN print its own money.
First, the terms:
1) The $42 billion will not be spent on general fund recurring expenses. One-quarter will go to a reserve fund that will be invested in safe instruments, the interest from which will be used to retire the state’s debt; one-quarter will go directly towards retiring state bonds that pay interest above what the Fed currently pays for Treasury bills; and one-quarter will go towards a dedicated endowment to pay for expenditures guaranteed by California’s Proposition 98 and other similar propositions for as long as they remain in effect (more on that below).
2) The $42 billion will be repayable at zero interest over 20 years. The collateral will include: All state-held real estate, property (autos), leases of state land and mineral rights, lottery proceeds, and the California Public Employees Pension Fund. Not too shabby, if I say so myself.
3) As a condition for receiving the bailout, the California Legislature will submit to you both a plan for restructuring the means by which California incurs expenses and receives revenues, including but not limited to:
a) A constitutional convention to place on the ballot constitutional amendments to:
b) Legislature salaries commensurate to those of the Texas legislature ($7,200 per year), with no per diem.
c) Mandatory state employee retirement at twenty years of service or $1.5 million in individual lifetime state government wage earnings, whichever comes first.
d) A restructuring of state agencies with elimination of redundant agencies.
e) Phasing out of public pension and retiree healthcare availability over the next 20 years while increasing 401(k) matching or, in the alternative, providing retiree benefits that match but do not exceed those provided by the federal government.
f) Contracting out prisons.
g) A five-year hiring freeze.
h) Zero-based budgeting and tighter controls on the use of state funds by state agencies.
i) A “Come Home to California” program matching the lowest state corporate tax rate for any corporations that relocate to California and provide 10,000 jobs or more.
j) Public finance for state political campaigns for candidates from minority parties (e.g., Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) that match the funds raised by majority party (Republican, Democratic) candidates to increase diversity of ideas in state government leadership.
Mind you, I’d be open to any ideas you have, as I’m still impressed by the President’s willingness to forego his new helicopter fleet and actively eliminate pork from the federal budget. I am willing to consider as terms for this bailout any of the terms imposed by the administration on the receipt of funds by similarly failing institutions such as GM or Chrysler.
California is in dire straights. Despite being one of the largest economic engines of not only the United States but the world, through a confluence of economic and politic events, we find ourselves on the precipice of default. The state that gave the world Apple Computers (Mr. President, remember the IPod you gave Queen Elizabeth?), Yahoo!, Google, Genentech, Levi's and Disneyland still has the potential to reinvent itself. With your assistance, it can.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you both.
Yours very truly,
Black Woman Blogging
Dear President Obama and Chairman Bernanke,
On behalf of the citizens of the State of California, I’m asking for a bailout for the California state government in the amount of $42 billion. Specifically, I’m asking for a $42 billion zero-interest loan from the Fed window, repayable over 20 years and collateralized by the state’s real estate and other holdings and its pension fund. I’m not asking for stimulus fund monies with their numerous restrictions on public spending. Make no mistake – we want that money, too, on top of the $42 billion bailout.
Yes, I am fully aware that $42 billion is no small sum. However, compared to the $700 billion the federal government is spending on toxic assets, zombie banks, hubris-filled insurance companies and failing auto manufacturers, I think the positive economic impact that will come from assisting a state that houses 12.5% of the nation’s population will provide, in the parlance of financiers, “more bang for the buck.”
Mind you, I am not an expert on public finance. In fact, I’m not certain, but believe I had Chairman Bernanke as my macroeconomics professor at the Woodrow Wilson School over twenty-two years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I slept through most of the class and, in the finest of Ivy League traditions, I think I received a “C” for my slumber. That said, I feel compelled to make this request. Although our governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, has an amazing grasp of the obvious when he says that the state must live within its means because it can’t print its own money, he fails to take the next analytical and practical step: Borrowing from the government that CAN print its own money.
First, the terms:
1) The $42 billion will not be spent on general fund recurring expenses. One-quarter will go to a reserve fund that will be invested in safe instruments, the interest from which will be used to retire the state’s debt; one-quarter will go directly towards retiring state bonds that pay interest above what the Fed currently pays for Treasury bills; and one-quarter will go towards a dedicated endowment to pay for expenditures guaranteed by California’s Proposition 98 and other similar propositions for as long as they remain in effect (more on that below).
2) The $42 billion will be repayable at zero interest over 20 years. The collateral will include: All state-held real estate, property (autos), leases of state land and mineral rights, lottery proceeds, and the California Public Employees Pension Fund. Not too shabby, if I say so myself.
3) As a condition for receiving the bailout, the California Legislature will submit to you both a plan for restructuring the means by which California incurs expenses and receives revenues, including but not limited to:
a) A constitutional convention to place on the ballot constitutional amendments to:
i. Eliminate the right of the public and the legislature to place initiatives on the ballot to dedicate public funds for specific expenditures and rescind any prior initiatives that do so;
ii. Require a simple majority to pass a state budget;
iii. Require a balanced budget;
iv. Eliminate the rights of public unions to contractually limit the state from using private firms for public work;
v. Allow public school vouchers;
vi. Require a reserve fund of no less than 10% of the annual budget;
vii. Limit borrowing to no more than 5% of the annual budget;
viii. Remove the independent governance of any state government entity that receives state tax dollars, including, but not limited, to the University of California.
ix. Vest budgetary and spending control for all state government entities with the legislature and the executive office, regardless of whether they are led by constitutionally elected offices.
x. Legalize prostitution, gambling and marijuana, and tax these industries;
xi. Eliminate term limits for legislators.
ii. Require a simple majority to pass a state budget;
iii. Require a balanced budget;
iv. Eliminate the rights of public unions to contractually limit the state from using private firms for public work;
v. Allow public school vouchers;
vi. Require a reserve fund of no less than 10% of the annual budget;
vii. Limit borrowing to no more than 5% of the annual budget;
viii. Remove the independent governance of any state government entity that receives state tax dollars, including, but not limited, to the University of California.
ix. Vest budgetary and spending control for all state government entities with the legislature and the executive office, regardless of whether they are led by constitutionally elected offices.
x. Legalize prostitution, gambling and marijuana, and tax these industries;
xi. Eliminate term limits for legislators.
b) Legislature salaries commensurate to those of the Texas legislature ($7,200 per year), with no per diem.
c) Mandatory state employee retirement at twenty years of service or $1.5 million in individual lifetime state government wage earnings, whichever comes first.
d) A restructuring of state agencies with elimination of redundant agencies.
e) Phasing out of public pension and retiree healthcare availability over the next 20 years while increasing 401(k) matching or, in the alternative, providing retiree benefits that match but do not exceed those provided by the federal government.
f) Contracting out prisons.
g) A five-year hiring freeze.
h) Zero-based budgeting and tighter controls on the use of state funds by state agencies.
i) A “Come Home to California” program matching the lowest state corporate tax rate for any corporations that relocate to California and provide 10,000 jobs or more.
j) Public finance for state political campaigns for candidates from minority parties (e.g., Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) that match the funds raised by majority party (Republican, Democratic) candidates to increase diversity of ideas in state government leadership.
Mind you, I’d be open to any ideas you have, as I’m still impressed by the President’s willingness to forego his new helicopter fleet and actively eliminate pork from the federal budget. I am willing to consider as terms for this bailout any of the terms imposed by the administration on the receipt of funds by similarly failing institutions such as GM or Chrysler.
California is in dire straights. Despite being one of the largest economic engines of not only the United States but the world, through a confluence of economic and politic events, we find ourselves on the precipice of default. The state that gave the world Apple Computers (Mr. President, remember the IPod you gave Queen Elizabeth?), Yahoo!, Google, Genentech, Levi's and Disneyland still has the potential to reinvent itself. With your assistance, it can.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you both.
Yours very truly,
Black Woman Blogging
Voting My Interests or My Conscience
I’ve hesitated to turn in my absentee ballot for California’s May 19 special election. At first I wasn’t planning to vote at all – a surprising act for me since I’ve actually stopped in the middle of lectures to excoriate my law students for not voting. Like many Californians, I’m fed up and disgusted with my state government. What makes it worse is that I work for my state government.
At issue is whether I: 1) hold my nose and vote for the ballot measures “intended” to balance the state budget; or 2) take away the state’s credit card, wait for the Legislature and the Governor to get their collective acts together, and risk my own layoff? In other words, do I do what I think is in my own best interests or what is in the best interests of the state?
If the budget measures pass, I might avoid being laid off. If they fail, my chances of being laid off increase. However, given the ineptness of our state leaders, I’m not convinced that, even if the budget measures pass, I won’t be laid off because I think they'll just continue business as usual with no systemic, meaningful change to state budgeting and spending. So if I vote in favor of the budget measures and they fail, not only are the chances of my being laid off increased, but I will have compromised my own beliefs for nothing.
I don’t believe in my state government. Here’s why:
1) Once the budget passed, the Governor and legislative leaders were back to their old tricks of hooking up their buddies by appointing them to paying positions on state boards and commission that already had enough members to conduct the business of those boards and commissions. Some of the appointments were just laughable and just emphasized that, in state government, there are the connected and the unconnected. The connected always live to be appointed another day by the leaders in their party, regardless of the cost to the public fisc.
2) Every year, state agencies run – not walk, but run – to spend all the money allotted them regardless of whether they actually need to spend the money. Why? Because they might not be budgeted for the same amount next year if they spend less than they were budgeted for this year. It’s just plain crazy. Zero based budgeting, anyone?
3) The University of California system has run amok. The regents just voted to increase student fees while at the same time increasing the base pay for newly hired chancellors using the same tired argument that they need the base pay increases to “attract talent.” If these new chancellors had any integrity, they’d give the salary increases back, even if these salary increases are new to them.
4) Assembly Speaker Bass approved raises for Assembly staff, only to rescind them when the press brought the raises to light.
5) The State Personnel Board is still listing open positions. If we’re in such a budget crisis, should the state be hiring anyone at all?
6) Is it me, or is it beyond crazy that one legislator – Abel Maldonado – could engage in nothing short of extortion in order for the Legislature to be able to pass the budget? I was surprised that he didn’t ask for a pony named Macaroni as a condition for getting his support. Another example of more politicking, less governing.
7) If we're in such a budget mess that required executive-imposed two-day-per-month furloughs, why did the Department of Personnel Administration negotiate a one-day-per-month furlough with the SEIU, the union representing almost half of the state's civil service workers? Even more, why is the state legislature sitting on this contract? Because the SEIU's state body is opposing the budget measures. Again, another example of more politicking, less governing.
8) We keep passing initiatives to increase funding to K-12 education, yet our public schools continue to languish near the bottom. I'm convinced that the performance of our public schools isn't a money issue, but a leadership and innovation issue.
As you can imagine, my conscience tells me that the more I prop up this failed state government, the more it will continue to fail. Like AIG.
On the other hand, I have one year and one and one-half months until I vest. If through some miracle I can hang on until then, I will have something to show for my time with the state. Not that I believe that I will actually get a pension, but I will at least have a legal claim to one. If I can ride out one more year of budget cuts and bad state governance, I will have at least vested and still be somewhat young enough to move on and try to vest elsewhere, or at least fatten my 401K.
So, do I vote my interests or do I vote my conscience?
We desperately need someone like President Obama on the state level – a politician who is willing to look out for the long term best interests of the state even at the expense of his or her short term political ambitions. But that kind of animal doesn’t exist in the zoo that is our state government.
At issue is whether I: 1) hold my nose and vote for the ballot measures “intended” to balance the state budget; or 2) take away the state’s credit card, wait for the Legislature and the Governor to get their collective acts together, and risk my own layoff? In other words, do I do what I think is in my own best interests or what is in the best interests of the state?
If the budget measures pass, I might avoid being laid off. If they fail, my chances of being laid off increase. However, given the ineptness of our state leaders, I’m not convinced that, even if the budget measures pass, I won’t be laid off because I think they'll just continue business as usual with no systemic, meaningful change to state budgeting and spending. So if I vote in favor of the budget measures and they fail, not only are the chances of my being laid off increased, but I will have compromised my own beliefs for nothing.
I don’t believe in my state government. Here’s why:
1) Once the budget passed, the Governor and legislative leaders were back to their old tricks of hooking up their buddies by appointing them to paying positions on state boards and commission that already had enough members to conduct the business of those boards and commissions. Some of the appointments were just laughable and just emphasized that, in state government, there are the connected and the unconnected. The connected always live to be appointed another day by the leaders in their party, regardless of the cost to the public fisc.
2) Every year, state agencies run – not walk, but run – to spend all the money allotted them regardless of whether they actually need to spend the money. Why? Because they might not be budgeted for the same amount next year if they spend less than they were budgeted for this year. It’s just plain crazy. Zero based budgeting, anyone?
3) The University of California system has run amok. The regents just voted to increase student fees while at the same time increasing the base pay for newly hired chancellors using the same tired argument that they need the base pay increases to “attract talent.” If these new chancellors had any integrity, they’d give the salary increases back, even if these salary increases are new to them.
4) Assembly Speaker Bass approved raises for Assembly staff, only to rescind them when the press brought the raises to light.
5) The State Personnel Board is still listing open positions. If we’re in such a budget crisis, should the state be hiring anyone at all?
6) Is it me, or is it beyond crazy that one legislator – Abel Maldonado – could engage in nothing short of extortion in order for the Legislature to be able to pass the budget? I was surprised that he didn’t ask for a pony named Macaroni as a condition for getting his support. Another example of more politicking, less governing.
7) If we're in such a budget mess that required executive-imposed two-day-per-month furloughs, why did the Department of Personnel Administration negotiate a one-day-per-month furlough with the SEIU, the union representing almost half of the state's civil service workers? Even more, why is the state legislature sitting on this contract? Because the SEIU's state body is opposing the budget measures. Again, another example of more politicking, less governing.
8) We keep passing initiatives to increase funding to K-12 education, yet our public schools continue to languish near the bottom. I'm convinced that the performance of our public schools isn't a money issue, but a leadership and innovation issue.
As you can imagine, my conscience tells me that the more I prop up this failed state government, the more it will continue to fail. Like AIG.
On the other hand, I have one year and one and one-half months until I vest. If through some miracle I can hang on until then, I will have something to show for my time with the state. Not that I believe that I will actually get a pension, but I will at least have a legal claim to one. If I can ride out one more year of budget cuts and bad state governance, I will have at least vested and still be somewhat young enough to move on and try to vest elsewhere, or at least fatten my 401K.
So, do I vote my interests or do I vote my conscience?
We desperately need someone like President Obama on the state level – a politician who is willing to look out for the long term best interests of the state even at the expense of his or her short term political ambitions. But that kind of animal doesn’t exist in the zoo that is our state government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)