Confessions of a Theater Geek

I don't know why I keep coming back to the Daily Beast. Perhaps it's because most of the articles I read are linked from Hot Air, who doesn't tell you their source before you actually click on the link itself to find out what the article in question says. I've had to put up with reading articles by Meghan "Mean Girl" McCain, among others that make me grind my teeth whenever I see the ubiquitous phrases "tea party racism" or "tax the rich". Kirsten Powers's latest writing for the Beast is of the latter variety. I know Hannity allows her on his show to provide an alternate point of view during his Great American Panel, but come on. Surely you can find SOMEONE on the left who can actually make a coherent argument, or at least a truthful one.

Oh, I forgot. We're talking about the left here, who use sites like Wonkette to demonize down syndrome children in a shameless attack on conservative families. Never mind. I thought I was dealing with rational adults for a second there. Must have been temporary insanity. At any rate, to the meat and mead of the article:

It is tellingly headlined "The GOP's Budget Backfire". Right away you know this is not going to be a favorable or even objective piece on the budget deal  passed by the House of Representatives last week. It only gets better (worse?) as you go. Example:

Not only are Republicans wasting time with the Paul Ryan proposal, their cynical gambit on the even more drastic House Republican Study Committee came back to bite them. They may be under pressure to keep campaign promises about balancing the budget—but they're running a huge risk of electoral disaster with their overreach.


Overreach? You, Kirsten, want to talk to us, Conservatives, about overreach? Are you forgetting the years of 2007-2010, when Democrats had full control (minus Bush's veto power, of course, which he never used) of the purse strings and could have put the kibosh on any of this discretionary spending at any time during their tenure as the 111th congress? Seriously? Oy...


To be fair, at least Kirsten tries to use polls to justify her rehashed and recycled arguments. According to a gallup poll she cites for us, more people now support taxing the so-called "rich" in order to balance the budget for 2012. But look closely at the poll she uses. If you take a closer look and actually do a little math, you'll realize that the majority of those that support taxing those who make over 250k a year are democrats, as opposed to the majority of those who oppose that measure being Republicans. Nice try Kirsten, but that little lie of omission about a partisan split couldn't escape my eagle eye for journalistic integrity, and I'm just an amateur blogger. Do you really think that people smarter than me won't get it enough to realize your smoke and mirrors are just that? 


Gallup's bottom line about the poll shows:


Bottom Line


What's that you say? American's share this concern about the debt? Of course they do. That's not the question Kirsten answers with her article, however. Kirsten skirts that question by falling back into her "tax the rich" talking point delivered to her COD by the DNC. She also makes some noise about an alternative budget that would have cut spending even more drastically than the Ryan plan, but that budget didn't pass because at the last minute a few Republican voters switched from yes to no. What she doesn't tell you, but what the article does say, is that the more conservative RSC budget only has a few differences that make it more conservative than the Ryan plan. Via Right Wing News Watch, These are:


Discretionary Spending: The RSC proposal would trim FY 2012 total discretionary spending down to 2006 levels-a $141 billion cut from the last budget passed in 2010.  The subsequent 9 years of total discretionary spending would be frozen at 2008 levels-$933 billion annually.


Medicaid:  The RSC plan adopts the same laudable block grant and mandatory cap program for Medicaid that is proposed in the House budget.  The difference is that the RSC pegs its spending level to 2006, providing increases only for inflation.  Ryan’s budget increases the spending level slightly more every year.  Consequently, Honest Solutions achieves an extra $712 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years.


Medicare: Again, the RSC plan takes Ryan’s premium support proposal and accelerates it in order to achieve more front loaded savings.  Their plan fundamentally differs from the House plan in three ways.  First, their premium support plan would only be optional, thus offering the Medicare recipient the option to stay on the current system or opt for the more free market oriented plan.  On the other hand, unlike the House plan, this plan would allow even current Medicare recipients to opt for the premium support program any time after 2017.   More importantly, the premium support option begins in 2017, well within the 10 year budget frame.  Ryan’s version would delay the reforms for an extra four years.


Our friend Ms. Powers, however, is more concerned with the fake "gotcha" moment that the democrats managed to pull on the Republicans at the last minute by organizing a unified "present" vote, which would have allowed that budget to pass. however, for reasons I personally have not been made aware of as yet, they decided not to pass that budget and instead went along with the Ryan plan. 


"I find the RSC budget draconian and counterproductive, but the difference between the House Republicans and me is I won't lie to you and tell you that I support it just to get credit for doing something I never wanted to happen."


No, Ms. Powers, you'll just use Gallup polls to distort the reality of what the public wants as an excuse to raise taxes on small businesses and upper middle class households; and on the two budget plans, to Ms. Powers I say...so what? Either way the reforms happen, and either way the reforms are drastic. The only difference between these two plans is HOW DRASTIC THE REFORMS ACTUALLY ARE! Also, either way the reforms are NECESSARY! Ryan's plan will have the same effect as the RSC plan, albeit on a slightly smaller and more drawn out scale, but the result will be the same: a balanced budget and a U.S. economy brought back from the brink of insolvency, which is what both sides claim that they want! 

Rand Paul continues to amaze and excite me. If he ever runs for president, thus far he's given me little cause not to vote for him. Via Real Clear Politics:

Usually this is the day that I post a little cheesecake in a shameless attempt to garner more traffic to the blog. However, today I think I'll try something a little different, and post a few things in the coming weeks that personally motivate me or that I find particularly inspiring. Also, in honor of the recently-celebrated hundredth birthday of Ronaldus Maximus, known to everyone else as President Ronald Reagan, I'm posting this:



May he Rest in Peace

This is a decent article. Definitely worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021202409.html

I'm not quite old enough to remember the Reagan administration, having been born just a few months before he replaced Jimmy Carter as our chief executive. Throughout Reagan's eight years, I was nothing more than an infant. I wasn't even aware of the political situation in the world until the months leading up to the 2008 election. In a few days we'll be celebrating the Great Communicator's 100th birthday, and though I believe Ronnie would be most concerned about the state of the country now, I also believe that, true to his faith in the human spirit, he would have embraced the grass roots movement known as the TEA party and their commitment to government accountability. To that end, I've decided to post a couple of videos I found highlighting some of the Great Communicator's greatest moments, as well as his funniest. And now, without further ado, here it is, the very best of Ronald Reagan:

No, this is not a post about the Animaniacs, as awesome as that cartoon was back in the nineties. The title of the post is, rather, an attempt at deciding whether the long known about decision of Jim DeMint to boycott CPAC (along with other senators) in order to protest the attendance of GOProud is a good or bad thing. It really depends on the outcome, which we will not know about until it actually happens. Some, such as That Mr. Guy, are afraid that such a boycott, along with Michelle my Bell Bachmann giving the TEA Party response to the President's latest upcoming SOTU speech, will give the Democratic minority in the house enough momentum to return for a second shot in 2012.

I do not believe this to be the case. While I also do not know whether the boycott of CPAC is a good or bad idea, I do know that the movement that has gathered steam over the last two years has more motivation than the actions of a few senators. Besides, isn't the whole point of the new Conservative movement to give long silent conservative voices the chance to speak out about their views, whatever those views might be? Most might not agree with Demint's decision, but it's still his decision to make, and he'll suffer whatever consequences result from it. Personally, I think he has a lot of sand for making a statettment like that, and I would vote for him if I could, with that being part of the reason.

Upon reflection, the boycott of CPAC is a minor issue, and is therefore a distraction. DeMint might not speak there, but that won't stop him from using the senate floor as his forum, or any of the wildly successful conservative opinion shows on Fox News, or for that matter, whatever liberal TV talk shows invite him on (though I don't know why they would).

Remember, people, this isn't about the gays, or any one particular group. This is about the country as a whole, and one boycott cannot be used to completely derail every other issue on the table. Keep your eyes on the prize, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearers. Don't be distracted!

Dear Statist Friends:

I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.

Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.

You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.

Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.

At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?

I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.

I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?

Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?

We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.

This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?

Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.

Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?

Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.

I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.

Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE's journal, "The Freeman," in December 2000

This was originally posted by the Facebook page "Capitalism" on Facebook

I can't tell. All I can tell is that ever since the story broke about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords being shot by an unhinged gunman in Arizona yesterday, I've seen both the best and the worst humanity has to offer. I've seen vitriol on Twitter from the likes of none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda. I've also seen some of the most heartfelt well wishes come out of the internet that I've seen in quite a while. I've also had to deal with those on both sides who blame either the left or the right for this insane act of violence that claimed the lives of almost 20 people, including that of a nine year old girl.

THIS MUST STOP! We cannot point the finger at each other and try to shift blame simply because we believe we're right and the other side is wrong! This is not the time to blame either Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Paul Krugman, or anyone else! The only one responsible for those deaths and injuries as happened in Arizona is the one who pulled the trigger. Plain and simple, end of story. Now there are plenty who will disagree. There are those who will continue to whine and moan about one or the other side or whether or not we should repeal the second amendment because of this, or even that the shooter did us a favor by taking her out.

I will not be one of those people. I will not be drawn into the "left vs. right" issues. I will not use this to further the cause of conservatism or liberalism because, frankly, that is an insult to the memories of those who died, as well as to the work the congresswoman did before this terrible incident. I've already posted on this, trying to find good news amidst all the chaos and disorder this incident has caused, but I've found precious little. At least they know that she has a good chance of retaining the majority of her brain functions because the bullet actually missed the geometric center of her brain.

To make a long rant short, please people, do not fall into the trap of arguing right v. left over this! It's not about that! Whatever the Congresswoman's politics, whatever the shooter's politics, the fact remains that people were hurt yesterday. Not just those that the gunman targeted, either. The families of those who died and were injured in the attack are no doubt going through horrendous amounts of grief and rage at having been violated in such a fashion. What needs to happen now is that people need to come together and do what they can to help those people, even if it's just a few kind words on Facebook or in a letter. If that is what is done instead of constantly trying to point the finger, the family will be much better for it and will find it much easier to navigate the storm of grief that they are now forced to endure.

As of this writing, the Congresswoman is expected to recover. Can we not focus on that instead of the negatives?

Well, this is a switch. After about two years of non-stop work, blood, sweat and tears I've finally reached a point where my financial freedom can and will once again be mine. Also, I picked up a prospect for making a little extra money outside of my job as a copy making drone. My parents, bless them, are out of town for the week and have left me in charge of house sitting their little California farm. Hoody Hoo!I woke the first morning to find a nice crisp Ben Franklin clipped to my little list of tasks that I'm to accomplish every night.

Personal story aside, I'm posting here tonight because, quite frankly, I finally have the time again. Something about being assigned the simple work of caring for a few donkeys, Labradors, chickens and goats while living on three acres of land all alone creates an excellent feeling of solitude. A feeling, honestly, that I had missed and hadn't even known it. Things have been rather hectic for me and my extended family (which consists of my fiancee and her mother) and I realized after waking up Saturday morning that I hadn't experienced quiet, REAL quiet, in over two years, since my girl's father tragically died of heart failure. Since then, I've been so busy trying to survive that I'd forgotten what it's like to live. I haven't even been here on the blog as much as I normally was two or three years ago. It's a nice feeling.

My time to myself has allowed me to casually surf the net looking for articles to be outraged about, and lo and behold, the left did not disappoint. I have just recently heard about a new DVD coming out called Fire from the Heartland, which is supposed to be about the rise of the Conservative woman. What? "Conservative woman? What's that?" you ask, well that would be women like Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and others who not only talk the conservative talk, but walk the conservative walk. Sarah Palin, for example, is the classic low-taxes-cut-spending conservative that this country needs. Michelle Malkin is a balls-to-the-wall (term used loosely) woman who pulls no punches when it comes to Leftist (or even Right Wing) hypocrisy and corruption. Anne Coulter is much the same way, and indeed was in the game long before I'd ever heard of Michelle Malkin. Other such women include Conservative atheist S.E. Cupp of Fox News fame, Michelle Bachmann, congresswoman from Minnesota, and scads of others that I can't name here in one sitting.

This, for some reason is bad news for the woman-hating Lefties. I've been reading various articles, some of them having directly to do with Fire From the Heartland, some not. All of them are, however, examples of what one of the authors calls "femisogyny", which is the perfect term for something like this. Take the review, for the primary example of what I mean. The author links to several other articles that are not just insulting, but in my opinion downright evil. How can these so-called "feminists" be for all women and yet directly insult the very women they claim to be fighting for? The answer, of course, is that they can't.

Take the primary wins endorsed by Sarah Palin. These wins have caused the feminazi Left to go absolutely APE SHIT over the fact that someone who believes family is important, abortion is wrong, and homosexuality is immoral, can actually help people who believe as she does win in fair and square elections. Oh, the horror! Women who don't march in lockstep with the anti-family agenda? They must be silenced! They might actually influence other Thought Criminals and threaten the power base of the ruling class. Horror and damnation!

Fire From the Heartland has elicited the typical response from the left, very snarkily pointed out by the author of the link above.

I'm in full agreement with the author's point of view. Mama Grizzley's scare the left and their feminist bullies because, like all bullies, these women can't handle a stronger target than themselves. Pushback is creating an environment that has allowed many women to take a stand for REAL feminism that protects a woman's right to think for themselves. Apparently this doesn't sit well with the left because, according to a few of those lefty women, they aren't "real women" at all if they don't vote to kill their unborn child.

Well, all I can say is that Fire From the Heartland doesn't just burn on the big screen, but in real life as well. In my scouring of the net for news articles to bash and make fun of, I've discovered a sense of women feeling that their precious babies are in danger and woe betide anyone who gets in their way. Amen to that, sistahs! Keep up the good fight, because you've got a family loving supporter of a woman's right to be a woman right here typing away.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Via The Other McCain:

This video gave me absolute goosebumps. Hopefully it does the same for you:




We do indeed, as the end of the video states, have a rendezvous with destiny. Let's make Reagan's spirit proud and put this country back on track come November.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight...

So the Republicans unveiled there new Pledge With America today. I haven't actually read it yet, but I heard the basics while listening to Rush this morning before heading into work. All I can say is, from what I heard, it sounds an awful lot light Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that was drafted and signed in 1994.

If so, this country may yet be back on track within the next two months. After all, it states in writing exactly what the voters have been screaming about for the past two years. Cutting taxes, reigning in spending, and even canceling a sizable chunk of Obama's spending agenda. Namely TARP and all the bailouts. Wonderful, wonderful ideas all. Now, hopefully the new blood in Washington come November (knock wood) will be enough to purge D.C. of the stink that has been festering there for nigh on fifty years.

Of course, the Democrats and Leftist propaganda arm wasted no time in coming up with a clever yet insulting moniker for the pledge, calling it instead the "Plague to America", or some such thing. The George Soros funded Center for American Progress even has a story claiming that tax cuts and reduced spending will result in more debt and deficits. They have no credibility with me, of course, being that GS is nothing more than a globalist sociopath with aims at world domination (so Saturday Morning Cartoony, btw), so I'm not going to spend time lambasting them. Still, it bears resemblance to the attacks on Newt's Contract (Contract ON America, rather than WITH). Now, call me crazy, but if this IS just like the Contract With America from 94, wouldn't that mean that if implimented, it would have the same results? Just sayin'.

All of this, of course, is an attempt to smother once again the Age of Reagan. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, as we all know, created over twenty million new private sector jobs, resulting in twelve years (Reagan 8, Bush 41 4) of straight economic growth, during which time poverty declined and the standard of living had risen for Americans all across the financial spectrum. As Jack Kemp used to say, a rising tide lifts all boats.

But it's not going to work. We the people are too well informed at this point. We the people see now first hand that socialism doesn't work. We the people want to, in short, throw the bums out and institute new blood in Washington. We're winning, too. That's why the spin machine is in overdrive and is doing so much so fast that even Obama's own supporters are tired of having to keep up.

Keep up the fight, fellow tin foil hat wearers. We're winning!

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Nuff Said

Hello again, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearing, racist, terrorist hicks! Once more I must regale you with information about the so-called Conservative Republican candidate for governor named Steve Poizner. For those of you who saw it, this post detailed much about his dismal conservative voting record and his outright disgust for the GOP. Well, it doesn't end there, Zombiecons. Here are the highlights of the second part of the memo. I would give you all of it, but as it's so late, I would like to avoid cramping my fingers, as well as making sure my readers' heads do not explode from the constant influx of stupidity that is about to grace these pages:

Steve Poizner gave $10000 to the Gore recount. Not the Gore CAMPAIGN, mind you, but the Gore RECOUNT! The UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNNECESSARY, completely contrived RECOUNT of votes that would have given the Goracle four years to run this country into the ground with his asinine glo-bull warming shtick! His reasoning? His WIFE wanted Gore to be President. Guess we know who wears the pants in that family, huh?

Poizner's stance on abortion is equally dismal, though apparently all three candidates are pro choice to some degree. However, in his campaign for governor, Poizner has been quoted as saying "I've pretty much been an opponent of abortion all my life." Pretty much? Sounds pretty "fair weather" to me, Poizner. And then there's this quote from 2004:

"I've been pro choice my whole life. He knows that...in fact, when Planned Parenthood heard his allegation on TV, they did an instant investigation because this is important to Planned Parenthood. And they were so angry that this was a distortion that they instantly a few days ago issued a 100% rating for me, the highest rating that they give. And so I have been pro-choice my whole life."


What is this man thinking? Are we really stupid enough to believe that you can have it both ways? Not this conservative.


Last but not least, his opposition to tax cuts. he spoke out against the Bush tax cuts of 2004, which caused us to have several dozen months of unrestricted economic growth.

To cap off the post, let's end with a return to the abortion issue. It seems that Piozner was FOR publicly funded abortions before he was AGAINST them. Sounds a little like a certain would-be president, don't you think? John Kerry, you have left your legacy since you were FOR the Iraq War before you were AGAINST it. Sheesh.

Do we REALLY want Poizner in the governor's mansion? I sure don't. Those who read this please link to this post, especially if you know someone who votes here in CA. We need to get the word out!

Yes, I know some of those who might read this will think that that title means I've drunk the proverbial kool-aid and have spent my days drooling in front of Glenn Beck like a 12 year old in a Victoria's Secret store. Oops, think I just threw up in my mouth a little there. Anyway...

I just watched a video off of his website, Glennbeck.com, wherein a supposed "intellectual" decided to conduct what he laughingly calls a "study" about how liberal atheists are smarter than conservative religious people.

Shocker, right? Anyway, the study basically claims that religious people are not as monogamous as liberal atheists...what? Excuse me, but that whole "no pre-marital sex" thing was STARTED by religious people! Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Ring a bell, anyone? Well, I guess it might not with a liberal atheist but it sure rings a bell with this dumb Bible-thumping hick.

Also, he had a disclaimer at the end of the study that basically said that despite the results, this does not mean that we are moving away from conservative religious attitudes. Well...duh? Only 20 percent of the freaking country is liberal, you dim-bulb! At least, they're the only ones with the guts to actually say they're liberal. The rest are either conservative, or haven't figured out where they stand on the issues.

Watch the full video here.

I rarely have "hot diggety dog" moments in my life, but today I had one and it was just too incredible to pass up. I headed into work today in a great mood, knowing that today would be the last day before my usual three days of freedom began. I work a rather humdrum job at the local Staples Office Supply Store in Auburn here in Northern California, and to top that off I work in a closed off area that prohibits interaction with customers and co-workers with the exception of the ones who work in that area with me. Nevertheless, we are privy to work that does not go through the other channels of the job and so we have unique opportunities if one knows how, where, and when to look for them.

Today I had such an opportunity.

As many across the state and nation know, the 2010 midterm elections are coming up in November, and many of those races are gubernatorial in nature. Republicans expect to make huge gains after the laughingstock that is the current congress finally falls off the cliff with all their lemming friends.

One such candidate is Steve Poizner, who styles himself a conservative Republican and is hoping to take over Schwarzenegger's spot. First, however, he must contend with challenger Meg Whitman in a primary race.

Notice I said "styles himself" a conservative Republican. The reason for this is because I have incontrovertable proof that what Meg Whitman says about Poizner is absolutely true.

At my job we make copies. Thousands of copies on a daily basis, in fact. Well, this time a few thousand of those copies just happened to be a campaign memo written by Steve Poizner's people about how they are going to "reinvent" Poizner to appear more Conservative than Whitman is.

Here is the Memo:

POIZNER 2010 CAMPAIGN MEMO

To: Campaign Insiders
From: Research and Strategy Department
Re: Early Prep for Gubernatorial Race
Date: September 17, 2007

Given our candidate's long record of supporting higher taxes, defying the conservative branch of the GOP, and defending high paid government bureucrats, it's pretty clear that we are going to have to go to great lengths in the months to come to "re-define" him in the eyes of Republican activists and voters. Without such and "about turn" there is virtually no way we will be able to survive a primary election.

We are not exaggerating the problem's we will have with the candidate's record. For example, in 2000, he funded an effort to raise property taxes for all Californians by more than $40 billion to the tune of $200,000. In 2004, he supported increasing local sales taxes in order to pay for transportation improvement. Then, in 2006, a group he co-founded, fought to raise property taxes by $500 million per year.

This is just the tip of the iceberg...and if we don't "recreate" the candidate (have him show up at some GOP organizations, give them some red meat, maybe spread some money around to start over the next year or so) our man is looking more and more like the Titanic. I mean this guy actually gave $10,000 to the GORE RECOUNT! Can you imagine how ANY Republican is going to react to that? I nearly fell off my stool when I read it.

Another little problem is that when he ran for the Assembly the newspapers covered his race pretty good. There is article after article , column after column, where the candidate stresses his disgust for the conservative wing of the GOP, his liberal social positions, and his desire to increase taxes. It won't just be the other Gubernatorial candidates calling our guy a liberal, it will be the newspapers reporting his own views. Not sure what to do about that right off the bat.

Frankly, and this is confidential, if he wasn't such a good paying client we'd argue that an attempt by the client to run statewide as a conservative would be laughable. But, as we all know, you can fool most of the people most of the time if you tell them what they want to hear, and spend enough money. Let's get to work over the next week coming up with a new ideology for the client. We can probably just poll it out, find out what conservatives want, and go with that. He sounds like he'll say just about anything we tell him, so that makes it easy.

We've attached some of the problems we are going to have to overcome for your review. It's quite a stack, and there is more coming via mail tomorrow. Hold your nose, it's not pretty.

IN 2000, POIZNER SUPPORTED PROPOSITION 39

In 2000, Poizner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Approve School Bonds That Are Paid For By Increasing Taxes

In 2000, Piozner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Raise Taxes:

In October 2000, Poizner Contributed $100,000 In The Form Of A Loan, To "Taxpayers For Accountability & Better Schools (Tabs), Yes on Prop 39 A Coalition Of Teachers, Parents, Seniors, Taxpayers & Business." (California Secretary of State, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 8/6/09)

"[P]roposition 39 -- A Measure On The Nov. 7 Ballot -- Would Reduce The Threshold Needed To Pass A School Bond From Two-Thirds Of The Voters To 55 Percent." (Maria Saccheti, "Prop 39: Weighing Cost Vs. Need EDUCATION," Orange County Register, 10/22/00)

"Proposition 39: What It Would Do: Lower The Vote Required To Approve A Local School Bond From The Current Two-Thirds To 55 Percent. Bonds Are Repaid With Interest From Property Tax Increases Over Several Decades. The Money Would Be Used For School Construction And Remodeling Projects." ("Propositions 38 and 39 At-A-Glance," The Associated Press, 10/18/00)

Opponents of Prop 39 Said The New Law Would Impose A Property Tax On Poor Communities Disproportionately To That On Wealthy Districts. "Some poor communities, [Jon] Coupal, [President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association] said, would have to impose a property tax 20 times that of some rich districts to raise the same amount of revenue per pupil." (Lisa Schafer, "School Voucher Plan Divides State Voters," Contra Costa Times, 8/10/00)

The Legislative Analysis of Prop 39. Said It Would Raise Taxes:

"This Proposition Allows (1) School Facilities Bond Measures To Be Approved By 55 Percent (Rather Than Two-Thirds) Of The Voters In Local Elections And (2) Property Taxes To Exceed The Current 1 Percent Limit In Order To Repay The Bonds." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)

The Analysis Demonstrates That The Tax Increase Would be $3000 More In Paid Taxes Over 30 Years For Someone Who Owns A Piece Of Property Worth Only $170,000. "How Would the Proposition Affect the Average Homeowner? As noted in the text, this proposition would only have an impact on property owners in cases where a school bond issue is approved by less than two-thirds but at least 55 percent of the voters. In these instances, the impact on a property owner (business or homeowner) would depend on two factors: (1) the tax rate "add-on" needed to pay the debt on the bonds and (2) the assessed value of a particular property. The following illustrates the possible impact of the proposition. A homeowner lives in a unified school district that places a bond before the voters. The bond is approved by with a 58 percent vote and the size of the bond requres a tax levy of $60 per each $100,000 of assessed value. If the assessed value of the owner's home is the statewide average (about $170,000), the owner would pay about $100 in additional property taxes each year for the life of the bond (typically between 20 and 30 years)." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote 2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)



Estimates of How Much Prop 39 Raised Taxes Reached $40 billion:

In The Three Years After The Passage of Prop 39, Taxes in California Were Raised By At Least $20 Billion. "With the new 55% requirement, early all school bonds will pass easily. In the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, about 90% of local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard. Seeing this, school officials can be expected to confront taxpayers with even more bonds for higher amounts, saddling homeowners with billions of dollars of additional debt. In just the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, more than $20 Billion in local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard." (How to Defeat Prop 39. 39 Bonds In Your Area," Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, http://www.hjta.org/tools/how-to-defeat-prop-39-bonds-in-your-area, Accessed 8/11/09)

Jon Coupal Estimated That Prop 39 Would Raise Property Taxes By $40 Billion. "Proposition 39 is identical to Proposition 26, which taxpayers defeated in March, except that instead of replacing the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds with a simple majority, Proposition 39 would lower the requirement to 55 percent. This standards would provide little comfort to taxpayers because it would mean that, based on elections since 1996, more than nine out of 10 (94 percent) bonds would pass. Each of these bonds would burden property owners with additional taxes. The legislative analyst estimates the cost to taxpayers at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. But Proposition 39 promoters have stated that, if Proposition 39 passes, it will bring in $20 billion in new revenue. Counting intereston the new bonds, that's nearly $40 Billion in property taxes - on both businesses and homeowners." (Jon Coupal, "Proposition 39: Pro and Con Views," http://www.caltax.org, Cal-Tax Digest, Sept. 2000)

• "Proposition 39 Promoters Have Stated That If This Proposition Passes It Will Bring In $20 Billion In New Revenue. Counting Interest On The New Bonds, That's Nearly $40 Billion in New Property Taxes - On Both Business and Homeowners." (Jon Coupal, Op-Ed, "Proposition 39 - Con: Taxpayers Merit Protection," The Daily News of Los Angeles, 10/30/00)

Between 1986 and 2000, If Prop 39 Had Been Law, Taxes Would Have Been Raised By $13 Billion. "Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues that more than 60 Percent of school bonds put before voters since 1996 have passed. The legislative analyst reports that since 1986, voters have approved $18 Billion in K-12 bonds, while an additional $13 billion in bonds 'received over 55 percent, but less than two-thirds of voter approval.'" (Debra J. Saunders, Op-Ed, "Prop 39 Lowers Bar To Raise Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 10/20/00

In November 2000, Prop 39 Passed:

Proposition 39 passed. "After twice rejecting similar proposals, voters Tuesday approved an initiative that his expected to put more money into school construction by making it easier to pass local bonds. Gov. Gray Davis led a drive financed by wealthy Silicon Valley busniessmen that resulted in the passage of proposition 39, which lowers the requriement for approving local school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent of the electorate." (Ed Mendel, "Threshold Lowered For School Bonds," The San Diego Union-Tribune, 11/9/00)

As A Result Of Prop 39, Taxpayers Across California Faced Tax Increases:

"Seventeen schoola nd three community college districts are hoping they can get teir voters to approve more than $2 billion in school bonds and parcel taxes on March 5. It is a task made easier by Proposition 39, which in 2000 lowered the majority voter approval needed from two-thirds to 55 percent, but some districts will still bee in for an uphill battle." ("$2 Billion At Stake In Bonds, Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 2/25/02)

Under Prop 39, Bakersfield Taxpayers Had to Pay For A $82.1 Million Tax Increase. "College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita passed an $82.1 million bond in November under Proposition 39 and had to go to Bakersfield to find its taxpayer member." (Karen Maeshiro, "Millions Stuck in Limbo," The Daily News of Los Angeles, 3/4/02)

Anti-Tax Group Was Strongly Against Prop 39:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Strongly Against Prop 39. "According to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, their overwhelming wealth means these entrepreneurs are "out of touch" with the average California homeowner." (Emily Bazar, "Silicon Valley Adds Fuel To The Education Debate," Scripps Howard News Service, 9/24/00)

• The Tax Payer's Group is the primary opponent of Proposition 39. Its leaders argue that taxes will increase should the initiative succeed, and the burden will fall unfairly upon homeowners who pay off school construction bonds through higher property taxes." (Emily Bazar, "Silicon Valley Adds Fuel To The Education Debate," Scripps Howard News Service, 9/24/00)

POIZNER WOULD NOT RULE OUT TAX INCREASES IN 2004 ASSEMBLY RACE