Yesterday, I received a campaign mailer from my one of my opponents in the race for Representative from the California 45th Congressional District. What? Of course I get junk mail, just like you. Did you think that being a candidate provides relief from campaign mailings?

Interestingly, this mailing extolled my opponent’s virtues as an investment executive and business woman, claiming, “I’ve led statewide efforts to… reform public employee pensions.” As I said, interesting. This from the candidate who recently sponsored legislation to toss $2 Billion into the rat hole known as the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) which is projected to be bankrupt in 2042 with $71 Billion in unfunded liabilities. That’s hardly a reform, is it?

To be fair, she included a provision for “a working group to look at long term solutions…” What incentive is there to reform the system if the state legislature continues to cover for the union’s mistakes.

I must admit that last paragraph isn’t entirely accurate. An unsolicited contribution of $2 Billion isn’t going to “cover for the union’s mistakes”, especially since their mistakes sank the system another $2.7 Billion into the hole before my opponent’s bill could be debated.

Why would a Republican be making such an offering at the altar of a teacher’s union? Could it be that she has hopes of winning their support for her candidacy? Silly. The teacher’s union in California is like those in other states, profoundly committed to the Democratic party. I suspect that they may not even feel compelled to thank her for contributing more taxpayer wealth let alone endorse or vote for her. Nor will it help the state in any way. Spending the state into bankruptcy by throwing money away in a futile attempt to save the teachers’ union from bankruptcy will help neither. Reform must come first. Only then should legislators consider what contributions can be made reasonably.

Is this the kind of problem solver that we want to send to Washington? Imagine the amounts of money she can squander in Washington pursuing her political fantasies.

Dan Avery April 29, 2014 at 01:06 PM
One can always ask why, Greg. Like why did you plagiarize a short piece on Ben Franklin, of all people. And then why did you defend it with the completely ignorant, "I have to use quotes on the Patch? It's not a term paper." That defense shows a craven attitude toward intellectual property. Of course, your explanation about your five degrees shows the same. Did you really get two different A.A. degrees? Seriously? You took all the foundation courses for a four year degree twice? For a grade? You paid to do that?" Then, if you are being truthful you took freshman composition twice and you still don't understand plagiarism? Either you are seriously dense or a liar. Either one doesn't bode well for us if you're elected to one of the highest offices in the land.
Dan Avery April 29, 2014 at 01:09 PM
By the way, who did you steal the graphic from? You do realize that unless you create it, you can't legally use it, right? We do expect a higher form of honesty and truth from those who seek the more important offices in our country. And this is a serious question. Prove that you commissioned the graphic that you used or you stole it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »