From my morning devotional reading.
For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. –Galatians 5:13, NLT
This is a principle that, when applied, makes for a better society. We can choose to make everything self-centered, or we can choose to make everything others centered. One satisfies the sinful nature and delights the flesh, the other satisfies the soul and delights the heart.
I choose to serve others.
The candidate list for the June primary in CA is now complete. As no other Democrat choose to place their name on the ballot, I again have offered to serve.
An elected Democrat who lives in the district, and wants to serve in the House, choose to apply for the CA 11th Congressional seat being vacated by George Miller, to play by the party rules. This is why we do not have choice. To run opposite an incumbent, when the Central Committee does not ask you to, is to “end your political career”
Look for Tony Daysog DEMOCRATIC who lives in Alameda and will be on the ballot as Alameda City Councilmember but not here in the 13th District.
Here in the 13th you have the Central Committee choosing Barbara Lee for you, or you could make your own choice, and choose me.
Also running is: Peace and Freedom Party member Lawrence N. Allen and Republican Party member Dakin Sundeen.
You have a choice. The choice is yours. It’s your vote.
This district will elect a Democrat. It is a “Safe” seat for the Party.
If enough people vote for me in June, and I am the 2nd choice, you will have a choice in November, otherwise the race will effectively be over in June, and the Central Committee’s choice will return to D.C.
As a FREE democrat who is not enslaved to, or owned by the party leadership, I am able to speak the truth without having to check it against the approved platform, or officially approved lies of the leadership.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the law of the land. However unless you like wealth redistribution schemes, it is a bad law.
It’s primary structure is to enslave more citizens to dependence on the government’s willingness to redistribute wealth, and or add additional public debt, on those that “can afford it” in order to “give a handout” to those whom they seek to buy.
It was passed by a narrow margin in the House, in a “take it or leave it” package from the Senate, because the votes no longer existed to modify what was passed in the Senate before my party leaders lost the 60 votes they needed to push the legislation forward. It was flawed, but Nancy wanted something badly enough to say “let’s pass this so we can find out what is in it”.
The president used his bully pulpit to lie to the wavering votes, and citizens, by telling them they could keep their Doctor, and their insurance plan, when he knew there were no such guarantees. If fact it was highly unlikely that stability was being increased by the ACA, which would have been necessary to end the existing practice of Doctors and hospital being removed from insurance plans.
The ACA is affordable to those whom the government will subsidize with debt. It is affordable to those with chronic conditions who will have their cost pushed onto others. It is affordable to the non medicare older population who will have their cost pushed onto the youth.
The three time multiplier that is in the ACA, guaranteed that the young and healthy would pay more, so the sick and old could be subsidized.
Using a auto insurance analogy may make this easier for others to understand how nonsensical the ACA requirements are for the young and healthy (aka good drivers).
If you are in a wreck every day (chronic), and do not learn how to drive better, you will still get insurance, and will not have to pay more than three times what the person who has never had a wreck must pay. Additionally neither the good or bad driver may purchase a liability only policy. Rather you must now buy the million dollar limit policy. The good driver is punished to subsidize the bad driver, and further punished by being required to buy more than he needs, in order to subsidize the bad driver. The bad driver has no incentive to get better, as he will always have coverage, and will never have to pay more.
It just makes no sense.
Millions will loose insurance from their employers. Millions will need the government to add to the national debt to make up for the high price of “full featured” health insurance, and everyone will still die. The only thing that will change is how much is spent on them before they die. If the government does not ration care, the rates will climb. If the government rations care, many will complain.
And there you have it, a flawed law, with bad outcomes, that only Free Democrats can admit beforehand. Others will admit it only when trying to “fix” the website, the cancellations, the under supply of doctors, the backlash from employers cutting to 30 hour work weeks in order to avoid the increased cost of the ACA compliant plans. We already see these things. More will come. Some in the know, could tell us what is next, but that would be against the party line.
That’s the way I see it tonight.
With most districts being “safe” for one party, the Political leadership, not the citizens, control our government. In most districts, we have One Party Rule, and sham elections.
While it would be messy to have free minded representatives (witness the Republican Party leadership’s issues with Tea Party members) we will not have a true Democracy as long as the leaders, and not the citizens, have control over the elected officials. We will not have compromise, or progress, as long as being “primaried” is the threat used by the Party Whip, to keep elected officials in line.
I will run again this coming year to ALLOW for Democratic choice. The Party will give us Barbara Lee again, and will endorse her, as they did Pete Stark, because she stays in line. The Party leaders will not welcome my offering choice. They do not want someone who might vote independently.
As long as Barbara remains under control, like a good party slave, they will not “primary” her. As long as they do not “primary” her, she will be safely reelected if no other Democrat is available for citizens to choose.
In all “safe districts” unless some free Democrat offers to run against the Party leadership’s wishes, the citizens of the district will not have any choice, but to accept the Party chosen, Party Leadership elected, candidate.
That is not the democracy I want my fellow citizens to have put upon them. I want them to have choice, and so I will offer choice, even though the odds of being elected are like the odds of winning the lottery. The Party has the money to support their obedient slave, and will reward obedience, with a “clear path” in the primary, and sure election in the fall.
The strongest campaign finance reform that I can think of, will never pass either house of the Congress because it would be so disruptive to the buying and selling of power.
Here is my idea: Eliminate the ability of any campaign to transfer funds out of the campaign or spend it on any item, or purpose not directly related to the candidate, or initiative the funds were raise to support. Candidates and Political Action Committees, would have to spend, not transfer funds, and be accountable for what they spent the funds to buy.
Nancy Pelosi should never need to raise money, as she is in a safe district and has lots of money on hand. However she, and most of the leadership in both parties, work tirelessly to raise money in their campaign war chests, so that they can transfer it to other candidates and buy their political support.
In my County, my state treasurer transferred nearly a million dollars to buy his wife a seat on the county board of supervisors. The campaign money was given to him, for his campaign, not hers.
If the use or transfer of funds from one campaign to another became an income tax event for the candidate, they would think harder about the transfer. Campaign funds are exempt from taxation, when used for legitimate reasons. Jessie Jackson Jr was just charged with fraud for using campaign funds for personal uses. If the use of campaign funds to buy influence, through transfer, or use for others, were also treated the same, elected candidates would have far less need to raise money and could focus on solving problems, instead of seeking to buy power.
That’s what I’m thinking tonight.
Listening to the Progressives from my party, in their “righteous anger” over guns being used to kill children, and you would think that they want to protect children, even if they had to tread on the Bill of Rights a bit to do so. To those with political agendas, protecting the children should come at any cost, even adults surrendering their constitutional rights. But then, with the next breath, they advocate burying children in the burden and misery of debt, so that adults can have government “charity rights”.
How odd? They would weaken the Bill of Rights, but at the same time create entitlements rights that have not been adopted by the Congress and the States.
I wish there was enough integrity in Washington and the State Houses, to say, what they really mean, that politics, not righteousness, rules their decision making.
It would be grand to have a President, or leader of the Party, be consistent to a principled position, instead of to a political one.
That’s what I’m thinking tonight.
Knowing that they can’t avoid European style blowback from doing the right thing, they will allow us to go over the cliff, and try to blame the Republicans for not caving on a tax the 2% only solution.
If they really think that a tax the 2% only solution will work, they should offer to resign if the Republicans give them what they want, and both unemployment, and the deficit go up as the Republican predict.
They will not make that offer, because they know that the Republicans are right, a tax the 2% only solution will not solve the problem, it will worsen the problem.
Barack and Joe need to take the lead to cut entitlements, so that we can avoid the European like mess. It is the natural outcome of the government usurping religious responsiblity, and creating public entitlements that exceed the contributions made into the system.
I hope there are enough honest Democrats in Washington D.C. who love the country, more than the Party, and will find the middle ground to do the right thing, and stop buying reelection with my grandchildren’s income, (aka national debt).