An interesting kerfuffle has arisen in my hometown of Irvine over Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and city council candidate, Todd Gallinger, who provides legal immigration counsel to the California Chapter of CAIR.  In a September 23 blog entitled “Choi’s Shameful Smear” on the LiberalOC.com liberal Democrat blogger Dan Chmielewski takes Republican Irvine City Councilman Dr. Steven Choi to task for calling CAIR an “Islamic terrorist group.”Mr. Chmielewski then cuts and pastes a large portion of CAIR’s Orange County website to bolster his claim that CAIR is not a terrorist organization, including, “CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.”  Chmielewski then writes of Choi, “This is the sort of divide the community approach the people on this side of the ticket have tried to do the past few elections in Irvine.  It’s hate speech coming from elected officials and candidates for office against Muslims…”

I have a different view – perhaps one a little more nuanced than Dr. Choi’s – but then, Councilmember Choi is running for reelection against CAIR-affiliated Mr. Gallinger and election season does tend to produce bold, black and white statements for public consumption.

I spent 24 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer with a top secret clearance.  I also studied Arabic and spent half a year at the American University in Cairo, Egypt.  I’ve been to Israel four times, been shot at in Lebanon, and have traveled the West Bank.  As such, I know a few things about Islam, CAIR, HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.  I have no doubt that the local chapter of CAIR is filled with many caring people and diligent citizens – that said, I also have no doubt that CAIR has had its share of members who have supported terrorism and have raised money for terror (not too dissimilar to Irish-American groups in Boston who raised money for the IRA to attack the British in Northern Ireland).

In this light, it is very interesting to examine the recent interview on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website “Amlolammah” as reported by the BBC of Nihad Awad, CAIR’s Executive Director.  Of 9/11, Awad said, “…we should not blame the United States alone for the 11 September 2001 attacks, but we should also blame the perpetrators.” That Awad levels any blame on America for the terror attacks of 9/11 is revealing as such is the beginning of a moral equivalency argument, “Al-Qaeda and America are both at fault…”  And moral equivalency can lead to all kinds of rationalizations.

With this in mind, it is not surprising that just after 9/11 CAIR’s website was asking for money for Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).  HLS is a HAMAS-front group.  HAMAS is the Palestinian terror group that now runs the Gaza Strip.

Mohammed Habib, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy chief, acknowledged recently that there is a link between the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR.  Federal prosecutors have been saying this for sometime in the HAMAS financial support case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) when they named CAIR as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee.”  The “Palestine Committee” is another name for HAMAS.  Federal prosecutors clearly see CAIR as part of the HAMAS financial support umbrella.

As with HAMAS, CAIR’s Awad denies the right of the state of Israel to exist.  Now, one can argue that this is a legitimate political view to hold in the context of American political discourse – not, however, when acting upon that view leads one to donate money to armed groups seeking to make the view a bloody and genocidal reality.

About the Presidential election, Awad revealingly told his Egyptian interviewers that he favors Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain – of course, Awad wants more than Obama appears willing to give, saying, “Public opinion polls among American Muslims point out that they support Obama more than they support McCain although Obama’s recent statements were unsatisfying. The Democrats should be more careful and should not sacrifice the votes of the Muslims.”

Awad’s equivocation on Sen. Obama was based on Obama’s early June speech to the members of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in which he supported Israel and voiced approval of a unified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Obama later flip-flopped after his speech was panned by Muslim critics.

Lastly, whatever one thinks of Mr. Chmielewski’s assertion that Dr. Choi was improperly injecting religion into politics in his critique of Mr. Gallinger and CAIR, it is relevant to note in this discussion that none other than CAIR’s own Chairman Emeritus, Omar Ahmed, said the Muslim holy book, the Koran, should be the “highest authority in America, and the Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

One can only imagine Mr. Chmielewski’s outrage at council candidate Choi if Choi uttered such about the Christian faith.

If you are still not convinced about the connections between CAIR and HAMAS, then don’t take my word for it, believe liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer who, in late 2006, took back an award she gave to CAIR official Basim Elkarra after she learned about Mr. Elkarra’s CAIR involvement.  Sen. Boxer herself “expressed concern” about CAIR’s actions and past statements while her press secretary said that CAIR “gives aid to international terrorist groups.”

So, could Councilman Choi and Sen. Boxer be right and Mr. Chmielewski be wrong about CAIR and whether Mr. Gallinger’s close connection with them should be a matter of public discourse?  It looks like it will be up to the voters of Irvine to decide on November 4.

You can assist Dr. Choi in his reelection effort by going to: http://stevenchoi.org/contribute/.

Choi’s running mates include Councilmember Christina Shea, who is running for mayor:
http://www.sheaformayor.com/contribute.pdf.

And former Irvine Police Officer Pat Rodgers who is running for Council at: http://www.patrodgers.org/contribute/contribute.html.

One trillion dollars and counting - about $3,300 in new debt for every person in America - this is the price of bailing out Wall Street, we are told by our leaders.

I’m not buying it.  Since when was it my responsibility to clean up someone else’s financial mistakes?  Is it now my job, as a taxpayer, to assume risk in all situations, whether it’s to rebuild coastal cities in hurricane-prone areas, pay farmers for crop damage, or help someone stay in a house they cannot afford that they bought with a risky loan that should not have been made backed up by my tax dollars?

America was built on the free market with its attendant risk and reward.  Our leaders appear intent on replacing the risk portion of that formula with regulation, debt, and taxation.  Instead of “risk and reward” we’ll have “reward failure” and America will be the poorer for it - much poorer.

That this current mess started with government-created and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is telling.  Even more telling is that Fannie Mae’s former CEO, Franklin Delano Raines (”FDR,” how appropriate), settled civil charges for $25 million that he illegally overstated Fannie Mae’s earnings by more than $7 billion resulting in his getting multi-million dollar bonuses.  Not surprising that FDR served Bill Clinton as White House budget director from 1996 to 1998.  Also not surprising is that the Washington Post reported in July that FDR was advising Barack Obama on “mortgage and housing policy matters.”

It’s not like we didn’t see this crisis coming.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Fannie Mae of overstating earnings almost four years ago now, then initiated a civil complaint more than two years ago - showing the world that SEC Chairman Chris Cox was doing his job long before Washington, D.C. took serious notice.

The problem in this current crisis is not a lack of regulation.  Rather, it is that our government encouraged bad loans backed up with our tax money.  The whole subprime fiasco had its roots in leftwing complaints about the mortgage industry’s so-called “redlining.”  Banks refusal to lend to people with bad credit, a poor employment history, and low earnings looked to liberals an awful lot like banks refusing to lend to minorities.  Hence, the subprime market was born - then, when financial institutions saw how much money they could make on these risky loans, they went wild - pushing the housing market into overdrive as homeownership rates hit all-time highs.  In the end, millions of people who, with a real assessment of risk, would have remained renters, qualified for loans.

Now the bidding war has commenced in Washington, with Democrats insisting that any bailout of mortgage tycoons and financial bosses get larded up with billions more for homeowners in over their heads.

Heck, with our politicians wanting to assume all risk I think I should buy a 15-bedroom mansion sitting on a 500-acre sugar plantation outside of New Orleans.  Then when a hurricane hits I can get federal relief for my ruined crop, my damaged house, and my defaulting loan. After all, why should I take the hit on a risky failure when my fellow taxpayers are there to help me?

September 16, 2008

During difficult and protracted budget negotiations, sometimes you have to take “Yes” for an answer.  To do otherwise would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Let’s review what legislative Republicans accomplished during this year’s historically long budget battle, 78 days into the new fiscal year (as of the early Tuesday morning vote):

Taxes.  Legislative Republicans, who constitute barely more than one-third of the legislature, prevented tax increases on hard working Californians in the middle of a weakening economy.   This victory is all the more remarkable in that it occurred in the face of determined effort by an array of political heavyweights who wanted to raise taxes as much as $9 billion, including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Don Perata, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the misnamed California Taxpayers Association (Cal-Tax) representing some 50 Fortune 500 companies, and most every government employee union, such as the 330,000-member California Teachers Association.  As the lead Assembly Republican on tax policy as Vice Chairman of the Revenue and Taxation Committee, I was particularly engaged in preventing an economy-damaging tax increase – so much so that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s press secretary was compelled to call me out by name in a press advisory as the Governor’s office tried unsuccessfully to cajole and bully Republicans on their way to the needed two-thirds majority. 

This no-tax victory in the face of immense odds cannot be overstated.  President Bush and Congressional Republicans got tax policy right but went terribly off course when it came to their gross overspending.  They paid the price with the voters for weakening the GOP’s fiscally responsible brand in the 2006 elections.  In California, we have a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature that has mimicked their federal counterparts on spending – if the Republican governor also succeeded in pushing through a mammoth tax increase to pay for all of his new spending, then voters might rightly ask, “What’s the difference between the parties?”

Spending.  Spending grows year-over-year by about one-half of one percent, some $600 million more than last year’s approved budget to $104 billion.  This is more than one billion less than the Governor’s proposed budget and some $7 billion less than the auto-pilot spending, so-called “work-load” budget that the majority Democrats preferred.  If one includes the $3.7 billion in unplanned over spending in last year’s budget, the just-approved budget is about $3 billion less than last year’s actual spending.  Again, given the long odds of success, holding overall spending to less than inflation plus population growth is a remarkable achievement. 

Budget Reform.  Meaningful budget reform was a high priority for both legislative Republicans and the Governor, especially after 2004’s Prop. 58 budget reform was fatally weakened in negotiations between Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats before it hit the ballot box.  Republicans argue that California’s constant revenue yo-yo’ing, due to our over reliance on high income taxes, a volatile source of revenue, has to be accounted for by strengthening the rainy day fund and giving the governor enhanced mid-year cut authority.  This reform package, while not as strong as needed, and certainly not the spending limit that Republicans want, is still another needed step in the right direction. 

Borrowing.  Legislative Republicans prevented borrowing of Prop. 1A local government funds and Prop. 42 transportation funds.  Other forms of borrowing were also stopped.

Education Spending.  The compromise budget fully funds Prop. 98 education spending, increasing spending some $400 million over last year – two-thirds of the $600 million increase over last year’s budget. 

Law Enforcement.  Republicans fought successfully to restore more than $100 million of state funding for local law enforcement. 

Early Release and Summary Parole.  Republicans successfully prevented the early release of dangerous criminals onto our streets and into our communities before they had completely served their sentences.

Is the new budget perfect?  Of course not.  It is a compromise with the majority Democrats and the Governor.  Of course, even if Republicans held the majority, the budget would still be a compromise as Republicans would have to convince a substantial number of Democrats to vote for the budget bill.  As evidence of the political fragility of this year’s compromise, even as five Republican senators supported the budget, one reliably liberal Democrat voted “no” – presumably because the budget didn’t tax and spend enough.  The Assembly saw 10 Republicans voting in favor, 11 against (as of 2:30 AM) with 60 aye votes, six more than needed for passage.

On the negative side, and it is a big negative, Sen. Tom McClintock pointed out to this author that this budget leaves the structural deficit untouched, likely spending about $11 billion more than the state is expected to take in in 2008-09 if the state overspends its budget by the same $3.7 billion it did this year.  This being the case, the enhanced mid-year cut authority given to the Governor in the plan could be put to good use soon. 

Though a compromise, make no mistake, this budget is a significant victory for hard working Californians during a slowing economy because it does not raise taxes.  California has the highest income tax in the nation, the highest state sales tax rate, the highest gas tax, the highest corporate tax in the West, with property taxes only at the national average, combining to make California one of the highest-taxed states in the U.S.  More taxes is clearly not the answer, regardless of what Democrats, Gov. Schwarzenegger, unions, and Cal-Tax says.  Kudoes to Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill, and their respective Caucus members for successfully holding the line on taxes.  This victory on the core Republican issue of taxes during the long twilight budget battle was the legislative Republicans’ finest hour and it may go a long way to rebuilding the tarnished GOP brand in the Golden State.

This last Friday the 82-year-old California Taxpayers’ Association (Cal-Tax), a group that purports to represent all California taxpayers, voted 28-19 to support Governor Schwarzenegger’s massive 14 percent increase in state sales taxes, from 7.25 cents on the dollar to 8.25 cents on the dollar. 

As the Sacramento Bee wrote Friday night, “Breaking its long practice of opposing tax increases, the California Taxpayers’ Association on Friday agreed to support Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s state budget proposal, including a sales tax boost.”

To say that I’m disappointed at the Cal-Tax board for their breathtakingly stupid decision – to increase taxes in a soft economy in what is already America ’s 4th most taxed state – would be an understatement.  Let’s just say that as the Vice Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation that Cal-Tax as an association is now officially dead to me.  Kaput.  Gone.  Worthless.

One last dose of extreme irony – if you can handle it – New York ’s liberal Democrat governor, David A. Paterson (you may recall, he was Lieutenant Governor when former Gov. Elliott Spitzer went down in flames) just put his state on a lean budget diet, writing an executive order Friday that read, in part, “We cannot continue making excuses for why the State is unwilling to limit its expenses at a time when hard-working taxpayers are forced to do the same thing every day…  Change is never easy. But it is unavoidable if we want to stem the tide of unsustainable spending growth, job losses, and declining population that has plagued New York for decades.”

I wonder what Gov. Paterson (D-NY) would tell Gov. Schwarzenegger and the board members of Cal-Tax?  Perhaps that hiking taxes in a high-tax state will cause a, “…tide of unsustainable spending growth, job losses, and declining population…”

The day ended well, anyway…

I flew back in to Orange County from a fairly fruitless Budget Committee hearing in Sacramento today to see Alaskan Governor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin do exceptionally well in her speech to the RNC. I got the distinct feeling I was watching one of the first national speeches of America’s first woman President (round about January 20, 2013). That was the good news.

The not so good news was that I spent six hours in Sacramento today preparing for and participating in today’s Assembly Budget Committee hearing that the Democrats scheduled for the purpose of blasting the no-tax Republican budget plan. By the time the hearing was over, I counted some 45 people who were employees of the government or otherwise dependent on the state who threatened, cajoled, pleaded with, cried, and demanded that we spend billions of dollars more than we have and tax billions of dollars more than we do presently.

Just before the hearing began, ABC News and CBS News grabbed me for an interview. They wanted to know what I thought about Governor Schwarzenegger’s latest eruption against the legislature as well as his huge tax increase proposal.

The segment by ABC News’s Nannette Miranda aired this evening. An excerpt from the transcript is below. To see the entire video online, go to: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=6369190