Bloomfield the Independent -- Election Reform

 

 

I for one was sold on Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd when I read that he pushed for the following reforms:

Redistricting Reform -- since 2005, Bill was pressing to end the unethical and anti-political practice of permitting Congressmen to politick politicians in the statehouse, who then would make deals with the opposition and gerrymander safe districts for incumbents. In the previous decade, only one incumbent Richard Pombo of Northern California, was removed from office by the opposing party.

This trend has created, in the opinions of many, including this writer, unaccountable representatives who spend more time living it up with other people's money in Washington, including Congressman Henry Waxman, who currently lives in Bethesda, Maryland, far away from the slopes of Palos Verdes and the shores of Malibu.

US Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana lost his seat in a contested primary earlier this year. One of the chief complaints from Hoosier voters included the fact that he did not have a home address in the state. Such seeming niceties communicate "out of touch." Now more than ever voters are "touchy" about their representatives, and they are "touched" by the bipartisanship, read collusion, which has routinely raised the debt ceiling and proffered pork and back-scratching.

Waxman is one of the Old Guard, politicians who basically chose their own districts, their own voters, and thus could get away with blunt ignorance of the most basic elements of laws and procedures in Congress.

Open Primaries -- since 2010, through the diligence of Santa Maria moderate Abel Maldonado candidates from both parties, along with independent and minority candidates, now have a better chance of winning the Congressional seat or another position in the running.

Prop 32 -- If there is one issue specifically which commands respect enough to cast a vote for Bill, Prop 32 is motivation enough. This initiative will protect the workers' paycheck, will prevent unions and corporations from contributing to state political candidates. The control of special interests, specifically public sector unions, has pushed legislators to the wall, preventing them in many cases from enacting necessary reforms which can help balance the budget, cut the spending, stop the taxation and regulation hurting this country, and get Sacramento working on behalf of the voters.

This kind of reform-minded leadership is exactly what we need in Congress. Bill Bloomfield's independence will force Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders to contend with a separate interest, not just the Tea Party movement, not just the disparate caucuses, and certainly not the special interests, since Bill has refused to take any corporate or party donations.

End the labels, end the gridlock, cut the spending, cut the crap -- Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Waxman -- A Consistent Record of Incompetence

Despite the nearly 2-to-1 Democratic advantage in the newly-drawn 33rd Congressional District, 28% of the voting public in this district has declined to state any party preference. With the other 28% of registered Republicans, Independent candidate Bill Bloomfield commands a sporting change of taking the district, as he should. Waxman’s 38 years in Congress have dulled his sense of accountability to the voters whom he is called to represent.

I also do not believe that every Democrat will automatically cast a vote for Henry Waxman, whose politics of confrontation and controversy have caused more harm than good.

Originally, I was not very interested in the race. As far as I was concerned, I would just as well resign myself to a Democratic candidate who will likely win the election.

Before the Primary, Easy Reader News reported on the then upcoming Congressional Election. I was offended by his arrogant attitude, reported in the Easy Reader:

Waxman admitted he hasn’t campaigned much yet in the South Bay – the seasoned politician is certain he’ll finish first in June – and is still acquainting himself with issues pertaining to this new group of constituents. “I’m still trying to figure out what needs to be done and where I can help,” Waxman, 72, said over the phone on Monday. (Henry Waxman -- Easy Reader News)

The June 6^th Primary set aside for me the status quo cynicism which discourages many open-minded yet independent voters. Henry Waxman only took in 45% of the vote, indicating that Henry Waxman was in big trouble. Waxman has lost half his constituency with the redistricting effort that took place following the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, indicating that the new district contains a new registration one half of which is completely new to him.

Then in a recent letter to The Beach Reporter, a resident of the Beach Cities informed readers that Congressman Waxman demonstrated an inexcusable incompetence regarding the basic steroid laws in this country. (Beach Reporter on Waxman)

I have shared before about Henry Waxman’s ineffective public service documented in  “Bigger, Faster, Stronger” (Waxman Clueless in "Bigger, Faster, Stronger"). Not only did he have no basic knowledge of the basic steroid laws in this country, he could not account for the $15 million dollars which was allocated by the Bush Administration for steroid education. And this man was conducting Oversight Committee hearings on steroid abuse in Major League Baseball during that time!

A quick check on YouTube exposes some other disturbing lapses in judgment by Congressman Waxman.

Consider this clip, showcase the-Chairman Waxman overseeing the mark-up of his Cap-and-Trade legislation (Waxman on Waxman-Markey) The chief architect of the job-killing, over-regulating Cap and Trade legislation admitted in open committee that he had no idea what was in his own bill! Ranking member Joe Barton pressed Waxman notwithstanding his professed lack of knowledge about his own bill. Waxman’s blatant ignorance cannot be ignored.

Yet that’s not all. During the final floor vote for Waxman-Markey, the LA Congressman attempted to cram a 300-page amendment into the bill at the last minute (Waxman’s 300 page Amendment). Waxman was offended that then-Minority Leader John Beohner demanded that Congress take more than a mere five hours on the expansive Cap and Trade Bill and the last-minute 300 page amendment.

“Don’t you think that the American people expect us to read to what is in this bill?” – John Boehner demanded to every member of the chamber. Eventually, the bill passed on the slimmest of margins, 219-212.

Waxman despised the perceived this lack of parliamentary order, yet a year earlier, he nearly threw another member out of Committee because he demanded that all members, including the Chairman, pursue regular order. (Whack-y Waxman in Committee)

Congressman Waxman’s more recent remarks on the national debt are more startling. Currently, as a ranking member of the House Energy Committee, Waxman declared "We're Not Broke". This nation is facing a $16 trillion dollar national debt, and  Waxman’s answer is “We’re not broke!” ---- ?

Yet the most disturbing lack of awareness, lack of judgment, or brazen unpreparedness on the part of Henry Waxman took place in a budget committee hearing in 2012: (Waxman Unaware of Auto Bankruptcies) Chrysler and GM both went bankrupt despite the massive bailouts secured by the Obama Administration, yet apparently Mr. Waxman was unaware of both, a remarkable lack of awareness considering that GM was the second largest bankruptcy in US History. What’s worse, while Chrysler went bankrupt, receiving no bailout from the Obama Administration, union-backed General Motors received a substantial bailout, in which secured bond-holders – members of the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund and the Indiana State Police Pension Fund --  did not receive bankruptcy protection, as the money in those funds was transferred to help out GM. 

Whether discussing the basic elements of his Oversight committee hearings, the details of his own legislation, or his lack of preparation or decorum on key matters which affect the American people, Congressman Henry Waxman has more than made the case for his record of consistent incompetence.

The Santa Monica Bay deserves better. Vote for Bill Bloomfield for the 33^rd!

Letter to Santa Monica Residents

My name is Arthur Christopher Schaper, a resident of Torrance, CA. I am also a resident of the newly-drawn 33rd Congressional district which includes Santa Monica and the rest of the Santa Monica Bay, the same district in which Congressman Henry Waxman is running against Independent Candidate Bill Bloomfield.

Congressman Henry Waxman has been an LA fixture as long as the Fifth Street Post Office, and both are targeted for closure. While the Post Office has an archaic beauty which can still stir residents and visitors, Congressman Waxman is a worn-out Washington insider long-overdue for decommission.

Regarding his signature legislation, ObamaCare, Waxman insists on referring to the individual mandate as a penalty, even though the Supreme Court has upheld it as a "tax". The law provides no compensation to hospitals for illegal immigrants. Waxman has ignored the law's $700 billion raid of Medicare, nor has he refuted the recent ruling by the IRS, which has excised a large population of working Americans from the federal subsidy.

 After the revelation that failed green tech companies had taken down billions in federal loan guarantees, Waxman said, "I'm sorry!" About this nation’s steroid laws, the contents of his own legislation, and even the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, Waxman admitted: "I don't know!"

Despite the $16 trillion national debt dooming this country, Waxman declares "We're not broke!”

 To the Santa Monica voters who want to stop the spending and get our government working again, vote for Bill Bloomfield for the 33^rd Congressional District.

A Telling Comparison: Henry Waxman and the Fifth Street Post Office

Henry Waxman: Long Overdue for Closure



Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Santa Monica) is protesting the closure of the New Deal-era Post Office on Fifth Street, which looks like a done deal. The Mayor of Santa Monica has appealed the decision, and Congressman Waxman has signaled his support to keep the post office open. On a related note, Waxman is running for reelection this year, his first real campaign against a well-financed and well-positioned challenger. Waxman has also signaled that he wants to remain representative of the Santa Monica Bay.

 The comparisons between the New Deal-era Post Office and Congressman Henry Waxman are telling, disturbing, and motivating enough to end both.

Both have been fixtures of Santa Monica.  



Fifth Street Post Offiice



Since the FDR administration, post offices like the Art Deco Post Office on Fifth Street have been a landmark of the good that government used to do.

A landmark of the Beltway long before I could tie my shoes or use a belt, Henry Waxman is a gaudy relic of the federal government, a novelty of an old political ideology, in which more government was good government, that the state could supply all our needs, and the cost in the long run would be taken care of with taxes and spending.

Both are in their early seventies, and showing signs of wear and tear. Old and worn, the Post Office still conveys the charm of simple architecture. Henry Waxman, however, has none of the same charm.

Both are long-overdue for closure.

After thirty years of costly overruns, declining quality of service, and better competition, the United States Postal Services has been forced to close down post offices throughout the country. Innovations in technology have rendered the Post Service crippled and irrelevant, burdened with debt and dysfunction which it cannot cope with adequately.

Just like the New Deal-era policies which initiated the United States Postal Service, Congressman Waxman is a Washington fixture who, after thirty-eight years of taxation, spending, uncompromising disrespect, and an outright refusal to  recognize the debts, deficits, and dysfunction of the federal government, has outspent his use and overstayed his weary welcome in Washington.

If the Post Office must be closed down, at least let it remain a monument to the ultimate failings of Big Government as Big Provider of goods, services, and jobs.

As for Congressman Waxman, aside from putting him in a museum for one of the longest-serving Congressman in history, his time has come to go. The Santa Monica Bay can do better than a corporate liberal who spends more time going after steroid use in baseball instead of taking down the debts and deficits ruining this country.

Bill Bloomfield for the 33^rd!

Response to "Argonaut" Report

Anti-Economic Recovery

Congressman Henry Waxman is attempting to ride out the wave of discontent against incumbents nationwide by railing against the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives as the “most ani-environmental” Congress in history.

“Protecting our coast should be a national priority,” Waxman claimed at a recent press conference. Yet the 38-year incumbent did not pay a visit to the Malibu shore in four years. After 38 years, he has done nothing to reform or specify the scope and scale of the Clean Water Act, which the Supreme Court has twice ruled against (Rapanos v. United States (2006), Sackett v. EPA (2012), arguing that the loose and vague rules create more conflict than care for our waterways, even failing to properly define “wetlands”.

Independent challenger Bill Bloomfield correctly indicted the Congressman for ignoring the real issues: “Rep. Waxman has not voted to create jobs.”

In fact, Congressman Waxman’s Cap and Trade bill, based on studies by MIT and the Council on Foreign Relations, would have killed millions of jobs while having a negligible effect on our air quality. That bill never passed, stymied by a Democratic-controlled Senate. The other law which Waxman helped push through Congress, ObamaCare, is already threatening hospitals around the country, jacking up premiums while cutting off health coverage to employees who have depended on their employers, now forced by ObamaCare to cut staff and stave off hiring and expansion.  Waxman also supported federal loan guarantees to nineteen now bankrupt green tech companies, including Solyndra, which have wasted billions in taxpayer dollars, money that belongs in our pockets.

Waxman opposes the XL Keystone pipeline, which would create thousands of jobs without harming the environment. He decries “global warming” as “science”, even though 30,000 scientists remain skeptical about whether global warming is a threat, or even a reality. He says “We’re not broke!” even though this country is hurting under multi-trillion dollar deficits.

If anyone is denying reality, it’s Congressman Waxman. It’s time that the residents of the Santa Monica Bay deny him another term in office. On November 6^th, vote for Bill Bloomfield for the 33^rd.

Waxman and the Malibu Times -- August 17

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2012/08/17/news/news2.txt

The Malibu Times reported on Congressman Henry Waxman’s recent press conference, calling for heightened coastal protections along the Malibu shore, yet also taking time to attack the Republicans in the House.

The press conference was in keeping with a key theme of Waxman’s re-election campaign thus far, which is that Republicans are to blame for partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C.

Independent candidate Bill Bloomfield correctly identified Henry Waxman’s press conference and findings as a “partisan document produced at taxpayer expense.”

Congressman Henry Waxman is blaming the Republican Majority in the House for pushing an anti-environmental agenda. Yet Waxman’s legislation has been anti-recovery, and his actions in Congress have done nothing to improve the nation’s laws to protect our waters and protect our rights.

Not the Congress, but rather the Supreme Court has handed down withering judgments faulting the Clean Water for is unwavering vagaries.

In 2006, the Rehnquist Court ruled in Rapanos v. United Statesthat Congress and the EPA failed to define or qualify the extent that running tributaries would impede building on one’s property.

Sackett v. EPA has permitted two home-owners in Idaho to pursue an appeal to end an arbitrate injunction preventing them from building a home on their own property. The Court allowed the Sacketts to sue the EPA immediately instead of enduring fines and sanctions before having a case to sue.

To this day, Waxman still stands by the failed “green loan guarantees program” one which has witnessed the waste of billions of dollars in the worthless quest of green technology on the federal dole. Nineteen federally subsidized companies have gone bankrupt, including $500 million toward Solyndra,“I’m sorry” was all that he had to say.

About the gridlock in Congress, Waxman’s continues to charge that “Republicans are to blame.” This is ridiculous schlock. How does Waxman justify pushing through Cap and Trade in 2009, which passed by the slimmest of margins –219-212, and at the last minute before the floor vote, he crammed in a 300 page amendment, which no one had time to read? Then there was Obama-WaxmanCare, a bill which faced bipartisan opposition, which passed through reconciliation on a 216-212 vote, despite the roaring crowds, both Democrat and Republican, which assembled on the Washington Mall to petition the government not to pass the law?

He has stonewalled proper investigation and mark-up of the XL Keystone Pipeline, throwing out the empty charges of collusion between the Koch Brothers and the Republicans in Congress. These empty charges are systemic and symptomatic of Waxman’s hyped-up hyperpartisanship, stalling Congress, energy independence, and economic recovery.

Waxman attacks the wrong people for the failures of the Clean Water Act, then he hypocritically assails the House Republicans for the very tactics which he actively practices. His partisanship cleary imparts that he will not partner with the opposition to get anything done. It is time for Waxman to part and let Bloomfield take his place to part the partisan gridlock.

To Waxman, Disagreement is "Terrorism"

http://www.libertynews.com/2012/01/28/rep-henry-waxman-refers-to-gop-legislators-as-terrorists/

Democrat Henry Waxman is no foreigner when it comes to confrontation.


He has waved his gavel at Tobacco CEOs, and the CEOs of failed financial firms. He has gone after professional athletes over steroid use.

He has tangled with the opposition on the House floor over Cap and Trade. He even threatened to throw one member off of a committee during a tense hearing with an official from the Bush Administration.

Now, Waxman decries:

Waxman reportedly said that “they want to use legislation as a way to act like terrorists. They hold things as hostage,” He went on to exclaim: “We almost couldn’t fund the government because Republicans wanted to hold that idea hostage, we almost couldn’t pay our debts because the Republicans wanted to hold that legislation hostage to their extreme agenda, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they scuttled this conference by trying to hold us hostage.”

This misunderstanding presumable touches on the GOP's decision to refusing raising the debt ceiling last year in order to force the government to look long and hard at cutting the spending and ending the debts and the deficits that are hurting this country.

For every vote to raise the debt limit, Waxman showed his true colors, walking in lock-step with his party instead of taking a stand for debt reduction. He voted to raise the debt ceiling every time his party was in the majority, while he voted against raising the debt ceiling when his party was out of power.
(http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/California/Henry_Waxman/Views/
Debt,_Deficit,_Spending,_and_the_Size_of_Government/

A Congressman who likens healthy disagreement over spending, waste, and fraud in government to "terrorism" obviously has no penchant for compromise. The Santa Monica Bay needs legislators who want to stop the spending while working with the opposition in Congress to effect needed change.

Mr. Waxman's terrible comment on "terrorism" is out of place, as he is.

Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Unsightly Untruths About Bill Bloomfield

I have read the following comments from the Patch Network about Mr. Bloomfield:

 "Though Bill Bloomberg would like to pass himself off as an Independent, he is a foxy Rebublican disguised in sheep's clothing." (That's Bloomfield, not Bloomberg -- was the critic attacking the mayor of New York?)

Waxman may be a bit of a Jack-ass - and I can't say that I support(ed) the Malibu Lagoon project (or the boondoggle being proposed for Ballona - turning a fresh water marsh into a salt water marsh) - but I don't buy that guy- (Bloomfield)'s line either. "No labels" seems like a smart move for an arch-Conservative trying to run in California, much less anywhere in the SM Bay region.

Bloomfield has received the endorsement of a maverick (McCain) and a moderate (Riordan) -- nothing "arch-conservative" about that mix. Waxman is still very much a beast of burden for the voters and the nation who want jobs and a recovering economy, not job-killing regulations that will bury our economy into stagnation.

"So what then? Two more years of Jobs, Jobs, J-abortion? Can we all afford to wait for 2014 for anything to get done in Washington? Two more years of Eric Cantor and John Boehner?
I don't even think that Peace and Freedom is mounting a challenger to him, this time. If they were I'd probably vote for ________, since Bloomfield has just about - a snowball's chance in hell."

Mr. Bloomfield is an independent, one who openly differed with Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell over his professed mission to make President Barack Obama a "one-term President." Linking Bloomfield to Cantor-Beohner makes as much sense as a domesticated house cat trying to dance with an independent lynx: both have four feet  and willingness to swing, but both differ on how to forage for their food or fight for their future. Recently, Bloomfield has pledged that he will not caucus with either party, but will insist that the two leaders in Congress work with him and the No Labels Caucus to place him on key committees.

I have spoken with Democrats -- who were willing to listen -- as well independents in Venice and Santa Monica. Their support and interest in Mr. Bloomfield's independent candidacy suggest that the "snowball" will snowball into a grassroots rebellion against unaccountable incumbents like Henry Waxman the Taxman.

"Realizing the it's Waxman, or the Bush/Cheney/McCain Campaign chair - are you all really going to vote against Waxman????"

Mr. Bloomfield helped Presidential candidate John McCain win the 2008 presidential nomination, and McCain and Bush-Cheney were out of step on a number of issues. Waxman is more in line with the same "compassionate conservatism" of more government and more nanny-statism for which "Dubya" became notorious.

"Independent my-ass! Dude was a George Duuuh-bya campaign chair."

See above. I will also add that President George W. Bush presided over one of the largest expansions of spending and government in Washington -- "compassionate conservatism" which was not compassionate toward our future nor conservative toward the present. Bloomfield opposes such out-of-control spending, a disturbing trend which pushed many Republicans into the Independent column.

Other empty insults which I have heard have sand-bagged Mr. Bloomfield as a member of the Tea Party Movement, a political community which has differed with Mr. Bloomfield on his "lack of purity." The truth is, Mr. Bloomfield is a true independent, refusing to take donations from major parties or corporate donors. What about Mr. Waxman?

The immoderate attacks which indict Mr. Bloomfield for immoderation are just untenable and unsupportable. Bloomfield helped out John McCain's presidential campaign, the same Arizona senator who offended the very "arch-conservatives" which some uninformed activists attempt to link to Bloomfield. "Maverick" McCain has broken with the GOP on issues, sometimes inviting ire, derision, or admiration, depending on the issues at stake.

Former Mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles (1993-2001) typifies the moderation that Mr. Bloomfield wishes to bring to Congress. Riordan enacted sweeping reforms to streamline business regulations in Los Angeles. He supported hiring 3,000 new police officers, although the city did not possess the adequate space to provide the needed time and resources to hire so many officers. Following the 1992 LA riots, crime and public safety were a core issue for Riordan, and during his tenure, the crime rate dropped overall. Yet he was a centrist who worked with a Democratic City Council to enact as much as he could for the improvement of Los Angeles. It was Richard Riordan who pressed for mayoral term limits, the same that forced him out of office.
Like Riordan, Bloomfield has a track record of working with Republicans as well as supporting Democratic candidates. He has partnered with staunch Democrat Michelle Rhee, the former Chancellor for the Washington D.C. public schools. He has supported numerous Democratic candidates as well as Republican candidates. Like Riordan, Bloomfield wants to reform

Bloomfield's support for E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman, a pro-choice Republican, was based on the respected perception that her business acumen would better serve the state of California instead of a progressive who had already served in the governor's mansion, squandering a surplus left over from the Reagan administration of 1967-1975.

Jerry Brown  resisted and discouraged Prop 13, which protected property taxes from skyrocketing in the state of California while also enacting tax reform which would require 2/3 majorities in the legislature before any tax increases could be enacted in the state. Prop 13 is the only thing that keeps a majority in Sacramento from taxing and spending the State of California into a long-range depression.

The issues most important to Bloomfield are the same issues which the voters in the Santa Monica Bay deem important. Ending lawsuit abuse, returning the power of the ballot and the paycheck to individual workers, letting the voters choose  their politicians, not the other way around. The central motive behind the Open Primary and the Citizens' Redistricting Commission, both of which were opposed by 38-year incumbent Henry Waxman.

A fresh face, new ideas, and a desire to compromise -- Bill Bloomfield brings a better aim and game to Southern California than Henry Waxman's 38 years of tax-and-spend governmental expansion,which has done nothing to end debt and deficits, or diminish the looming default menacing the United States.

Deregulate Waxman and Free Up the Economy

http://www.talkradionews.com/audio/2012/07/23/rep-waxman-claims-gop-cutting-throats-not-red-tape.html

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) criticized proposed legislation to freeze new regulatory until unemployment hits 6 percent, saying it amounts to metaphorically cutting the throats of Americans who rely on regulatory protections.

“We’re going to have quite a week on the House floor as they try to press their message against regulation. But the American people should know what the Republicans are doing is not cutting red tape, but cutting the throats of many people who are waiting to have the help of the regulations that would be of help to them,” Waxman said . Adding, “and of course I’m saying ‘cutting the throats’ in a metaphorical way.”

http://insuranceforless.mobi/wp/index.php/insurance-news/coming-house-vote-on-freezing-regulations-draws-democrats%E2%80%99-fire/

Red tape, including the expanses of ribbon-red wrapped up in ObamaCare, are already shutting down hospitals and raising premiums and denying adequate access to care and coverage for the American People.

Deregulate Waxman, and Free up the Economy!

Waxman on Gun Control



Dirty Harry:
"Go Ahead, Take Their Guns Away!

 "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" Henry A. Waxman Representative (D-CA) (From Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns , by John Haueisen)

The Bill of Rights did not provide a provision on the right to bear arms so that Americans could go hunting.  The Second Amendment was about protection, not just for the states from foreign invaders, but also for protection from the federal government.

The Supreme Court has ruled by dicta (United States v. Verdugo-Irquidez) and by direct opinion (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the right to bear arms belongs to individuals.

Does Congressman Waxman have a problem with the Supreme Court? Does he take offense that the Bill or Rights, as such, protects the rights of individuals, as rights cannot be conferred on anyone else and retain any merit or meaning?

Climate Change a Matter of Great Skepticism

Waxman Has Not Erased Skepticism About
Global Warming

http://billmoyers.com/2012/07/21/how-the-influence-industry-killed-climate-change-legislation/

This weather can be blamed on a shift in the climate triggered by human actions from years ago. And with Congress virtually ignoring the problem today, you can only imagine how much more you’ll be sweating tomorrow.

Climate change is a part of life, a factor that follows the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The alarmists about "climate change" have failed to convince many precisely because the academic community remains divided on the issue.

The Colorado wild-fires are due in part not just to rising temperatures, but the inability for the recently reseeded soil to regenerate following previous floods. President George W. Bush attempted to enact a program in federal lands that would permit the federal forestries to clear away ground shrubs, which easily catch and spread wildfires and destruction.

Waxman-Markey would have been a massive a job-killed without any substantial evidence that the emissions of greenhouse gases would have diminished significantly. Other developing countries like China and India are releasing Carbon and other "noxious" emissions, yet no one has forced or cajoled those countries to reduce their "pollution".

Bill Moyers' analysis suggests that Big Industries with Big Money helped kill Cap and Trade, yet Democrat Joe Manchin ran as a GOP in Democrat clothing, shooting a bullet through a Cap and Trade bill while running in West Virginia. He was fully aware that his constituents would have endure staggering job losses and unemployment had Cap and Trade passed in Washington.

Clean air and water are estimable goals, but not at the expense of the economy and the communities in this country who deserve to live free from government overreach and environmental fanaticism.

I Don't Care for Waxman -- Because of WaxmanCare

Reports have confirmed the inescapable obvious.

This country is going broke, and the entitlement measures which were supposed to stay afloat are fast going broke. Social Security is not secure, and Medicare will not cover the expenses that hospitals are burdened by as demand far outstrips supply, which is falling under the greater control of the federal government.

Now we have reports from the New York Times that more loopholes in the 2000 page ObamaCare will not be able to provide the health insurance that people need.

Henry Waxman's signature piece of legislation, besides the failed Cap and Trade legislation, has done the exact opposite of what was intended.

I do not care for Henry Waxman in part because I do not care for WaxmanCare.

Obama-WaxmanCare may Wipe Out Waxman

ObamaCare: Not What Waxman
Was
Wishing For

President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, one which passed with a great deal of support from Congressman Henry Waxman, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more pointedly referred to as “ObamaCare”. The law has remained as unpopular as ever with the American people.

Rasmussen Reports has just published that now 56% of voters want the Health Care law repealed. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law)

62% of respondents believe that employers are going to drop offering health coverage for their employees (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2012/62_think_health_law_likely_to_cause_some_companies_to_drop_employee_coverage)

69 % think that market forces as opposed to government regulations would bring down costs and increase access. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2011/69_think_competition_between_health_insurers_better_for_consumers_than_more_government_regulation)

The legal name for ObamaCare has been lopped down to “Affordable Care Act”, presumably because the higher premiums and diminished access resulting from the legislation has signaled to growing number of voters that the law is not protecting them from the high regulations and diminishing quality of health coverage in this country.

Instead of “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, it should be called “Protecting Patients from Affordable Care” Act, and Congressman Henry Waxman played a central role in its passage.

The number who favor repeal has gotten higher, not lower. Why is that the case?

First of all, ObamaCare is a T-A-X, yet Congressman Waxman, in a July 1 interview with CNN, refused to acknowledge the core element of the ruling which upheld ObamaCare. “It’s a mandate enforced by a tax” was the best Waxman would offer. His double-dealing on the issue is patently unacceptable.

Congressman Waxman claimed that the signature legislation which he helped cram through Congress would increase access for all Americans. Yet ObamaCare is crippling hospitals which cannot come to grips with the increased demand on their beds and halls that will not be defrayed by ObamaCare.  

A recent report points out that hospitals nationwide, which are required by law to care for any patients who enter the hospital, will have to eat the costs for the growing number of illegal immigrants seeking care. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

These individuals cannot purchase their own insurance, yet they cannot be tracked down by the IRS to pay the mandate-fee-tax.

 (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/health-care-law-ignored-illegal-immigrants-hospitals-may-154832135.html)

Already 61 hospitals have closed in California between 1998 and 2007.(http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/closed/list/)

“California Health Online” predicted that there will be more closures because of hospitals’ growing dependence on government support, which includes ObamaCare (http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2012/2/9/2012-forecast-for-calif-hospitals-predicts-fiscal-problems-closures.aspx)

Since 2002, 40 hospitals have closed in California, many of which rely on Medicare for reimbursement, yet ObamaCare cut Medicare by $500 billion dollars. (http://craiggarner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Californias-Vanishing-Hospitals.pdf)

In response to the passage of ObamaCare, three hospitals closed in Pennsylvania because of the static population with high demand for care, yet the hospitals will not receive the necessary reimbursement because of ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare. (http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/17/the-growing-list-of-obamacares-casualties-first-hospitals-then-politicians/)

Worse yet, ObamaCare did not take care of a greater source of financial strain on our hospitals: the malpractice suits which eat away at their revenues and resources (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/nyregion/some-hospitals-in-new-york-lack-a-malpractice-safety-net.html?_r=1&hp) As hospitals forgo insuring themselves just to provide basic care for patients, they will more likely facing a growing tide of lawsuits from patients who receive federal subsidies . Hospitals need protection, too.

Recently the New York Times reported that another loophole or unconsidered interpretation will price out the very people who were intended to benefit from the mandate-tax:

Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.

Who issued this decision? The IRS, which focused on the fact that employer’s coverage is conferred primarily on the employee alone. Because the employees qualify for self-coverage through their employer, they will not be able to receive a federal subsidy for the rest of their families. As much as Congressman Waxman has protested this ruling, small businesses and administrative officials now face a delicate dilemma. If government officials read the ObamaCare legislation broadly, it will be an ever greater strain than predicted on the federal government. If they abide by the narrow interpretation provided by the IRS, the increasing cost of health insurance will land back on the taxpayer, negating any intended benefits.

The vagaries of ObamaCare have created more problems instead of solving them. Working men and women will still be forced to pay higher premiums in order to cover their entire family, yet the burden will not qualify them to receive the subsidies from the state (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/ambiguity-in-health-law-could-make-family-coverage-too-costly.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=health)

Congressman Henry Waxman was one of the chief architects of ObamaCare, and he has asserted that he opposes any repeal of this legislation.

Yet what are the growing legacies of this law? By confirmation of the Supreme Court, Waxman has inadvertently championed a huge tax increase, not a mandate or a fee. Small businesses are threatened with crippling taxes if they do not provide coverage. Hospitals are closing because they have to provide care with diminished reimbursements from the government

The 2,000 page law is refuted for these three reasons: high tax, higher premiums, less access.

These three reasons are enough to send Waxman out of office and repeal Obama-WaxmanCare.

No More Wondering: End the 38 years of Wandering Waxman

“And the space in which we came from Kadeshbarnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them.” (Deuteronomy 2:14)

Contrary to most people’s understanding of Holy Scripture, the Israelites did not wander in the desert for forty years. Granted, the unbelieving Israelites were not allowed into the Promised Land for forty years, but there were two years of judgment before the 38 years of wandering.

Telling in its coincidence, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) has been in Congress now for 38 years, and as a result voters from West Los Angeles to Malibu has been wandering in a wilderness of poor and unresponsive representation.

38 years of taxes and spending which have done nothing to alleviate the national debt, lower our credit rating while inciting inflation and shaking up global investors. For the past four years, Waxman has wandered in Congress and watched trillion dollar annual deficits wrack our nation’s budget. In the past ten years, Waxman voted against major tax cuts for middle and lower-income earners as well as for small businesses, moves which would have helped jump start the economy. More specifically, ObamaCare is currently the largest tax increase in American History, a law which Congressman Henry Waxman helped craft and push through Congress.

38 years of increasing the debt limit without requisite cuts, with a $16 trillion debt menacing this country, and Congressman Waxman declared in open committee: “We’re not broke!”

38 years of hit and miss environmental regulations, with reports differing as to the full impact of legislation such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, both of which expanded state power without expounding the proper limits of government. Rapanos v. United States (2006) and Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency are two court cases which have rebuked the EPA and Congress for unclear rules neglecting the property rights and the limits of enforcement of the Clean Water Act. His first major legislative effort following President Obama’s election, Cap and Trade (also known as “Waxman-Markey”), would have driven businesses out of the country while exploding unemployment.

38 years of unsightly oversight hearings and partisan badgering, with nothing but embarrassed baseball players who were later exonerated of any wrongdoing. There was also the lying Tobacco CEOs scolded before the camera, yet on record they have often lied about the dangers of using their product, anyway.

38 is “19 times 2” – and on record nineteen green tech companies, including Solyndra, have gone bankrupt, taking down with their failure millions of taxpayer dollars in federal loan guarantees, subsidies which Mr. Waxman supports.

Wearying Waxman has been wandering the halls of Congress for the past thirty-eight years. It is time for the residents of the 33^rd Congressional to cease from our wandering and stop wondering when we can enter the Promised Land of economic recovery coupled with reasonable environmental protections.

Let us cease from our wondering. End the 38-year wandering of Henry Waxman the Taxman, then shall bloom fields of prosperity once again, with Independent Bill Bloomfield as a new face with fresh ideas to represent our district.

Waxman Visits the West Basin -- Thoughts on the Clean Water Act

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congressman-waxman-kicks-off-south-004300536.html

Finally, Congressman Henry Waxman has visited the South Bay, after having taken the top spot in a primary on June 6, one that drew a fraction of the voters living in the district.

He decidede to pay a visit first to the Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility, where recycled water is provided to non-potable customers throughout the South Bay.

Later, Congressman Waxman visit the West Basin Municipal Water District's Ocean-Water Desalination Demonstration Facility in Redondo Beach, then to the

Carol W. Kwan, West Basin Board Vice President commented:

“It was an honor to host Congressman Waxman today. His environmental credentials precede him and I applaud his commitment to sustainable water supplies for his constituents."

This visit brings up the Clean Water Act, an expansive piece of legislation, passed in 1972, which would enforce an administrative agency, the EPA, to provide standards and enforcement to protect our water ways and keep our water clean.

Here is a brief summary of the law:

The Clean Water Act: (CWA) regulates ‘point-source’ (sewage pipes) and ‘non-point-source’ (land and road runoff) water pollution. The EPA’s approach since the early 1990s is ‘watershed-based,’ which means cooperating across political boundaries.
(http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Environment.htm)

Congressman Waxman esteemed the Clean Water Act, and he has hammered the current Congress for being one of the most anti-environmental in history (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/henry-waxman-environment-house-of-representatives_n_964040.html)

Yet Waxman had this to say  about the Clean Water Act four years prior:

A report released today from Waxman’s office  found that the Environmental Protection Agency has shown a lax interest in enforcing the Clean Water Act in recent years, leading to hundreds of instances when investigations have been neglected and waterways have been threatened. From Waxman’s statement:

Our investigation reveals that the clean water program has been decimated as hundreds of enforcement cases have been dropped, downgraded, delayed, or never brought in the first place. We need to work with the new Administration to restore the effectiveness and integrity to this vital program.
(http://washingtonindependent.com/22339/waxman-report-epa-decimated-clean-water-act) 

This dust-up followed the 2006 Supreme Court decision Rapanos v. United States, in which a contractor wanted to fill up three wetland areas, which did not constitute traditional waters, the geographical areas protected by the Clean Water Act.

Just because an intermittent tributary emerged did not therefore constitute a waterway which would preclude Mr. Rapanos from constructing a mall on the site of the wetlands.

The issue of defining "wetlands", and of permitting a regulatory agency (the EPA) to make decisions based on vague rules poorly constituted in the legislation has created more problems rather than solving them. Congressman Waxman has endorsed such heavy-handed legislation to protect the environment, yet the rights of property owners to dispense with their property is another constitutional issue which still has not received adequate attention. The Green Overreach is the regulatory issue which Congress is trying to remedy, partly to help jumpstart the economy.

The Rapanos case was not the first time that an over-expansive reading of the statute has created problems for property owners. The Sacketts of Idaho (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, )wanted the right to file an immediate appeal against the EPA, which had ruled that they could not build a home on their own property because the EPA had issued a compliane order enjoining construction on the wetlands in their land. They sought immediate relief, or face the consequence of paying $75,000 a day for noncompliance with the EPA while appealing their decision to enjoin their construction on their one property.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-in-epa-wetlands-case.html)

The Clean Water Act of 1972 is long overdue for a reassessment. No one wants to deal with dirty water, yet the Act has clearly failed to define at what point a private property owner may or may not build something on "wetlands", property which may or may not have an ongoing tributary to larger waterways.

Response to "Patch" Post (Gregg Heacock)

Henry Waxman, most recently, has protected us from efforts by Republicans to throw out all regulations, which, of course, include those related to clean air, clean water, toxic waste, food and drugs, and everything else related to safety. Though Bill Bloomberg would like to pass himself off as an Independent, he is a foxy Rebublican disguised in sheep's clothing. Henry has been in government for the past 38 years because he is one of the best representatives serving in our Congress today. Frankly, I am surprised to see the Santa Monica Patch publish a blog so lacking in content that it hardly deserves to be published as a letter to the editor. (Santa Monica Patch, 12: 43 pm, Tuesday, July 31, 2012)

"protected us from efforts by Republicans to throw out all regulations"

Regulations which were supposed to protect to consumer opress the business entrepreneur, which in turn oppresses the consumer by "protecting" the individual from choice and a free market. I am glad for nutritional labels, but if the cost of food keeps rising, in large part because of the ethanol lobby, which Henry Waxman supported with amendments to their benefit in Waxman-Markey (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/FINAL%20Waxman-Markey%20Study%2009-28-2009.pdf)
"Clean air, clean water" -- I cannot complain about cleaner natural resources, but is it really the contention that Congressman Waxman, by waving his magic legislative wand, actually improves the environment? And what about his nearly two decades of opposition to the LA Metro project to build an underground subway from Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica? Imagine the diminished air, noise pollution, along with less traffic congestion, that would have emerged had Waxman lifted his thumb off the project?

Then there's ObamaCare, the largest tax increase in American History, the provisions of which are already hurting hospitals across the country, which will still have to serve a population that cannot purchase health insurance and cannot be taxed for not purchasing health insurance. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017417807_harrop04.html)

"everything else related to safety" --

This notion in itself is suspect. Do we really want a Big Government that protects us from everything?

Though Bill Bloomberg would like to pass himself off as an Independent, he is a foxy Rebublican disguised in sheep's clothing.

Bill Bloomfield is an Independent with a capital "I". He was a registered Republican, but he became a "Decline to state" because of the partisan bickering eating up Congress and eating away at our future. Bloomfield has no connections to either party while refusing any donations from special interests of PACs. He want to work across the aisle on issues, which long-term incumbents like Henry Waxman, who have all but chosen their constituencies, have  had no incentive to work with the other party to get anything done.

Henry has been in government for the past 38 years because he is one of the best representatives serving in our Congress today.

I would ask Mr. Heacock to qualify this broad statement. In truth, Mr. Waxman has been choosing his district and voters for the past three decades. He has not had to put up much of a fight because the party representation was so lop-sided that he did not have a chance of losing, winning at least 60% of the vote each time. Bill Bloomfield helped initiate the Citizen's Redistricting Commission and the Open Primary reforms which would allow different candidates to challenge the party hegemony which had protected so many legislators, including Mr. Waxman.

A Tale of Two Leftists

The South Bay has its share of Leftists, at least that was how this one gentleman introduced himself when he first away my advertisement to vote out Henry Waxman.

Of course, one guy nearly came out swinging when I asked him about why he supported Henry Waxman. Such voters are loyal to the Congressman, not to any particular set of views. He claimed that Henry Waxman was an honest Congressman, one who told the truth, even though he claimed in open committee that this nation, with a $16 trillion deficit is "not broke", a legislator who did not even know what was in his signature Cap and Trade Bill, and so on. If a voter attacks me or gets angry, I just let go of the conversation and move on.

I have found a growing number of "Waxman-Fanmen" are nearly idolizing in their following of this politician.

Men and women, not demi-gods, go to Congress to protect our rights and secure our borders, and most of all honor the Constitution.

Congressman Waxman has pushed for government overreach time and again, not letting anything get in his way. No matter how many laws that he has passed dealing with healthcare or the environment, the result is more dysfunction and less quality time and again.

ObamaCare is the largest tax increase in American History, and still millions will remain uninsured, despite the millions of regulations and committees and boards and exchanges, many of which have no connection with providing better health care with more efficient access.


Another young man in the South Bay told me that he would automatically vote for Waxman because he was a Leftist, and he had not interest in changing his mind. . .until he noticed that I was willing to hear his opinion on the issues.

He then told me that he was not a full-range socialist. In the past, he served as a journalists, so he was well-versed in the political issues which affected the community that he reported on. He later stepped away to start his own business. He shared with me that he did not have the money to purchase his own health insurance, and had been without coverage for two years.

He then admitted that he did not like Waxman at all, but he was still inclined to vote for him, perhaps assuming that he would be facing a Republican challenger, which is not the case at all.

He then shared with me that government ought to have a role to play. I agreed with him, refuting the notion that conservatives want to do away with government altogether -- completely untrue.

After I shared with him that Bill Bloomfield is an Independent, a businessman, and committed to bringing down debts and deficits and ending default, he became more open-minded and willing to look into voting for someone else.

Two "Leftists", yet one of them was willing to hear about the other candidate, Mr. Bill Bloomfield. Contrary to the concerns that conservatives and independents may have in this district, there is a growing sentiment among Democrats and Leftists who will happily support "Anyone but Waxman".

"I Love Waxman! (Although I Can't Explain Why. . ."

A Pol Only A "True Believer" Could Love

One resident of Santa Monica felt somewhat menaced when I approached him about the Congressional contest in the 33rd Congressional District.

"I am voting for Waxman," he snapped at me after I introduced myself, the district, and the challenger.

"May I ask why you are voting for Mr. Waxman? I have not intention of changing your opinion, I just want to understand your point of view."

"No!" He huffed at me, then returned to reading his newspaper.

The older gentleman whom I had spoken to earlier was more congenial, even if he remained a staunch liberal in the face of my argument for ending the 38-year tenure of the LA-area Congressman.

"I love Waxman!" He responded, smiling at me. "He's tough! A lot of people don't like him, but he's just great!"

"Why do you like Mr. Waxman?" I continued, as he was inclined to talk to me without being threatening or rude.

"Well, it's hard to explain. . ." he responded.

This refrain has been a constant with self-avowed Leftists and liberals. They find themselves at a lost for word when trying to explain their support for Waxman. Still, the man persisted.

"I have free health care because of that man! I love the guy!" He then mentioned Socialist-Independent Bernie Sanders. "I would vote for that guy.

I shared some facts and figures with the man. He was really impressed. "Wow, you really know your stuff!" Then he agreed to take a look at what I had shared with him. "The choice is still up to me, you know. You cannot make me vote one way or the other. But I'll take a look. . ."

A victory, in my opinion. Getting a conversation started is much better than leaving two people with different points of view stuck in their own set ways and means.

A few days later, I had the interesting fortune to run into a resident of Santa Monica in Lomita. When I started talking to him about Waxman, he responded:

"Oh, I'm voting for Waxman!"

The obligatory "Why?" followed, to which he responded:

"He gets things done! Someone had a problem with his social security, and Waxman took care of it.

When I told him that Waxman declared in open committee that this nation is "not broke, the Santa Monica resident responded:

"So? What do you want to do about it?"

When I explained Independent Bill Bloomfield's fiscal policies for restoring this country back to balanced budgets without the partisan gridlock, he answer:

"What makes you think that that is going to make any difference?"

The deficits and debt are unsustainable, I explained.

"Then raise taxes", he answered.

I then told him that raising taxes 100% on those making $250,000 or more would add but a dint to debt reduction. Unpersuaded, the Santa Monica resident went back to eating his lunch.

The exchange was a healthy one, at least, although he refused to give me any reason beyond the witness of one voter. I wonder how the Santa Monica resident would have responded had he read today's post that Social Security recipients are now destined to receive less than they put in (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/06/reality-check/)

Democrats in Venice

One GOP operative considering Venice a foregone wasteland, no point in reaching out to the Democratic stronghold covered with alternative artisans and bums and marijuana clinics.

I was surprised when one campaign advocated reported that Venice residents consider Henry Waxman "right-wing". That sounds a lot like the single-payer junta, a measure which Waxman had pledged to pursue, yet failed to bring to the table in the discussions over ObamaCare.

I do not condone going after Henry Waxman because he has not been "leftist" enough. He is one of the most left-leaning Congressman in the country, a politician who has voted out of step with his own party, voting down tax cuts over and over again.

I had an interesting excursion in Venice today, notwithstanding the "People's Republic" rhetoric which sand-bags some areas of Los Angeles as a no-man's-land for Congressional challengers who do not have a (D) in front of their name.

I was pleased by the warm reception which I received from a number of prospective voters. The younger people whom I spoke with liked the idea of getting rid of a long-termed incumbent. I even spoke with  a Jewish Republican who chafed at the idea of getting rid of Henry Waxman.

One voter who had just moved from Oklahoma expressed his support for President Obama because he did not care for the "trickle down" theory of economics. "It's not trickling down fast enough," he shared with me. When I talked about the partisan gridlock in Congress, he admitted that he believed that was a big part of the problem. After establishing Bloomfield's "No Labels'" background, he was singing a different tune. "Well, at least you got me to think about it."

And sometimes that's all it takes. The mood is anti-incumbent, a mood that conservative voters in the South Bay can take comfort in and take advantage of in taking down Waxman the Taxman.

About "The People's Republic of Santa Monica"

I believe that the biggest reason why the GOP is in decline in California is because of a hard-headed and hard-hearted elitism which readily, yet unjustifiably assumes that liberal or "leftist" voters cannot be talked to.

I have attended some GOP meetings in the past, and I hear a lot about "the enemy."

Yet even the self-styled Progressive James Preston Allen of San Pedro's Random Lengths News has expressed a desire for more local control for the LA Harbor region, an argument which meshed very nicely with limited government conservatives. I have respected his views on the role of bond-swapping and bankrupting costs in city governments, although his attachment to union power is still disconcerting.

Many people are conservatives, yet they just do not know it. The outrage that the "Occupy Movement" feels about crony capitalist collusions with corporate interest is legitimate, but the solution to these problems is where the differences lie.

Conservatives need to adopt the same attitude as Milton Friedman, the free market capitalist who numbered among his students the ex-Marxist Thomas Sowell, a Stanford economist whose  glowing appreciation for his former mentor appeared in print the previous week. The most telling aspect of Friedman's seminars, according to Sowell, was that Friedman pledged that he would not try to change the views of his students. Sowell acknowledged in the same article that the real world, not the academic world, change his view on economics and politics.

The same basis should hold sway for every conservative reaching out to "independents" or Democrats who can article the views that they stand by as opposed to their staunch loyalty to candidate and party. We do not have to force anyone to change their minds. Much of the time, when I ask someone to share their points of view for supporting a Democratic candidate, they readily admit that they do not like Henry Waxman, or they take into account that Bloomfield's platform supports their views just as well.

With this line of reasoning in mind, I implore every conservative, Republican, and Tea Party patriot in the Beach Cities and throughout the Santa Monica Bay to adopt a different attitude about our fellow constituents north of Dockweiler Beach. I have met and talked with Republicans, Independents, and even a Democrat or two who were willing to listen to a different point of view and consider a different candidate.

Monikers like "The People's Republic of Santa Monica" belong on talk radio, not in one-on-one discussion. Forget about parties and candidates -- discuss ideas. Find the common ground with the people that you talk to, for if they know that someone else is interested in hearing their point of view without going on the attack or getting defensive, then perhaps you can have the same success which I have had, getting some independents and Democrats to think about voting for Bill Bloomfield, and Independent who wants to cross party lines to compromise on important issues, to get Congress working again, and to break us free from the reckless deficit spending which is not informing our environmental or energy policies in any  meaningful way.