Bust a Cap on "Cap and Trade"

Congressman Henry Waxman has capped his non-efforts on the financial crisis and declining trade in this country with a “great idea” for increasing revenue and averting the financial crisis: “Cap and Trade.” As Yogi Bera once quipped: “This is déjà vu all over again.

In 2009, Waxman pushed this plan to curb carbon emissions on industrial polluters (which includes farmers and their ‘fertilizing’ livestock). Despite vote-trading, last minute 300-page amendments, and a close vote, Cap and Trade survived the House. It died in the Senate.

The last thing that this country needs is a “Cap on Trade”, which carbon trading will do. The same people who fomented the Dot.com and Housing bubbles cooked up the pollution credit scheme, one which has frustrated commerce and prosperity in Europe while forcing businesses out of California, who cannot afford the inflated price for carbon permits. These taxes on corporations eventually cost everyone who uses electricity, drives a car, or purchases food in a store.

Instead of decent policies to reduce the national debt and reform entitlements, Congressman Waxman has written letters about an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. He released a statement in support of religious minorities in Burma. He even pressed his Congressional colleagues to investigate the link between global warming and national security.

The exploding national debt is our biggest national security threat. Cap and Trade will make it worse. Congress should bust a cap on “Cap and Trade”, and Waxman needs to bust a move on deficit reduction.

Bush-Bashing, Global Warming, Ignoring the Fiscal Cliff

Congressman Henry Waxman is at it again, bringing up global warming as a major issue while the debate over the fiscal cliff is heating up. Waxman spearheaded the charge on this issue before the Democrats took the White House, and even after the Republicans won and retained the majority in the House, “cap and trade” to cap global warming is resurfacing in Congress' trade for managing our nation's debt and revenue.

In timely fashion, MSNBC released a past interview with the former Chairman of the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee. As he did during his run for the 33rd Congressional district, Waxman engaged in the same "Bush-Bashing" which has shored up the liberal base while ignoring the looming crises precipitated by the Democratic Party's insistence on health insurance mandates and trillion-dollar deficit spending.

During the Bush Administration, according to Waxman, the scientists who worked for the government provided information that was "censored, muted, or altered". Then Waxman wrote letters to the Council on Environmental Quality for more information on the matter. Still, Waxman conceded that his staff were viewing the documents on global warming. Scientists have presented their information on global warming. He went after steroid abuse, global warming. Nothing for our veterans then, and now very little to stop the spending and reduce the national debt eating this country from the inside out.

To ward off the fiscal cliff, the "Cap and Trade" Carbon tax has resurfaced as a measure to cover the expanding revenue problems for this country. Even moderate Republicans have voiced their support for the tax, proposing that a $20 charge per ton of carbon would help offset the national debt.
Annie Leonard, an environmental activist and creator of "The Story of Stuff", discredited Cap and Trade in the midst of a number of specious arguments with factually inaccurate data. She begins with the corporate machinations (including Goldman Sachs) which created the Dot.com and the Housing bubbles. They concocted Cap and Trade as another wealth market: carbon emission trading. Every nation would implement a cap and then trade credits for pollution.

"The devil is in the details", Leonard then explains: The program starts out with free permits for industrial polluters. The greater their pollution output, the more free permits that they receive. When Europeans enacted Cap and Trade , the cost of permits bounced around, fuel prices went up, and the pollution actually increased. The benefiting companies cashed in billions with the carbon credits, but the taxpayers were left paying for it.

Cap and Trade is a Ponzi scheme, according to one economist. Another argument hammers home the extensive nature of the Cap and Trade tax on every level of production. Congressman Ron Paul commented on the vote-trading which helped pass the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009,, much of which cast a cloud of corruption and collusion on an already suspect bull. Warren Buffet commented that if Congress insists on placing a tax on carbon emissions ,utility customers will end up paying the cost for the tax which belongs to corporations and to polluters. Even while endorsing the tax, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama admitted that his "Cap and Trade" plan would cause electricity rates to go up for consumers.

Environmentalists, billionaires, and the President have given reasons to oppose "Cap and Trade." Waxman shows no common sense in proposing his "Cap and Trade agenda once again .
Instead of alleviating the fiscal cliff crisis, Congressman Waxman has pursued in the last month the following issues:

Leading Committee Democrats Request Briefing on Recent Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Explosion (Nov 26, 2012)

Waxman wants to investigate the explosion of Black Elk Energy's oil production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. This country has an exploding national debt, leaking red ink that is polluting our future.

Leading Energy & Commerce Democrats Call for Hearing on Reliability of Communications Services in Aftermath of Superstorm Sandy (Nov 19, 2012)

Waxman was concerned about communications services during “Superstorm” Sandy. It's time that he started communicating with his colleagues about ending the deficit spending.

Rep. Waxman Urges Continued U.S. Support for Protecting Religious and Ethnic
Minority Groups in Burma (Nov 15, 2012)

Protecting the religious rights of minority groups in Burma? Seriously?

Rep. Waxman Statement on the BP Settlement on the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (Nov 15, 2012)

Waxman applauds the BP settlement with the United States. Now, how about settling the debt crisis and defusing entitlement bomb?

Ranking Members Waxman and Rush Call for Hearing on Relationship Between Climate Change and National Security (Nov 14, 2012)

The United States' greatest security threat is the debt. Instead of outlining a plan for energy independence, Waxman goes after oil rigs. Instead of protecting the fiscal future of this country, Waxman champions the religious rights of ethnic minorities.

From Bush-Bashing to Global Warming, Congressman Waxman keeps ignoring the fiscal cliff and the ongoing fiscal crises afflicting this country.

Please contact Congressman Waxman and tell him to get serious about ending this country’s spending problem and resolve our debt. Global warming can wait.

"We Don't Want Them to Know About Your Blog!"

It wasn't Rabbi Yossi who said this.

It wasn't even Henry Waxman the Taxman.

It was Heather Peters, the political director who shouted this at me.

For a brief stint, I was a door-knocker for the Bloomfield campaign.

I had my speech, or rather speeches, all prepared.

I met a number of high-class residents in Manhattan Beach and South Torrance.

The steps were just murder. Rich people live in big houses on big lots of land. How they go from house to garage every day just escapes me.

I told them that Waxman voted against tax cuts for working class and middle income Americans. I told them about his rude behavior with colleagues.

I spoke with twenty-two residents in one day, and many of them were all power forward for Bloomfield.

I got a stunningly different reception back at the office.

First, they were elated about all the people whom I had convinced.

Then they wanted to know what I had been telling them.

I told them about the tax increases, I told them about his rude behavior. Since I had their party affiliation listed next to their address, I would appeal to them as Republicans or Democrats.

Heather let loose.

"You're telling them what? You need to read from our script!"

"What's the big deal? Everything that I tell them is public record. It's even on  my blog. . ."

Heather then cut me off.

"We don't want them to know about your blog!"

"What difference does it make? I'm just "Joe Blow".

"No you're not 'Joe Blow!' You work for us. And if you don't do what you're told, then you won't be working for us for long!"

I really pushed it at that point.

"Why are you not telling people everything that Waxman has been doing? People need to know about this stuff!"

I admit it: I was pushing way too hard. I still had some things to learn about taking direction.

Heather did her best to compose herself, then explained:

"Look, Arthur, I love ya, but with all due respect, we don't have to tell you."

She then acknowledged that the team had not informed her, or any of the door-knockers, about the need for a script.

Then she explained to me that the consults were relying on different means for connecting with voters: through press, Internet, advertisements, door-knockers, calls, emails. This theory of multiple media for reaching voters smacks all too much of the "Galbraith fallacy." In Kenneth Galbraith's book The Affluent Society, the Canadian born economist argued that media advertising would influence peoples' habits and interests, enough that they would purchase something or do something, whether they wanted to or not.

Galbraith's thesis has been discredited, yet the political consultants for the Bloomfield campaign insisted on banking his election chances on this concept.

I learned a lot about campaigning, I learned a great deal about the capacities of individuals to withstand pressure and strain in their lives,  I also realized that reaching voters requires more than frequently informing them about yourself.

Still, Bloomfield did remarkably well against Waxman, and the Congressman is more scared than anything else.

Heather was a class act. A supervisor who recognized my spirit, but had to address the letter of things. I hope that I get to work with more people like her.

Still, the lack of punch and fire in the campaign alarmed me enough to get fired up and sound the alarm on the weak-tea proposals to get out there and make something of all that was going wrong.

"I Want That!"

While I was campaigning informally throughout the 33rd Congressional District, I remember running into all sorts of people. Young people loved hearing about Bloomfield. Three younger people told me outright that no one should be in office for more than three terms.

Henry Waxman has been in office for 38 years, and he has now entered his twentieth term. Peter Stark lost his seat, granted, but the college of California Congressmen still has two from the class of '74: George Miller and Henry Waxman.

Seniority in office is a two-edged sword.

One gentleman I met in Torrance, a businessman who was nearing retirement, told me that he was an independent.

He asked me a number of penetrating questions about Bloomfield. Did he support TARP? How does he feel about green technology?

When he asked about the social issues, I told him that he was pro-choice and pro gay marriage. He approved of the liberal social views.

Some of his questions I could not answer. Like a growing number of concerned voters, candidates talk about cutting spending and eliminating loopholes, but they never offer anything specific. He resented the lack of information on this matter.

Then the topic switched to healthcare. Instead of a question, he fired off a demand:

"What kind of healthcare plans does he support? I want the same plan as Congressmen in Washington."

He sounded like a big baby that time. The government is not Santa Claus. This independent reminded me of the socialist I spoke with in Santa Monica during the summer. "I love Waxman! I get free health care." There is no such thing as a free lunch, but this older gentleman refused to count the cost beyond the stipend that the received from the state.

These two men, both in retirement age, sounded like little children depending on the state, or who at least expected the state to have its hand out.

"I want that!" should not be in the a citizen's vocabulary toward the government. The federal government is not Santa Claus, Mommy, the Nanny State, or any other dynamic beyond an institution instituted to protect the rights of men.

What more could anyone want?

Waxman Was Worried (Abbreviated Account)

In some ways, I am a confrontational person. I have often been the type who wants to strike before stricken. The 2012 election gave me the opportunity to confront Henry Waxman, the former chairman of the Oversight Committee, one of the must pugnacious Congressman.

 My love-hate relationship with the recently reelected Congressman began in Palos Verdes. He looked so tall on the YouTube clips, fumbling over basic details while marking up legislation that even a tax attorney would find too taxing to take in. Actually, he was the shortest guy in the room.

 By then, I had long set up my first political blog “Waxman Watch”, which got some decent traffic, considering the season. I had also been informing voters throughout the district to “End the Reign of Waxman the Taxman”. After I gave him a slip with his menacing mug next to his record of inconsistent leadership, Waxman grimaced. He was going to meet his match in this election.

 Later, I attended my first LA-area Neighborhood Council, in Venice. Interesting, to say the least. With thirteen seats up for reelection, fifty-four people lined up to make their pitch. I was waiting for Waxman, who found me first. “My blogger”, he quipped, shaking my hand. I had his attention.

 

The next week, I attended an advertised “Open Forum,” at the Jewish Community Center of the Beach Cities.

At the outset of the open question-and-answer forum, the two candidates outlined their platforms and proposals in two 10-minute speeches. Waxman was watching me the whole time while his opponent was speaking.

 Shortly after they started takikng questions from the audience, the moderator called on me. Mr. Waxman interrupted.

"This is a Republican blogger who has been writing nasty attacks about me," he said, quivering.

With that, the Rabbi in charge told me to sit down since I was not a member of the community.

I protested that as a voter and a constituent in the district, I had every right to participate. I could not believe what was happening.


At the back of the synagogue, I confronted the rabbi again, who was apparently protecting his preferred candidate. I was upset and confused. I told him the meeting was for members of the community. He said we would talk about it later.

Sitting down, I was passed over twice more. One constituent tapped me on the shoulder: “So they’re not going to let you speak?”

That was the impression that I received. I addressed Mr. Waxman before the entire audience:

“I thought this was an open forum? What are you afraid of, Mr. Waxman? That your record will come out? This is disgraceful."


As I was leaving, the rabbi approached me. He informed me that he had seen my blog. He was worried about personal attacks. I responded that everything I have shared is from public records and research.

The rabbi kept telling me to “calm down.” He charged me with “you're being hostile”, then told me to leave.

 

I felt so at peace, but still I was surprised that free speech really wasn’t so free. I knew that voters were learning about the Congressman's record.

Slightly shaken for being thrown out of a synagogue, I called my father to tell him what happened. Nonchalantly, he replied: “Why, that’s a feather in your cap. Now you have something else that you can write about for your blog.”

 

Waxman’s challenger informed me that whenever someone “googled” “Henry Waxman”, they would find my blog.

Waxman should have let me speak. His interruption exposed more than any interrogation.

 

I scared a Congressman, and I liked it!

The Proud Democrat Joins "No Labels"

I supported Bill Bloomfield not just because he was not Waxman, although in many ways that was reason enough. Bloomfield's support for Prop 32, for electoral reform, for refusing any campaign donations, all resonated with me. One of his ideas that was dead on arrival for me, though, was his co-founded interest group: "No Labels".

"No Labels" as a concept and a movement is essentially flawed. According to the "No Labels" convocation, because our politicians are so resolutely locked into not getting anything done, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pledge to make President Obama a "one-term" President, they are not ever going to get anything done. One caucus has signed pledges refusing to raise taxes. The opposing caucus refuses to touch entitlements. So begins the gridlock.

I propose that if Congress gets busy ending the spending spree and cutting the tax rates and the size of the federal government, all of us would be better off, even the environmental lobbies, who can get more respect from their state legislatures than the federal government, in my view.

"No Labels" claims that the pary structure is forcing members of Congress not to work together at all, and thus a third party alternative must emerge, one which is committed to getting Congress back to work, refusing to take sides and thus get every side to advance. The very moniker invites mockery, as "No Labels" is in itself a label. This frustrated sent-up reminds me of the rock band "The Lone Rangers" -- none of whom were alone. An organization or an interest group which invites questions and concerns from the first mention of its name should incite further introspection among its members.

"No Labels" wants to end "the gridlock". Like many limited government types, I love gridlock. Congress not even showing up much of the time might be better, but when the legislators get together and do nothing, our pocket books and our livelihood remain safe. The movement also claims that procedural reforms must be enacted. The gridlock in this country has nothing to do with the political process, with the Constitution of the United States. The problem lies with the people themselves, in that individual voters and constituencies are voicing their opinions and casting their votes, which in turn generates the gridlock.

This is not due to some failing in the voting public, but in the inherent tensions of representative democracy. In one sense, we send our representatives to govern us; in another sense, we send them to Congress to do what we want them to. A true statesman will make choices that will sometimes inevitably offend the sense and sensibility of his constituents. For this reason, the Framers authorized the legislatures, not the citizens themselves, to elect the Senators; the Electoral College selected the President, not the popular vote. Popular sentiment finds its voice in the House of Representatives, and only there.

Another concern with "No Labels" falls on this issue of representation. The organization claims "People First" as its motto. The exact meaning and purpose of this pledge invites more scrutiny instead of certainty. The Constitution was enacted in order to form a "more perfect union", not please the interests of the "people". "Establishing justice", tranquility, the blessings of liberty, often entails constraining the power of all interests, the special and the general, the elite and the popular. Besides, our leaders take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to represent the "people." Too many of our youth, and a growing number of the current electorate, are not receiving from our politicians or our educational institutions the proper role of government: to protect our rights. Governments are instituted to protect our rights, not provide for our material wants. "People first" makes as much sense as "No Labels" functions as a label, except while the first phrase is too vague, the second is just plain contradictory.

After heavy campaigning and threats from voters and the press, Henry Waxman found that he had to reach out of his old politicking shell. He joined "No Labels", yet in another show of inconsistency, he went all over the district claiming to be a proud Democrat". How does the Congressman reconcile his new membership with his long-standing boast throughout the campaign? 38 years of marching in line with his party, which should be commend on strict standards of loyalty, does not translate too well into a new term with gridlock at an all time high. The level of compromise needed to get anything done -- including the menacing “fiscal cliff” -- remains unprecedented for old and new entering Congress.

Henry Waxman, the "proud Democrat" enters Congress with a commitment to serve the people. Did he do that for the past thirty-eight years? Ask the veterans still waiting for adequate housing. Ask the postal workers and residents in Venice and Santa Monica who fear that they will have no neighborly facility to drop their mail. Ask the residents of West LA, who are still waiting for a better route to the sea besides the seventeen mile bump-and-grind of Wilshire Blvd.

Veterans Affairs, Immigration, and Transportation Need Attention

 "We have no interest in making baseball the central focus of this committee's agenda." -- Congressman Henry Waxman

MSNBC released a hearing from Waxman's Chairmanship on the Oversight Committee. At the time, he was investigating steroid abuse in baseball, a subject which he should be more inclined to sweep under the rug, since he betrayed so unacceptable an ignorance on the subject in the documentary "Bigger, Faster, Stronger".

The MSNBC clip indicts "Inconsistencies with Mr. Clemens," referring to Roger Clemens pretended perjury before the Oversight Committee. The real inconsistency from this hearing stems from the abuse of the Oversight Committee to pursue an issue that has nothing to do with the role or the scope of the federal government.

 Our veterans were striving, barely surviving, even dying on the streets of Los Angeles at that time, yet the Brentwood VA remained a rental property for private proprietors, including washing machines and merry-go-rounds. Mr. Waxman was investigating the inconsistencies between a trainer who claimed to administer growth hormone and steroids to Roger Clemens.

 Even if Congressman Waxman won the 33rd Congressional District, he still has a lot of explaining to do for his unconscionable lack of oversight on key issues, such as the proper use of our wetlands in the Santa Monica Bay, or the improper use of federal funding for a bullet train which will transport people very quickly from Bakersfield to Tulare. He changed his mind rather suddenly on the Subway to the Sea. One wonders if Waxman will kill that project now that he is back in office, or like Congresswoman Janice Hahn, he will support a subway of some kind, but he will demur and stall on specific proposals indefinitely.

 Recently reelected, Waxman is writing more letters once again, not to protect our veterans, not to get our troops out of Afghanistan, but to protest the closure of the Fifth Street Post Office in Santa Monica. I do not understand what drives this legislator to focus on such picayune issues such as keeping a post office open, when the Brentwood VA remains closed to the very public it was intended to serve: our veterans. Granted, the inconvenience of not being able to deliver mail at a closer facility will unnerve certain people, and the Fifth Street Post Office is a prized piece of "New Deal" Americana. Yet our troops, the looming fiscal crises, and the ongoing foreign policy failures in the Middle East deserve more attention.

Let's not forget the well-being of our immigrant population throughout the Santa Monica Bay. Congressman Waxman has proposed nothing to alleviate the second-tier status of immigrant youth whose parents brought them to this country without naturalization status. Waxman ought to right letters diminishing the welfare state so that this country can open the borders and permit any able-bodied individual to find work. I do not endorse amnesty, and neither should Congressman Waxman. A compromise emphasizing border control and state authority in the limited and diminished disbursement of benefits will encourage legal immigration. One writer shared with me that Congressman Waxman was influential in assisting a Russian engineer. He expedited the processing of her naturalization paperwork. Certainly, the Congressman can step up his focus on the immigration issues in his district, California, and the rest of the country.

38 years of mixed priorities and lost time does not excuse letting him off the hook. Congressman Waxman then and now has a record of doing too much on issues of no importance and "not enough" on the issues that matter. If he takes the interests of the voters in the 33rd Congressional district serious, then he must relinquish his heavy focus on post offices and baseball, and advance restoration of the Brentwood VA and the recuperation of our veterans; advocate for comprehensive immigration reform; and investigate the waste and fraud in bad transportation projects (Browns' Boondoggle) and support the Subway to the Sea.

Waxman's investigation of Steroid Abuse Still Out

"We have no interest in making baseball the central focus of this committees' agenda." -- Congressman Henry Waxman

MSNBC released a hearing from Waxman's Chairmanship on the Oversight Committee. At the time, he was investigating steroid abuse in baseball, a subject which he should be more inclined to sweep under the rug, since he betrayed so unacceptable an ignorance on the subject in the documentary "Bigger, Faster, Stronger".

The MSNBC clip indicts "Inconsistencies with Mr. Clemens," referring to Roger Clemens pretended perjury before the Oversight Committee. The real inconsistency from this hearing stems from the abuse of the Overight Committee to pursue an issue that has nothing to do with the role or the scope of the federal government.

Our veterans were striving, barely surviving, even dying on the streets of Los Angeles at that time, yet the Brentwood VA remained a rental property for private proprietors, including washing machines and merry-go-rounds. Mr. Waxman was investigating the inconsistencies between a trainer who claimed to administer growth hormone and steroids to Roger Clemens.

Even if Congressman Waxman won the 33rd Congressional District, he still has a lot of explaining to do for his unconscionable lack of oversight on key issues, such as the proper use of our wetlands in the Santa Monica Bay, or the improper use of federal funding for a bullet train which will transport people very quickly from Bakersfield to Tulare. He changed his mind rather suddenly on the Subway to the Sea. One wonders if Waxman will kill that project now that he is back in office, or like Congresswoman Janice Hahn, he will support a subway of some kind, but he will demur and stall on specific proposals indefinitely.

Recently reelected, Waxman is writing more letters once again, not to protect our veterans, not to get our troops out of Afghanistan, but to protest the closure of the Fifth Street Post Office in Santa Monica. I do not understand what drives this legislator to focus on such picayune issues such as keeping a post office open, when the Brentwood VA remains closed to the very public it was intended to serve: our veterans. Granted, the inconvenience of not being able to deliver mail at a closer facility will unnerve certain people, and the Fifth Street Post Office is a prized piece of "New Deal" Americana. Yet our troops, the looming fiscal crises, and the ongoing foreign policy failures in the Middle East deserve more attention.

Let's not forget the well-being of our immigrant population throughout the Santa Monica Bay. Congressman Waxman has proposed nothing to alleviate the second-tier status of immigrant youth whose parents brought them to this country without naturalization status. Waxman ought to right letters diminishing the welfare state so that this country can open the borders and permit any able-bodied individual to find work.

38 years of mixed priorities and lost time does not excuse letting him off the hook. Congressman Waxman then and now has a record of doing too much on issues of no importance and "not enough" on the issues that matter.

Waxman Still Beats the Climate Change Drum

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/01/Rep-Waxman-D-CA-Politicizes-Hurricane-Sandy-Urges-Congress-To-Hold-Global-Warming-Hearings-In-Lame-Duck-Session?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

Still beating the Climate Change drum, Congressman Waxman refuses to let any crisis go to waste, fresh off a squeaker victory in the newly established 33rd Congressional District against Independent Bill Bloomfield of Manhattan Beach.

Climate Change did very little to affect the political climate in Washington, which brought back to Congress the same divided government from the previous two years.

Instead of trying to control the air, instead of telling the sun to stay still or to back off, when to shine and for how long, when will the politicians in Washington acknowledge that rising temperatures do not necessarily require stringent interventions on carbon use.
Perhaps the subtle fears of "Article 21" globalism are not unfounded.

Cap and Trade is not working in Europe. The big fans kill big birds, and the economies are scale are unsustainable when it comes to alternate forms of energy.

Congressman Waxman, I do not care how much heat you put on this issue. You held President Obama accountable for his lack of transparency. You went after Bush for waste in Iraq. Now, it's time to get our troops out of Afghanistan and get our veterans off the street and into proper Veterans Administration facilities.

Cap and Trade is a "Cap on Trade" -- Put a cap on excessive government, and grant the states and local cities more authority to combat pollution, waste, and fraud.

Congressman Waxman -- Anything on Immigration Reform?

Now that Congressman Waxman has been reelected, perhaps he will get busy and get compromise working in Congress.

This nation needs real immigration reform – NOW!

Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle just reported that an undocumented immigrant, also unlicensed, ran over a Westlake Village resident.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Linsdey Graham have stepped up immigration reform as a top priority. How about you, Congressman?

What will you do, now that your constituency covers the entire Santa Monica Bay?

Are you going to represent all the voters, or just the wealthy elites? Now that you are back in office, are you going to block the Subway to the Sea one more time?

Respect for all Americans, Congressman. Guard our rights, not our wallets. We can take care of the rest.

You Look Like Henry Waxman!

Oh, the humanity!

As if I have not endure enough following Bill Bloomfield's defeat.

I was sharing some of the articles that I had written about Henry Waxman, and lo and behold, he commented that my side profile look just like Congressman Waxman's!

It's one thing to be compared to James Carville. It's a whole new low to be compared to Waxman the Taxman!

What Will You Do About Immigration, Congressman?

Congressman Henry Waxman won reelection in the tightest, closest campaign of his career. Like President Barack Obama, he hardly has a mandate. 53% of voters in the 33rd Congressional District agreed to send him back to Washington. With a district which is 44% Democratic and 28% Republican, clearly Waxman lost a great deal of support from Democrats and Independents.

Back in Congress, Waxman must prove all the bipartisan pledging that he made so frequently throughout the campaign. He has blamed Republicans for "premium support", for their anti-environmental stance, yet once again he is a ranking member in the opposition caucus. He has to go along to get along.

Now, one of the most pressing problems of our time is illegal immigration. For all the issues which came up for discussion in the Santa Monica Bay, this concern received no attention throughout the drawn-out election. Waxman is back in office, and now he has to deliver. What has he proposed to do about this vexing problem? Individual workers and families are looking for a better life. What do we do about those younger people who were brought to this country, who had no say whether they could come or not, who now live in the United States, yet they are not longer citizens?

The California DREAM Act has become more of a nightmare, since the law provided a college education at the in-state rate for these undocumented youth, yet nothing else. A graduate from a four-year University without citizenship cannot get a job. The whole program was a hoax, a lot of political posturing that has benefitted a handful of politicians at the expense of the immigrant youth who want a more stable life.
Then there was President Obama's Executive Order, which will prevent the United States from prosecuting or deporting young illegals who came to this country as children, who have graduated from high school, who have committed no crime. The lines for provisional papers are long and frustrating. Immigration lawyers have discouraged youth for applying for the provisional protection.

just a few days ago, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders described one case which highlighted the complex, intersecting issues which accompany immigration. Saunders just reported that a citizen with temporary legal status, yet unlicensed, ran over Drew Rosenberg of Westlake Village, a law student studying in San Francisco. He was run over and killed by Roberto Galo,  who had already been stopped once, and his car impounded, for driving without a license. Up  to now, it appears that undocumented residents and "temporary legal" residents have profited from the sanctuary city polices of The City by the Bay. Although Galo commited vehicular manslaughter, (backing up over the victim, according to witnesses), the judge presiding over the case reduced the charges. Galo was then sentenced to six months in prison.

Don Rosenberg, the son of the slain law student, appealed to Congressman Waxman's office:

Rosenberg asked Rep. Henry Waxman's office to make sure Galo would be deported. Waxman aides tell me that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told them that Galo was guilty of only one crime of moral turpitude — manslaughter.

So, Galo gets to stay because of his "temporary legal status," even though he killed a young man, a resident of Southern California.

Congressman Waxman cannot hide behind a flurry of letter-writing, as he had done in the past. This country needs comprehensive immigration reform now. So far, two former Republican Senators, Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, offered a plan which would permit a three-tiered grouping of illegal immigrants. Recent arrivals, two years or fewer, would be forced to leave the country. Individuals who had lived in the country for a decade or more would be granted a pathway to citizenship, and immigrants who had been living in this country for twenty years or more would receive automatic citizenship.

I offer this example only to demonstrate that there is plenty of opportunity for serious compromise on this issue. Instead of attacking immigrants who are seeking a better life than in their home countries, the federal government needs to do away with the easy subsidies from the government.

Free market economist Milton Friedman's pithy remarks on the immigration issue deserves more attention:
 "It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You can't have both."

No fences, just proper security along our borders instead of along the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Welfare reform which permits the states to enforce the rule of law and prevent illegal immigrants from taking advantage of the system, and authority for public schools to demand proof of citizenship before enrolling students. These reforms will encourage legal immigration, discourage criminality and illegal immigration, and put to rest 90% of the problems associated with this vexing issue.

So, what do you say, Congressman? Are you going to lead on this issue or not?

Residents of the 33rd Congressional District, please contact Congressman Waxman about the Rosenberg tragedy and demand that he press for comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform.

What Happened, indeed?

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2012/11/ok-what-just-happened/

Santa Monicans:

If you insist on electing politicians who "take you for granted", as the Santa Monica Daily Press suggested, then you can prepare for more of the same, whether over two, four, or six years.

Do you really want to solve the homeless problem in your city? Do you really want to protect the environment without hurting your pocketbook or the green in your bank account?

If you expect your Congressmen to pay attention to your needs, if you expect the leaders of your communities to care about the issues that you care about, then send the message to them and their like-minded political allies by not reelecting them.

Henry Waxman has done so much good for individual residents. I would like to know what he will do to help the country out of the massive spending problems which are threatening this nation's solvency and credit rating.

What will he do about the diminishing quality of health care when hospitals continue to close, and ObamaCare cannot care of anyone, since doctors refuse to receive Medicare patients and more professionals leave the profession.

I want a clean Santa Monica Bay, but does that mean no more economic development?

And what about the fate of our armed forces when they return state-side? Our veterans deserve better care than they are currently receiving, since the Brentwood VA is still being leased out in private sharing agreements instead of serving the men and women who fought for this country.

I wish that Santa Monicans would reconsider their Rent Control Board, as well. The management of housing prices does not belong to a limited panel of experts who cannot foresee the best use of the land, but rather to the free trade of proprietors and renters who can respond more effectively to the forces of supply and demand.

I think that Santa Monicans should be commended for setting up a service to help the homeless population in the city. But do we help the poor by impoverishing them with more dependence, or do we assist them with programs that emphasize drawing them away from a sense of shame and allow them to achieve a new name of grace and glory based on the skills that they have?

Santa Monicans, I know that there is an independent heart beat in your streets, named after every state in the United States. Prove your independence once again, demand that your Congressman responds to the issues which concern you most. Do not let Congressman Henry Waxman take you for granted any more.

The Aftermath of Low Information Voters

The problem with a general presidential election is that tens of thousands of residents voting on federal or state offices and propositions don’t care about local issues or who’s running for City Council and school board. The results are often unfortunate.

Santa Monica Patch interviewed local voters who admitted that local races were of no interest. One voter said he went, ”eeny, meeny, miny, moe.” Others were “overwhelmed by the volume of political pamphlets stuffed into their mailboxes — like from Bill Bloomfield?

With no clear-cut basis to chose candidates, many voters take the easy way out. Vote for nice sounding names, women, along party lines, pro-environment or use a list they’ve been given.

-- Bill Bauer, Santa Monica Daily Press

The curse of the "Low Information" voter reigns supreme.

I suppose this is the result of assuming that a greater number of people would be just as involved in a campaign as I was. Such myopia is understandable for someone who got heavily involved in a campaign for the first time.

Bloomfield blanketed the election field with flyers galore. During the campaign calling, a number of undecided voters begged his staff to stop sending those flyers. No matter how much money a candidate spends on getting elected, there is only so much information that a prospective voter will take in.

Money can buy more space in a forum, but it will not sway the swing voters with fundamental concerns like the candidate's true colors or specific proposals for this country's problems offered.

Waxman Prevails over Bloomfield -- From ""Easy Reader News"

So, the 33^rd Congressional district has settled for a West LA politician instead of a native son from Manhattan Beach. The strain of this expansive district may permit another well-connected (not necessarily well-funded) South Bay resident to run against Henry Waxman in 2014.

“Waxman spent much of the last month” getting to know the South Bay. No wonder he scored only 53% of the vote in last week’s election. The voters in the Beach Cities deserve a leader who will spur economic growth, not just pay lip service to protecting the aerospace industry while trying to balance the interests of the Westside entertainment industries.

Contrary to the cynical commentary of Mr. McDermott, Bloomfield’ s candidacy was hardly a “long-shot”. After thirty-eight years in office, Congressman Waxman chalked up his tenure to accomplishing individual favors for constituents, yet he did nothing about amending the Clean Water Act, he blocked the “Subway to the Sea”, and he showed poor leadership and oversight over the proper care and security of our nation’s veterans. Independent challenger Bill Bloomfield funded the major electoral reforms in this state, Open Primaries and the Citizens Redistricting Commission, both of which Waxman opposed. Bloomfield offered an electoral alternative based on solving problems and getting Congress working again.

Still, Bloomfield made two mistakes. He kept donating to Republican candidates long after he left the Republican Party. His appreciation for Congressman Waxman suggested that he was less interested in replacing him and more interested in influencing him: hardly a basis for running against someone for election.

Bloomfield's Big Mistake

I had confronted the Bloomfield campaign's political director about one key issue, and his response did not provide the greatest calm.

Bloomfield was a registered Republican for years. In March 2011, he switched his party affiliation to "Decline to State". But he kept giving campaign donations to Republican candidates, even during the 2012 Presidential Primaries. Granted, he supported Romney during the early months of the GOP primary, then he switched to Huntsman toward the end of the GOP bashing as Romney drifted to the right -- at least according to the press -- but still, Bloomfield was putting money into a party whose views on taxes and social issues did not match with the Manhattan Beach native.

Like Romney's "47%" comment, Bloomfield's record of Republican donations dogged him throughout the remainder of his campaign.

When I shared my growing concerns about this issue, the campaign director told me that they had been thinking about this issue since the June Primary, that they knew that Henry Waxman would attack this issue, along with going after His wealth.

This was not the best answer I could have hoped for. Bloomfield and his consultants needed to think about this issue the moment that Bloomfield launched his campaign. He needed to stop the donations as soon as he even considered running for Congress or any other office against a Democrat.

The last thing that voters want is a mixed message, and Condoleeza Rice just imparted her opinion that the GOP gave a mixed message to the voters. They wanted to instill economic recovery, but the bankruptcy issues in the auto industry, the staggering losses which families are going through in this country, they want to hear a message which does not marginalize or diminish the voters.

Bloomfield did not conduct an unkind campaign. Despite his well-placed criticisms about Waxman's neglect of our veterans, or the special interest money that he received from Big Pharma, Bloomfield focused on hyperpartisanship and solving this nation's problems.

Still, the Independent himself admitted following the November 6th election that he should have divested himself completely from the Republican Party.

The voters in this district, in this country, do not want a mixed message. Some party leaders are all talk when it comes to cutting the spending, but they want to do it in way which does not provide a way our for people who are down and out, who still have issues that need to be addressed.

Bloomfield's Big Mistake: He did not leave the GOP permanently.

Why People Like Waxman

One correspondent told me why she liked Henry Waxman so much:

Personally speaking, I have always found that Waxman is doing a good job, and he’s a very honest, straightforward person. I met him at a senior facility in Santa Monica a few years ago. The only thing I don’t like is that he’s opposed to natural supplements because he classifies them with the steroids and other junk –Codex Alimentarius. One of my former work colleagues said his office was instrumental in assisting her when she applied for citizenship and the paperwork was lost in the system just days before she had to go to court (she was born in Russia and has an engineering degree). His office staff apparently went out of the way to help her. --

I like a responsive legislator just as much as the next guy.

But what are our Congressmen for? Do the voters send them to Washington so that they can dole out favors

Here was my response:

I wish we had more Congressmen who did good things like that using their own resources -- but heavy taxes and no attention to entitlement reform, ll of that is doing us more harm than good.


Waxman's philanthropy is perfect -- for himself. That's good.


But the government uses other people's money for all of these programs -- and they are not working. I believe in helping people, I just think that the more local the better.

What can I say -- Waxman is a polarizing figure -- and he has not heard the last from me!

Thanks again!What does the Constitution say about our legislators? What are they supposed to be doing? Here's the oath of office which are legislators take:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

How does Congressman Waxman measure up?

Frankly, I approve that Waxman stepped into the aid the naturalization of a foreign national. We need more Congressmen who will move on behalf of recipients if they do not receive the entitlement which they have already paid into.

A better question still needs to be answered: why is it so difficult for Green Card holders to receive their citizenship papers? Why do we have government involved in so many facets of our lives, and to what effect? How come our veterans have not received the care and attention that they deserve?

We need men and women in Congress defending the Constitution, not their Congressional seats by pandering to favors in order to get votes.

Bloomfield Has No Regrets

http://www.easyreadernews.com/60396/waxman-prevails-over-bloomfield/

So, Mr. Bloomfield has no regrets about his campaign. He has shaken up special interests up and down the Golden State, going after unions, after corporate interests, seeking a bigger tent for a diminished party, and finding none he chose to strike out on his won. No regrets: that is the right attitude to take. Redistricting and Open Primary Reform has made its mark in California. Howard Berman is gone, along with unrepentant and importune atheist Peter Stark of the Bay Area. Sadly, we lost David Dreier of San Dimas, who saw that his district now had a 60% Democratic constituency, so he decided to retire. Now, George Miller and Henry Waxman remain the deans for the California Delegation, and the Republican caucus returns with fifteen instead of nineteen members in their ranks.

The Republican Party must change its outreach and tone its outrage. Bloomfield has no regrets, and neither do I, for that matter. It's time for the voters in this state to tell the parties what they must do, the values which they must uphold, nothing more and nothing less.

I am glad that an Independent had the chance to shake up Congressman Waxman. I am glad that a long-term incumbent had to step out and mingle with the hoi polloi instead of sit on his throne and wait for the populist crown on the first Tuesday of November. I am glad that I got out there and got involved, and I am glad that voters from both parties had the chance to share something with their Congressman besides a vote and no voice to follow it up.

No regrets, no retreat.

Waxman Wins Reelection -- Reforms and the Voters the Big Winners

This mission does not end. Congressman Henry Waxman has taken back the 33rd Congressional District, but the reforms with the enthusiastic voters has accomplished so much more for the state. Peter Stark of the Bay area, the longest serving Congressman in the state, has been pushed out of office after forty years! Berman lost his seat to the younger Sherman, whose geographical advantage carried the day.

Yesterday evening, Bill Bloomfield announced to his campaign supporters in Manhattan Beach that Congressman Henry Waxman had just joined "No Labels."

He also pointed out that Congressman Waxman, for the first time in years, had to speak to voters, get their thoughts on issues. For the firs time in four years, Waxman visited the Malibu Coast to speak with Democratic supporters.

The tally for the final vote went all the way to the early morning. Waxman won reelection by 53% -- that is the slimmest margin for Waxman to keep his seat.

I do not know if independents and Republican voters will feel that Waxman, who is entering his record 18th term, will be serving their needs. The fact that he now has to pay attention to the voters, that his seat is not so secure as it used to be, will hopefully force him to work better with others.

What is it going to take before the voters in this country will stop hoping for government to have the answer to all their problems?

Congressman Henry Waxman reminds me of the surrogate "god" that many people have established for themselves because they have nothing else to connect to or the truth in fullness. I can understand why many people keep running to Big Government, whether these constituencies belong to "religious affiliations" or secular interests - they see nothing bigger to attach to.

Keeping our Congressmen accountable -- that's what we need, no matter what, no matter who wins. We cannot hold leaders accountable if we are dependent on them. At least the 2012 election hopefully will be enough to keep incumbents on their toes from now on.

Congressman Henry Waxman, we will still be watching, and this Open Primary process, with future independents and more conservative Democrats, can rise up in the future to keep you and any other incumbent in place and replace with you better representation in the future.

Bloomfield started a movement in this state which belongs in every state. I only hope that the voters, the residents in this state and across the county focus less on what they can get from the state, and less on what the state can get from them.

The mission does not end, the "Waxman Watch" remains with all eyes open.

Reluctant Conservative Votes for Bloomfield

I have been in contact with rugged conservatives throughout the South Bay.

Some of them shared with the discomfort they witnessed when Republican party members stormed out of club meetings when the heard Bloomfield say that he was not opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy.

Another Republican operative shared that Bloomfield seemed dead-set on setting of Republicans, going out of his way to distance himself from his former party.

Another voter in the South Bay admitted to me plainly that he would not be voting for Bloomfield, since he judged the Manhattan Beach businessman to be too liberal to support.

I contacted him a few times to try to get him to give up his resistance and cast a vote for the independent. I stressed that getting rid of Waxman would more than redeem his supporting a quasi-liberal on social issues.

After I published the post -- "On the Fence in the 33rd" -- this voter showed perfect reluctance, informing me that all of the concerns which I had outlined, and the reasons in spite of them for supporting Bloomfield, actually solidified his resolve not to vote for anyone for Congress.

Within days of the election, I contacted my conservative friend once again. He related to me that I would be happy to know that he voted for Bloomfield, although he emphasized at length his stalling reserve to do so.

This gentleman is one of the most informed voters I know of, an established member of the community who has never withheld a strong opinion on public matters, whether fiscal or social. I believe that if this red-ribbed conservative was willing to vote for Bloomfield, in spite of his considerable and legitimate reservations, then Mr. Waxman is in big trouble, indeed!

Henry Waxman -- A Republican in Disguise?

Congressman Henry Waxman is facing a stiff challenge in the new 33rd Congressional District, which stretches from Palos Verdes all the way to Malibu to Agoura Hills.

His only line of attack against his well-funded and highly supported challenger, Bill Bloomfield, is to keep linking him to the conservative policies of Republican party leaders and Congressmen, politicians whom Bloomfield supported with campaign donations in the past, along with Independents and Democrats throughout the country.

In all of this name-calling and closet accusations, one has to wonder -- is Democrat Henry Waxman really a Democrat, or perhaps he indeed is the "foxy red Republican" whom Gregg Heacock of Santa Monica so dreaded?

If we compare the record and the rhetoric of the previous Republican President George W. Bush, with the current positions and policies of Congressman Henry Waxman, one will find that their policies more closely resemble each other than originally considered.

President Bush sponsored and signed into law a massive Medicare entitlement enhancement. Congressman Waxman led the charge for ObamaCare, a massive new entitlement altogether. Waxman even praised the Medicare Part D extension of the Bush Administration.

President Bush authorized war in Iraq -- Waxman voted for it, along with Berman and Sherman. Waxman later investigated waste and fraud in Iraq, but the LA Congressman voted for war.

President Bush loved spending money -- created record debts and deficits. So does Congressman Waxman, so much so that his "WaxmanCare" entitlement robs Medicare by $700 billion. He has voted in lock-step with President Obama's tax and spend, regulate and frustrate agenda, which has slowed growth, killed jobs, and frightened national and international markets with uncertainty and occlusion.

President Bush wanted to micromanage the health care of Terry Schiavo, a disabled Florida woman whose husband wanted to take her off of life support. He forced Congress to pass a bill of attainder, a law specifying one individual, which is both unconstitutional and immoral. Still, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, and the husband took Ms. Schiavo off of life support. Mr. Waxman wants to micromanage everyone's health care, pushing WaxmanCare, with is many rules, regulations, and taxes, onto health insurance industries.

Henry Waxman, leading the fight for more government in our lives, just like "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush. Henry Waxman, a Republican in disguise? You decide.

Another (former) South Bay Democrat Comments

James A George: · SubscribeSubscribed · Top Commenter · The Ohio State University

I am a Democrat formerly from Redondo Beach and I could not agree with you more. Waxman is a true embarrassment. I don't know how he gets reelected.

 

Partisanship is down in the polls with voters. Citizens want government to get busy passing balanced budgets and preparing for the future, with comprehensive entitlement reform, necessary cuts, and proper revenue increases, preferably by closing corporate and agribusiness loopholes, terminating byzantine tax breaks, and simplifying the tax code.

 

James George of Redondo Beach commented on a piece which I had posted on Examiner.com.

 

The biggest indictment that voters have against Waxman -- he has been in office too long. Most Democrats throughout Southern California cast their votes for the incumbent only because there has never been a viable alternative.

 

Bill Bloomfield is that alternative, more than viable, better than voluble, ever visible, and verifiably independent.

 

Thank you, James, for your support.

 

LA County DA Steve Cooley (among many others) is Voting for Bloomfiled

If there is any politician in the greater Los Angeles area who epitomizes pragmatism and political savvy, it would LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley.

If there is any Republican who understands social moderation, discretion, and respect for different points of view, it would LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley.

If there is any Republican in the LA area who knows how to work with Democrats and Independents, it would be Steve Cooley.

LA County District Attorney is voting for Bill Bloomfield, the Independent who left the Republican party because the party was not moderate enough, not pragmatic enough, not bipartisan enough for his views.

Cooley is voting for Bloomfield -- what about you?

The following other people are also voting for Bill Bloomfield (per Heather Peters, Campaign Manager for Bloomfield for Congress):

- Kenneth Jones, Executive Director of People For Community Improvement

          - James Woolsey, [Democrat] Former Director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton

- Nancy Jacobson, Founder of “No Labels”

          

- Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles

- Sue Patterson, Founder of WINGS

Please get out the vote for Bill -- end the reign of Waxman the Taxman. For all the undecided voters who are still not sure who to vote for, end the 38-year tenure of Henry Waxman, an incumbent who has spent more time living it up in Washington instead of serving his constituents in the Santa Monica Bay.

          

End the Berman-Waxman Machine for Good: Sherman for the 30th!

To the voters of the Valley (and the newly drawn 3oth Congressional District):

The drama in the new 30th Congressional District has highlighted all the conflicts and constraints of one-party rule in different sections of the country. Now that the Democratic party has advanced and availed their top-two candidates on Valley Voters, including Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys, one wonders what choices will be available in the future.

For me, I was a Sherman fan from the moment I learned that he had voted against TARP. Unlike members of the Republican Party (including Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan), Sherman staked a minority view by voting against that bad legislation, even if he did it for the wrong reasons.

Moreover, because I wanted to help edge out Congressman Henry Waxman, who was the previous Congressman for the old 30th, the symbolic victory of taking down both axes of the Berman-Waxman machine was too good to pass up, even if for a while it seemed to good to be true.

When I saw every Democratic incumbent in the Congressional delegation line up behind Berman, followed by two well-connected Republican Senators, I still felt sure standing for Sherman. The fact that the younger Congressman was willing to reach out to Republican voters signalled to me that the two major reforms in California, both the Open Primaries and the Citizens Redistricting Commission, were doing their job, forcing candidates to compromise and coalesce the middle ground with constituents. One voter visiting in Manhattan Beach related to me that Howard Berman advertised himself as "the incumbent" in the new district, one which contained only one-fourth of his previous constituency. This presumption offended that one voter, as it should, and gave him pause to consider supporting Sherman.

These two major reforms -- Open Primaries and Citizens Redistricting -- which Independent Candidate Bill Bloomfield advocated and promoted long before he ran for office against Henry Waxman, were designed to cripple the crass entitlement mentality of the political class which expected nothing less than a coronation every two years. Congressmen Henry Waxman and Howard Berman fit this profile, and it is fitting to see their profile diminish in the Westside.

Congressman Henry Waxman recently released a phone advertisement suggesting that Sherman's aggressive behavior at the Pierce College debate clearly exposed the younger legislator as unfit for the office. Of course, Waxman neglected to mention that his colleague in political-machine chicanery Berman started the joust by jabbing Sherman as "delusional", most likely to elicit sophomoric laughter from the mostly post-high school crowd in the audience. Before that, it was Berman who started getting negative when in July the Southland learned that Sherman was polling ahead by double-digits. Moreover, Congressman Henry Waxman has no right to castigate anyone as mean or crude, since his careless and caustic demeanor with colleagues and witnesses deserves no less a reprimand.

The final punches and gutter-sniping in the 30th Congressional race are what most voters would expect from long-standing politicians who for the vast majority of their tenure never had to run for office, let alone talk to constituents in order to solicit their feedback or respond to their concerns. Not even two weeks ago, Congressman Waxman shut down a constituent in a local "open forum", apparently appalled and displeased that any voter would criticize his thirty-eight year record.

Political machines of any kind, in which two safe incumbents turf their campaign dollars to fellow congressman in more competitive races, should never happen again in the state of California. To the Republicans who are holding their nose to cast a vote for Sherman, remember with calm hope that the Open Primary system permits any candidate from any party, especially an independent or a decline-to-state, to rise up and take down an incumbent who feels that it is not incumbent upon him to represent his voters. If Sherman does not keep his word, if he resorts to the same political chicanery of machines in the past, all it will take is a moderate challenger to take him down in the next election.

Valley voters, end the Berman-Waxman machine and end the easy incumb ency of decades past, which lasted for decades too long. Vote for Brad Sherman for the 30th.

Hypocrisy: Waxman calls Sherman "Aggressive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awDx182BHLk&feature=related

Waxman has the audacity to endorse fellow machine politician Howard Berman in part because Brad Sherman is "too aggressive"?

Henry Waxman --- the Congressman who threatened to remove ranking member Darrell Issa because he insisted that then-Chairman Waxman pursue regular order.

Henry Waxman --- the same Congressman who started an intra-party fight to take the House Energy Committee Chairmanship in 2008.

Henry Waxman -- the ranking member who chafed with chairmen Ed Whitfield over the proper subpoena power of the House Energy Committee.

Henry Waxman -- an embattled incumbent who refuses to take questions during an open forum in the Beach Cities.

If anyone has aggressive behavior, it's Congressman Henry Waxman, and it is he who does not belong in Congress for another term.

No Longer Digging Waxman -- Who Won't Stop Digging

I have seen the Bloomfield campaign's latest commercial, now launched on major networks:

Bloomfield for Congress: Dig

I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Last Sunday, ads were running attacking Henry Waxman while I was watching "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos.

The debt in this country was a "mere" $500 billion when Waxman came to office in 1974.

Now, the debt stands at $16 trilllion.

The pile of debt just keeps rising and rising, and Henry keeps digging and digging.

This commerical is reason enough why voters are no longer "digging" Henry Waxman for another term in Congress.

After name recognition, when prospective voters learn how long Waxman has been in office, when they learn that he opposed the JOBS bill and the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction compromise, they start  "digging" Bloomfield.

This is a great trend. The "low-information" voters will get all the information they need on Congressman Waxman.

Waxman does not stand a chance. He has been digging the debt whole for the greater length of his Congressional career, from the moment he realized that he would not face real competition. Those circumstances have changed, and now Waxman is digging the grave of his too-long tenure.

Ten Reasons to Remove Henry Waxman

With only two days left before the November 6th election, I would like to outline ten reasons why not to elect Congressman Henry Waxman to another term in office:

1. He has neglected the plight of our veterans, in which thousands live homeless and barely surviving while their intended home, the Brentwood VA, remains abandoned or leased out to private interests. This reason alone is reason enough to send Waxman packing for good:

http://centurycity.patch.com/blog_posts/henry-waxman-worthy-of-dishonorable-discharge-3c9e9cc4

2. While serving as chairman of the Oversight Committee then the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he did nothing to resolve two major complaints against the Clean Water Act, which are now bankrupting private property owners while preventing meaningful building and investment on private lands.

http://redondobeach.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-waxman-and-clean-water-act-all-washed-up

3. He opposes free speech, convinced that he does not have to honor questions from constituents who do not agree with his policies. Such is the arrogance of power, exacerbated by 38 years in office without a viable challenger.

http://venice.patch.com/blog_posts/henry-waxman-afraid-of-an-open-forum-1173b9bc

4. Having no significant record to run on, Waxman reruns old achievements attack Big Tobacco and drafting legislation about clean water and clean air, yet even with these legislative achievements, our state and local civic leaders deserve the greater credit for our clean air and water, not a Congressman.

http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-ezekiels-take-on-incumbent-henry-waxmans-righteous-deed

5. Congressman Waxman has a growing record of incompetence, form his ignorance of the steroid laws in this country while running hearings on steroid abuse in abuse in baseball, to his ignorance about the details in his own bill, to the fact that GM went bankrupt in 2009.

http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-henry-waxmana-consistent-lack-of-competence

6. He was the chief author and cheerleader for ObamaCare, another unfunded entitlement which is creating the opposite of its intended effects, including the closure of hospitals, diminished access to health insurance, and increase in cost for health care. This law must be repealed, and Waxman will be one more roadblock to prevent this much needed repeal.

http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/obama-waxmancare-reason-enough-to-wipe-out-waxman

7. He has been in office for 38 years. He is the posterboy of electoral reform, term limits, and an enlightened citizenry keeping power of the many out of the hands of one. Enough already!

http://brentwood.patch.com/blog_posts/waxman-watch-end-the-38-year-tenure-of-henry-waxman-5c5e287f

http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-henry-waxman-38-year-tenure-is-a-turn-off

8. He has voted against every middle-class and working class tax cuts. For all the harping on increasing tax cuts on the rich, wouldn't it be nice to have a representative who will ease the tax burden for struggling Americans of every class?

http://palosverdes.patch.com/blog_posts/retire-waxman-the-taxman

9. He has advanced one set of policies, only to reverse his stance on these issues, including the Subway to the Sea along Wilshire Blvd. In the same interview, he contradicted himself on the most basic of issues, including the state of the economy and the enforcement power of his own "ObamaCare" bill.

http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/henry-waxman-consistently-inconsistent

10. The tepid endorsements that Waxman has received identify him as a Washington politician who relies on local votes to stay in power. This district deserves leadership that will respond to local needs, not personal gain. Waxman does not even live in the District anymore.

http://centurycity.patch.com/blog_posts/no-bruins-daily-bruin-endorses-waxman
http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/the-santa-monica-daily-press-endorses-henry-waxman

For morereasons to remove Waxman and elect Bill Bloomfield to replace him, please visit "waxmanwatch.blogspot.com" for more information.

End the 38-year tenure of Henry Waxman. On November 6th, Vote for Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd.

More Democrats for Bloomfield

Not one but two Democrats out of Malibu have signaled their support for Bloomfield.

The second person I spoke with indicated that she had received mailers attacking Bill as a "Republican in disguise."

After outlining that the "GOP attack" was the only line of attack left for Congressman Waxman, that Bloomfield left the Republican party because the party left him, that he left the GOP before the redistricting and before the Open Primary system went into effect, the Malibu resident signalled that she would vote for Bloomfield.

As columnist Ari Noonan suggested in a recent article for "Front Page Online", Bloomfield is the very challenger that Waxman feared:

- Independent

- Well-financed

- Well-connected to the community

Bruce Levin of Westwood has voted for Waxman for the previous nineteen terms. He, like many disaffected Democrats in the 33rd, has had enough, and now he supports Bloomfield.

James Woolsey, the former CIA director under Bill Clinton, praised Bloomfield's humanitarian efforts in the Middle East, assistsing democratic dissidents in Syria and Iran. The Manhattan Beach based independent is a strong supporter of Israel, and will seek to solidify the fraying ties which have needlessly developed during the Obama Administration.

Barry Levin, CEO of "Snak King" has dumped Waxman for Bloomfield. "Henry Waxman, almost forty years of damaging, irresponsible spending." About Mr. Levin, voters should also learn that he received the Small Business Association of America's award for Small Businessperson of the year (2011). He even met with President Obama, who praised him as a "Champion of Change." Yet this CEO, lauded by Democrats, has chosen to endorse Bill Bloomfield.

Lorna Auerbach of "Auerbach Commerical Realty Corp" makes the most succinct and compelling reason for backing Bloomfield:

"If we vote for the same people every time, nothing will ever change. Waxman doesn't even own a home here."

More than partisanship, the question of representation and accountability matter more, and on those two points, Waxman fails. On this note, Democrats who had voted for Waxman every year without fail now have a viable choice to elect someone else, a social moderate who will respond to the fiscal challenges facing this country with bipartisan zeal: Bill Bloomfield.