Four Types of Prospective Voters in the 33rd

As I have been visiting different sections of the 33rd Congressional District, I have encountered different types of voters, diverse reactions which sum up the fractious and uninformed political arena into which many of us have been called to make sense.

Independent Bill Bloomfield is extending his reach by phone and by report. More people want to know about this man.

My mission up to now has been to inform as many prospective voters as I can of the following:

1. Which district they current reside in: the 33rd Congressional District, which takes in the entire Santa Monica Bay, from Palos Verdes to Malibu, to West LA, including the Fairfax district.

2. The "incumbent" who is running for another term in the district: Henry Waxman the Taxman, a 38-ear incumbent who authored one of the largest tax increases in American history (ObamaCare), who refused to compromise, who has submitted bills which barely pass Congress, who believes that this country is "not broke", despite the $16 trillion deficit.

3. The Independent challenger, Bill Bloomfield, who wants to bring solutions to Congress, ending the gridlock and passing legislation that will deal with the deficits, debt, and dysfunction eating away at our present and threatening our future.

In my rounds getting out the vote have encountered four types of people in my personal campaign to "End the Reign of Waxman the Taxman", a politician who has been in office longer than I or anyone in the Generation X (or is Y?) has been alive. Kudos to Republican Christopher David for pointing out the age differential in attacking the extended tenure of Henry Waxman.

1. The first type of prospective voter reacts with anger and disgust when informed that Henry Waxman is running for reelection in their district. If they do not know anything in particular about the Congressman, they will share their disgust with a politician who has been in office for 38 years,etc. I have heard very colorful words from some voters, unfit to be printed or repeated in polite company. They have no reservation about voting for Mr. Bill Bloomfield precisely because they have so deep and odious a dislike for Congressman Henry Waxman. The growing majority of voters whom I have spoken with fall into this category. Their animosity has more than animated them to support the Independent challenger.

2. The second type of voter, Independents and uninformed voters from both major parties, want more information about the Independent Challenger. They like the policies about attacking the debt, reforming the tax code ending corporate subsidies, and getting Congress out of gridlock. Many of these independents are left-leaning individuals, yet they are open-minded about Bill, and offended that Congressman Waxman has remained in office for so long.

3. The third type of constituent tells me flat out that they are Democrats, and they are then inclined to support Henry Waxman. However, they are open enough to share with me the views that they hold. They are also willing to hear the Bloomfield agenda, which matches with many of the views that they have about corrupted, do-nothing government, the same argument which appeals to limited-government conservatives. So far, these open-minded Democrats appreciate that someone else not in their group is willing to listen to their views, and they are turned just enough to consider Bloomfield.

4. The fourth type of prospective voters are the die-hard Waxman fanatics. They are going to vote for Waxman, and they do not care what I have to say. Almost with cult adherence, they have no desire to discuss the issues pertinent to them.

No matter how anyone may feel about the current district's demographics, nearly two-to-one Democratic, with a large segment of decline-to-state voters, the Conservative, Independent, and Open-minded Democratic constituencies are strong and prevalent. This race is just getting heated up, and reports from Washington D.C. indicate the growing rumors that Waxman is in trouble.

Jewish Vote Bipartisan -- Waxman Worries

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/181073-dems-peril-in-ny-seat-sparks-fear-for-nov-12

http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2011/09/ny-9-win-depends-on-the-machine-as-worries-widen-about-obama/

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish congressman, said the Jewish vote is a concern for his party. “I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.” – - (Dems’ peril in New York special election sparks fear for Nov. ’12)

The Jewish vote is up for grabs, according to Congressman Waxman.

Why would that be the case? A full-page ad in the Jewish Journal communicates the increasing unrest that prominent voices in the Jewish community have shared about President Obama's foreign relations with Israel:

Abraham Fox of the Anti-Defamation League remarked about the Obama Presidency:

"What you saw, at several turns during Obama's management  of this (2009 White House meeting with Netanyahu], was a complete lack of an emotion-based relationship with Israel"

Later, Foxman commented to the Washington Post:

"Israeli officials wondered why Obama was not applying the same pressure they had been feeling for months to the Palestinian leadership."

President Obama's one-sided policies toward Israel even resulted in the President suggesting that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders with "land swaps", a notion which Prime Minister Netanyahu rightfully and bluntly dismissed in a press conference.

Martin Indyk, US Ambassador to Israel under President Clinton, commented, "[Obama's] personal involvement [in the Middle East] only made things worse."

Ari Shavit of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently reported: "The president sees how the Iranians mock him -- and does nothing. He sees radical Islam approaching the nuclear brink -- and does not budge.  . ."

Democratic stalwart Ed Koch, in endorsing a Republican, Bob Turner, for Congress to replace disgraced Anthony Weiner,  bluntly commented:

"My support for Mr. Turner is intended to send a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under the bus with impunity." (A signal from Kock, New York Times, September 7, 2011)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/former-mayor-ed-kochs-message-to-obama-about-israel.html

President Obama's policies have alienated this nation's closest ally in the Middle East. It is no surprise that growing number of Jewish voters are signalling their disgusted with the President and his allies, chief of which includes Henry Waxman, a staunch supporter of the President who insists on covering President Obama's failure in supporting the Jewish State as a misunderstanding of Obama’s policies.

The voters understand very well that President Obama's principles are not advocating peace or stability in the region, and  all to Israel's peril. Obama and his colleagues in Congress should be very worried about the Jewish vote, both to protect their wealth and their heritage of the Jewish state.

More on Waxman-Markey

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22207.html

Making that timetable a reality largely falls to Waxman, whose trials and tribulations are the spoils of a long-sought chairmanship. The California Democrat, who waited decades to take over for Michigan Rep. John Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee, is now struggling to overcome generations of lawmakers loyal to his predecessor. Waxman finds himself stuck between his longtime allies in the environmental community and a key bloc of moderate Democrats who want to protect local industries from daunting new costs established under the bill.

Henry Waxman is not unaware of conflict or unafraid of a challenge, especially within his own caucus.

I am certain that even the most left-leaning of voters would acknowledge that not having a job, not having a way to make it in the world is a fate that we would like to see less of in this country.

The voters in the 33rd Congressional District want to keep their jobs, their homes, their livelihood.

Expanding the state to protect the environment is not the way to keep the green on my lawn and in my bank account.

The voters expert more, expert better from their representatives. Protect the environment and the taxpayer, I say.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22207.html#ixzz22JwA50A4

"I Don't Know" -- "I'm Sorry" -- "We're Not Broke!"

Henry Waxman -- Enough Already!

Congressman Henry Waxman has been in Congress for 38 years.

38 years of tax and spend statism, and still there is no subway to the sea.

38 years of badgering and bullying hyperpartisanship,  and corruption and waste are as rampant as ever.

When confronted about legal and illegal use of steroids, money earmarked for steroid education (a  matter of oversight during his chairmanship on the Oversight committee), and even the core elements of his Cap and Trade bill, Waxman said, “I don’t know”.

In the face of the $16 trillion national debt, Waxman says, "We're Not Broke!"

Not one, but NINETEEN green tech companies that took taxpayer loan guarantees have failed, guarantees which Waxman supported. Waxman says, "I'm sorry!"

Enough already!

I don't know about you, but I'm sorry that we are broke, and Waxman has been a big part of it all.

End the reign of Henry Waxman!

Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Waxman the Taxman: Abbreviated

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/California/Henry_Waxman/Views/Taxes/

Henry Waxman has consistently voted against tax relief for the struggling middle class in this country. For over a decade, the long list of tax cut proposals have met stiff opposition from one of the most oppositional members of Congress. For a number of bills, he voted against a sizable minority and even a majority of his Democrat caucus. Waxman is a marginal politician who opposes many bills which will keep the American people's money in their hands.

In 2000, Waxman voted against eliminating the Death Tax and Marriage Tax.

Waxman has a penchant for taxes on everything, even the important rites of passage like Marriage and death. Would he also impinge on births, baptisms, and bar mitzvahs?

Waxman voted against Death Tax Elimination Act of  2001, even though one fourth of the Democratic caucus supported the bill.

Two sure things in this life: death and taxes, and Waxman is ensuring that this country has a lot of the latter.

He voted against the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which included a phased-in reduction in income tax rates and an eventual repeal of the estate tax.

In 2004, the house voted on a bill to fix the marriage penalty tax. The bill increased the standard deduction for married taxpayers. The bill got wide bipartisan support, yet Henry Waxman voted against ending the marriage penalty.

 Holy matrimony should not leave a hole in a married couple's wallet, purse, or bank account. Our Congressional representatives should understand this, but Waxman apparently does not.

Waxman opposed the bipartisan American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which allowed individuals to claim a deduction for state and local sales taxes paid, in lieu of deducting state income taxes. It also increased tax credits for foreign investment abroad and increased the expensing provisions for corporations.

Waxman the Taxman opposed tax cuts for job relief, a hyper-partisan habit once again out of step with both parties in Congress.

Henry Waxman voted against the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. Even with wide support for this measure, Waxman said "No!" I wonder how many working families in the West LA region and the Santa Monica Bay would have benefited from this tax write off?

Waxman voted against the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, an extension of previously lowered dividend income and capital gains through 2010, and made an increase to the AMT exemption. It also eliminated income restrictions for converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. The bill passed in a 234-197 vote with the support of both parties.

Henry Waxman voted against the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which contained tax cut extensions for house improvements, state and local sales tax exemptions, and a provision for health savings accounts.

If Mr. Waxman really wanted to improve health care access in this country, why did he vote down a provision permitting consumers to purchase health savings accounts? The initiative for individuals to invest in their own health, and maintain the fund as a tax credit would help control costs without taxes or rationing.

Henry Waxman voted against the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which allows higher contributions to IRAs. The bill got wide support from both parties. Congressman Waxman has demonstrated such a stiff resistance to easing the tax burden on Americans, that much of the time he even votes against his own Democratic caucus!

The residents of the 33rd Congressional District command a great deal of wealth and investment. The aerospace industry and small businesses throughout the South Bay cannot afford to send to Congress a politician who never met a tax increase he never liked and who has yet to meet any tax relief which he has not rejected.

Congressman Waxman would be out of a job if he endorsed any tax breaks for the American people, apparently. Waxman is a taxing choice not worth the taking

No More Taxes -- No More Waxman -- Retire the Taxman November 6, 2012!

Bill Bloomfield for the 33rd!

Another Claim from Waxman's Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICnGq0Udpg


"Moved clean energy legislation that creates thousands of jobs"


Is Waxman talking about and taking credit for Solyndra? The House Energy Committee just finished a mark-up for the "No More Solyndras" Act.


The federal loan guarantees from Congress for these and other green companies have been sunk and lost in bankrupt firms which had first given the impression of financial insolvency.


How many other firms have gone bust in the quest for efficient, green energy?


Let's consider European firms, which have not received American taxpayer dollars:


The firm was carrying more than $500 million in debt and was unable to reach an "amicable solution" with its debtors and investors. In August, we reported that the company shut down its 60-megawatt module manufacturing facility in Tucson, resulting in the loss of around 60 jobs. The firm has about 800 employees, according to Die Welt. Solon is also the lead investor in Global Solar Energy, a maker of CIGS flexible solar panels. The impact that the Solon insolvency will have on GSE is unclear.


Solon joined Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt in 2011's bankruptcy pool. ECD joined that team in 2012, along with a number of other firms yet to be announced, the victim of plunging prices, overcapacity and a rough economy in an uncertain time for solar policy.
(http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solon-Bankrupt-German-Solar-Vendor-Acquired-by-UAEs-Microsol/)


Companies in Austria are also failing: http://austrianindependent.com/index.php?id=5437
In large because of complex tax and regulation structure, the same policies supported by Waxman, these companies cannot thrive. Of course, the immense cost of production and sale diminishes their profitability. More importantly, Americans are losing jobs from these abortive green tech investment.
However, contrary to Waxman's empty assertion that green investment creates green jobs, there is ample evidence that taxpayers are losing money, too:


The company, Ener1, received a $118 million grant from DOE [Department of Energy] in 2010 as part of the president’s stimulus package,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay. “The money, which went to Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel, aimed to promote renewable energy storage battery technology for electrical grid use.” (http://strokesofcandor.com/the-watchdog/another-government-green-energy-company-files-for-bankruptcy-as-obama-announces-more-loans/)


Beacon Power, which manufactures flywheel energy storage technology, received a $43 million loan guarantee from the same stimulus program that funded Solyndra [emphasis added],” Markay writes. “Despite having used $3 million marked for loan repayment to continue funding its daily operations, Beacon filed for Chapter 11 in November.”


For more information on Solyndra, please vist: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/26/another-green-tech-stimulus-recipient-files-for-bankruptcy/


“Evergreen Solar Inc. said it has failed to find a buyer for its Devens, Mass., plant and plans to walk away from the facility, which was launched with some $50 million in state aid,” the The Wall Street Journal’s reports.


In case you don’t remember, Evergreen Solar Inc. is the Massachusetts-based “green tech” company that filed for bankruptcy last August — even after receiving million in state aid.


(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/failed-green-tech-company-abandons-450m-plant/)


This week, yet another clean energy company heavily underwritten by federal loans, Abound Solar in Colorado, declared bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for $70 million.


And the problem with these massive federal loans supporting failed operations is not limited to solar projects. Nevada Geothermal Power, which has received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees, is running into serious difficulties paying its bills after having operated at a loss for several years.
(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/11976-bankruptcies-of-federally-backed-green-energy-companies-continue)


While these companies were failing, their top executives were receiving six figure salaries.


Two electric car (including Fisker) companies also are going up in smoke. The Fisker company invested the money in Finland, no jobs were created in the United States. Tesla received 500 million. Will start next year -- the model S Sedan. $57,000-- they claim that there is a robust market -- but for wealthy Americans. Fortune Magazine has indicated that the company will have nothing but losses. Celebrities have championed these cars, but they were not worth the risk, yet the taxpayers have been left holding the bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653
Here's another list with a curt and cutting rundown of the sheer failures associated with green subsidies from the federal government:
http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/11/11/government-investments-in-green-technology-a-scorecard/


Here is another list:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/


Is this fair, Mr. Waxman? Is it fair for taxpayer dollars to be wasted in these wasteful and disgraceful green investments, loan guarantees which are guaranteed to lost?


Is this fair, Congressman?

Rich Claims on "Poverty" Expansion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICnGq0Udpg

"Expanded number of working poor eligible 24 times under Reagan"


While the embattled Presidential incumbent says ""Forward", Mr. Waxman apparently wants voters to go backward. Mr. Waxman's blast from the past does not provide ballast for an impoverished present. Instead of celebrating the number of people who receive state assistance, what has Congressman Waxman done to reduce regulations, end governmental waste and fraud, and cut the damaging national debts and deficits which throttle job creation in this country?


Under President Obama's tenure in office, there are more people on food stamps and federal subsidies than any time in this country.


Our leaders in government should be prided and praised for expanding wealth and promoting job creation, not expanding the welfare rolls.
Voters in this country want a recovering economy, not a sputtering recovery which has failed to engage a growing segment of the working poor in this country.


Congressman Waxman, only you would promote your stay in office by selling the country on the handouts to the poor. I think that more people would rather get help not being poor instead of receiving aid for their poverty.


The sooner Waxman leaves office, the richer this country will be.