I have spent a lot of time trying to think of what I would say to each of you in this, my last, Monday Morning Memorandum. God, and some gonzo lawyer, has put an end to this phase of my political career, and I personally don’t have the hardware or the training to send this out each week to the 30 or so thousand of you that receive this memo. So, I have to end this commentary, for the moment. If I can, I will resume it, but for the moment, this is the last of my comments to you.

14 years is a long time, and I have spent that time in Sacramento doing what I can to change the direction of California. For the moment, it appears that I have been unsuccessful, but I know that my duty has been done. I stood for what I believed was right. I expressed that belief at every occasion, and I fought the battles necessary. For that, I have earned great friends and a good life.

To my constituents in Western Riverside and Northern San Diego Counties, thank you. It has been a great honor in my life to be able to represent you. You invested a level of faith in my abilities. I only hope that I have justified the faith you had in me. To the others who have fought the good fight, I only hope that from time to time something I have said and done helps you continue the fight. Our country and our state are worth fighting for. The freedom our founding fathers secured with their blood, and each succeeding generation has preserved with theirs, is unique in this world, and it is our duty to pass it along to our children. No sacrifice is too great to ensure that we preserve that legacy. It would be a sad comment if our posterity were to look back at our time and said, “They ruined it for us.” It is our responsibility to ensure their futures.

There will always be those who say that compromise and peace are better than freedom. We will be exhorted to lay down our arms to “work together” with those who would expand their power at the expense of our freedom. That is the siren’s song. We cannot destroy our children’s future freedom on the shoals of a compromise to achieve a peace that increases the power of government. Diligence in the preservation of freedom requires a willingness to ignore the insults of those who counsel surrender to power. Our short term distress and unease will yield to the long term internal peace in the knowledge that we have done our duty for our children and grandchildren, that we have preserved this great republic for their enjoyment as our forbears preserved it for us.

The battle is never over. Even now, after this last election, some are telling us to give up, to “just get along” with those who have made it clear that their acquisition of power is more important than freedom for our children. My counsel is this: Never give up. This is just one short term setback in the return of a national and state government that recognizes its limits and its power. The next election is just two years away, but freedom sacrificed for short term peace may never be regained.

I don’t know what will happen to me. I do know that the cause for which I have fought these last 14 years is an important cause. It is the cause for which hundreds of thousands have fought and died throughout the entire history of our Republic. It is the cause of limited government, individual freedom, and family. It is the cause of freedom.

In my time in the Legislature, I have had the opportunity to cut your taxes, and the opportunity to participate in a small way in the historic recall of a Governor. I have had the opportunity to fight against every increase in the size of state government, and to fight for families and the children not yet born. I may not have succeeded in all my endeavors, but I have never turned from a fight. I never will, and I hope you don’t either.

Thank you.

This is a call to action. For too long, we have been told to “vote our pocketbooks.” That sort of selfishness has left us with a selfish government. We can no longer vote “our pocketbook.” We must vote for our children’s political freedom.

For those who may wonder what they can do to vote for freedom, it is simple. We need to vote for smaller government, less taxes, property rights, and candidates who support these principles.

That’s it, and that has to become a moral imperative for those of us who believe in these principles.

Bonds grow government. Taxes grow government. Property rights shrink government, and shrink government taxes.

That is why the Governor’s opposition to Proposition 90 makes absolutely no sense.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like Governor Schwarzenegger, and he is the better candidate by far. Even when I was criticizing him for growing state government too much, I still wanted him to be re-elected. The alternative would be disastrous. That desire, however, doesn’t mean that I abandon all common sense.

In his statement opposing Proposition 90, the Governor said that he believed “independent analysts” who said that Proposition 90 would lead to “higher taxes,” and that is why he is opposing the initiative. Of course in reality, his bonds are more likely to lead to higher taxes than Proposition 90, but even assuming that were not so, when have those in “government” been worried about increasing taxes? The independent analysts the Governor cited have openly and consistently advocated for greater taxes for welfare and other government programs. It appears that the only time they apparently worry about increased taxes is when the government is going to have to pay out money if it intrudes on individual freedom.

More important, the independent analysts are not all that independent. They work for government, and ignored the evidence brought to them that Proposition 90 will not cost any more money. Unfortunately for these “independent analysts,” they sacrificed their independence to achieve a political goal, that is, the defeat of Proposition 90.

Even if the initiative would cost more money, the cost would be justifiable, since the major role of government is to protect our personal security and our individual freedom. Having said that, however, I don’t believe Proposition 90 will increase government costs one penny. What it will do is change the government’s behavior. Right now, government can trample on an individual’s property rights with impunity. Proposition 90 will hold those government officials accountable if they do so. That is fair and proper. To complain that a government agency may have to pay if that agency abuses a landowner is akin to arguing that it is unfair to require someone to pay for an accident they caused. It is nonsensical.

I don’t expect our elected officials to understand the nuances of protecting freedom, but it is fair to expect them to do all they can to protect individual freedom, not government prerogative. Unfortunately, the Governor chose government over the individual when choosing to oppose Proposition 90. The Sacramento establishment opposed 90, and the Governor chose not to fight that establishment.

We, however, can fight that establishment. We can choose freedom. We can choose property rights. We can choose to limit the power of government and to limit government prerogative when it interferes with our individual freedom. We can do that when we vote. Many Americans have fought and died to protect our freedom. We can honor their sacrifice and their legacy by choosing to exercise our vote to promote and protect freedom. Voting for freedom is not that great a sacrifice, but it can make all the difference in the world for the future we are creating for our children.

Full legislative text, analyses and votes
are available on the State web server.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066

I guess I’m a real political junkie. I just love political commercials. I know it sounds weird, but I actually change channels during the news programs during an election season, just to see the commercials. Who’s running them, what they say, what they think the issues are, and who they are trying to talk to. Call Republicans racists in the last three weeks of a campaign, and African Americans will forget the bad things that Democrats have done over the last two years, and vote straight Democrat. Talk about raising taxes, and Republicans will vote against it. Talk about protecting the environment and improving education, and Democrats will vote for it. Quite frankly, the messaging becomes so important that the substance of the message is often lost in the words of the message.

Take the “No on 90″ campaign. They are trying to have it both ways. The “taxpayer trap” words are trying to get Republicans and the “environment” language is trying to get Democrats. They are wrong on both counts, but that is why they are doing it. Messaging.

We see the same thing in the “Yes on 86, 87, 88, and 89″ campaigns. These initiatives are tax increases. When the “Yes on 86″ campaign says they want to tax big oil, they don’t say “We are going to tax Big Oil, and give the money to ‘Big Government.’” They say, “Big Oil is destroying the world, and we want to stop big oil, and create alternative fuels. You don’t like Big Oil, so you want to stop them, too.”

Or, Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco is killing your kids, and they want to kill you. We are going to stop Big Tobacco.

I don’t give money to Big Tobacco. I don’t give money to Big Oil. I pay for gasoline because I like my SUV, and that darn thing needs gas to go. But you can rest assured I will never buy a Prius, or some other low emission vehicle. I hate them. I want to make Big Oil rich with my car. I really dislike cigarettes, so I will never make Big Tobacco rich. However, in both cases, it is my choice. The point is that Big Oil and Big Tobacco make big money because we give it to them for gasoline and cigarettes. If we don’t buy cigarettes, or if we buy a sissy, prissy Prius, they make less money. That is fair.

Big Government, however, makes money by taking it from us. If I don’t like Shell, but I like Chevron, Chevron makes money. If I don’t like the gas tax, but I don’t care about the cigarette tax, I still have to pay Big Government. Big Government doesn’t care about my likes, dislikes, desires, or satisfaction, it just takes the money. The subtext of each of the campaigns for the initiatives to raise taxes is “We don’t like ‘X’ industry or group, so take their money, and give it to ‘Big Government.’”

Big Government, not Big Oil or Big Tobacco or special interests or rich people, is the problem. Big Government takes our money, and spends it on what they want to spend it on. My choice is to pay or get shot.

The real evil in society is Big Government. Big Oil and Big Tobacco will leave us alone if we don’t want their stuff. Big Government will search for ways to harass us. As long as we keep giving it money, it will continue to ask for more, and those who make money off of Big Government will continue to pay for the laws to take more. If we vote for Big Government, I guess we get what we deserve.

Full legislative text, analyses and votes
are available on the State web server.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066

A lot of comments have been directed at this country’s “greatest generation,” those who suffered the Great Depression, fought World War II, and then rebuilt this country from the ruins of those catastrophic events.

I remember, as my generation attended college and entered the workforce, a lot of debate among my peers as to what we would do when we take over. We all thought we would “do it right,” make this country a better place to work, live and raise a family. I think I can say, having inherited a sizable legacy from the “Greatest Generation,” the baby boomers have pretty much screwed things up.

My peers really thought they were smarter than anybody else. Just ask them. They will tell you how much smarter they are than you. You are greedy. If you keep your money, you will just spend it on selfish things, like food, clothing and shelter for you and your family. You have to give your money to them, so they can spend it on food, clothing and shelter for your family. Medical care? Education? If you choose your doctor or your children’s school and pay for it, you will refuse to make sure your kids are healthy or can read and write. If they choose your kid’s doctor or school and pay for it, your children will get quality health care or education.

Of course, you have to hire them to do the work, and because they are so much smarter than you about what is good for you, they are going to require you, by use of government rules and regulations, to pay them a lot of money. They then use that power and money to enhance their power and money, not because they are greedy. Of course not, you are the greedy one, not them, because you don’t want to give them more of your money.

As a result of the arrogance of my generation, our health care system is falling apart, and our education system has collapsed. Government is bloated, incompetent, and inert. My generation is so smart, however, that these problems cannot possibly be our fault, so we keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting to make things better.

Most of the initiatives on this November’s ballot prove this point. With the notable exceptions of Propositions 83, 85, and 90, the rest of the initiatives grow government, increase taxes, and/or expand government spending beyond all comprehension.

When I joined the state legislature in 1992, total state general fund spending was $42 billion. Our bonded indebtedness was about $15 billion. The Legislature talked about floating a $3 billion school bond. Today, total general fund spending is $102 billion; our bonded indebtedness exceeds $50 billion, and we have floated $35 billion in school bonds in the last six years. My colleagues in the state legislature still think we are not spending enough money, that we don’t have enough money to build schools, and that the people of the state of California are still too cheap because they don’t want to pay more in taxes.

When the “greatest generation” took over state government, they built an entire freeway system, a water system, a higher education system, and our entire K-12 structure on a state budget of less than $15 billion general fund per year. We can’t build a dam, a freeway, a levee, a school or a university on $102 billion. We can hire 50,000 new bureaucrats who will sit around and collect $100,000 a year to think about how they can build a freeway, school, dam, or university better, but they will never actually build anything.

I wonder what our kids will say about us when we hand this mess over to them.

---

PROPOSITIONS ON THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 BALLOT

Prop. 1A: Transportation Investment Fund Protection. Will make it harder for the Government to borrow money from the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF). The State cannot borrow the money more than twice in any 10 year period, and must repay it within 3 years. Prohibits Suspension of Prop 42 if the money from a previous year has not been repaid. Any money borrowed to date must be repaid by June 20, 2016.

SUPPORT: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Democrat Pty; CA Republican Pty

OPPOSE: Los Angeles Times

Prop. 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006. Authorizes the issuance of $19.925 billion of general obligation bonds for high priority transportation corridor improvements, port security projects, and mass transit projects, and local street and road improvement, congestion relief, and traffic safety. Part of the Governors Infrastructure Plan.

SUPPORT: Governor; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Democrat Pty; CA Republican Pty

OPPOSE: Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes

Prop 1C: Housing & Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006. Authorizes the issuance of $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds for various housing programs for the poor and homeless, infill development, and housing related parks. Part of the Governors Infrastructure Plan.

SUPPORT: Governor; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Democrat Pty

OPPOSE: Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes ; CA Republican Pty

Prop 1D: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006. Authorizes the issuance of $10.416 billion in general obligation bonds to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, the California Community Colleges, the University of California, the Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University to construct and modernize education facilities. Part of the Governors Infrastructure Plan.

SUPPORT: Governor; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Democrat Pty

OPPOSE: Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes

Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. Authorizes the issuance of $4.09 billion in general obligation bonds for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects, such as the levees in Northern California. Part of the Governors Infrastructure Plan

SUPPORT: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Democrat Pty; CA Republican Pty

OPPOSE: Asm. Ray Haynes

Prop. 83: Jessica’s Law – punishments and restrictions on sexually violent predators. Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park, and requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.

SUPPORT: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; CA Republican Pty; CA Democrat Pty

OPPOSE: Los Angeles Times; CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Prop. 84: Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements Bonds. Authorizes the issuance of $5.388 billion in general obligation bonds, for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, state and local park improvements. Cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years.

SUPPORT: Governor; CA Democrat Pty; Phil Angelides

OPPOSE: Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; CA Republican Pty

Prop. 85: Waiting Period And Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Amends the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.

SUPPORT: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; CA Republican Pty.

OPPOSE: CA Democrat Pty; Los Angeles Times

Prop. 86: Tax on Cigarettes to fund Emergency Room Services. Imposes an additional tax of $2.60 per pack on cigarettes as well as increasing the taxes on other tobacco products for the purpose of funding emergency services at hospitals, nursing education, and to provide health insurance to eligible children.

SUPPORT: CA Democrat Pty; Phil Angelides; Los Angeles Times; Am Lung Assoc; Latino Issues Forum

OPPOSE: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Republican Pty

Prop. 87: Tax on oil extracted in California. Imposes a tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on crude oil extracted in California. Establishes the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority, an energy bureaucracy to disperse funds for alternative energy research, alternative energy vehicles, and energy efficient technologies.

SUPPORT: CA Democrat Pty; Phil Angelides; Pres. Bill Clinton; Julia Roberts

OPPOSE: Governor ; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Republican Pty

Prop. 88: Imposes a Parcel Tax for education funding. Imposes a $50 per parcel tax on all property in California, to raise funding for public schools to provide for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, and computer systems. Will raise about $450 million annually.

SUPPORT: Jack O’Connell, CA Sup of Education; Los Angeles Times

OPPOSE: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; CA Democrat Pty; CA Republican Pty

Prop. 89: Public Financing of Campaigns. Candidate must collect a specified number of $5.00 contributions, (from 750 to 25,000 depending on the office, and money must be turned over to the state), they may receive public campaign funding. The amount of funding would depend on the office sought. For Assembly, they could receive up to $250,000 for the primary, and $400,000 for the general election. It increases the income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by .2% to fund the program. It imposes new limits on private campaign contributions (For Assembly it would reduce the individual and corporate contributions from $3,300 to $500). Provides for each candidate who choose public funding and won their election, to receive $50,000 annually to pay for campaign expenses..

SUPPORT: Phil Angelides; CA Nurses Assoc; Sierra Club

OPPOSE: Governor; Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; Calif Chamber of Commerce; CA Republican Pty

Prop. 90: Restrictions on the use of eminent domain by government. Amends the Constitution to bar state and local governments from condemning or damaging provide property to promote other private projects or uses. Provides for just compensation for government takings for public use.

SUPPORT: Sen. McClintock; Asm. Ray Haynes; CA Republican Pty

OPPOSE: CA Democrat Pty; Nature Conservancy; Sierra Club; CA Teachers Assoc

Full legislative text, analyses and votes
are available on the State web server.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066

If we have lost anything in this country, it is our sense of what is important in a political election. Recently, Jerry Brown called Chuck Poochigian an extremist because Senator Poochigian believes in the Constitution.

Mayor Brown is a very smart and experienced politician. Obviously, he thought his accusation would get him votes. That is very frightening. An electorate that doesn’t soundly reject any politician who advocates ignoring the Constitution, expanding government power, and diminishing freedom is in serious trouble.

In so many ways, California is in serious trouble. Quite frankly, there are just too few voters whose decisions on issues and politicians are driven by protection of the fundamental American value of freedom.

Of course, a lot of politicians invoke that value in political discussions to justify their political positions. Unfortunately, in California, fewer and fewer politicians believe that they need to use their defense of freedom as a reason to vote for them. Like Brown, they just invoke some obscure fear as a reason for government expansion. The people then vote for him over someone, like Senator Poochigian, who will actually defend freedom and the Constitution.

There are bigger things to fear. Like an all powerful government.

In the last week, Secretary of State records revealed that the League of California Cities gave over $2.5 million to oppose Proposition 90. When the contributions from the California State Association of Counties ($400,000) and the California Redevelopment Association ($300,000) are added to the totals, the contributions to the “No on 90″ campaign from government supported organizations totals over $3.2 million. In addition, the list of donors includes a laundry list of private organizations who make money off of big government, either as government vendors (such as lawyers, trash collectors, and street improvement contractors) or beneficiaries of the use of government powers (such as the developers who use eminent domain to take your property so they can pay less money for their development projects).

Almost $5 million has been collected by the opposition.

The question is: how did they get that money? How are the League, CSAC, and the CRA able to raise $3.2 million to contribute to a political campaign, when they are a consortium of local government entities? They say the money is “nonpublic” funds, but how can that be? Are there private individuals whose favorite charities are lobbying organizations for government? Or, are these just our taxes, laundered through some complicated scheme, into the campaign? Are those private organizations who are contributing to oppose property rights in California getting preferential treatment from these governments for helping to protect the power of these governments? Or are they being forced to pay the money under threat of being denied some government permit to do business? The whole thing stinks.

The former Soviet Union used to have elections, complete with campaigns. The people were told they were free because they had a Constitution and elections, but the courts ignored the Constitution and the government hijacked the elections. If anyone had the audacity to challenge the existing power structure, they were first vilified, and then jailed.

In California today, our courts routinely ignore our constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as property rights. And government uses our own tax dollars to vilify anyone who deigns to challenge the inappropriate assertion of government power, like those who support Proposition 90.

Why should freedom be the overriding value in our political choices? Unless we vigilantly defend and preserve freedom, evil things like government trying to hijack elections, will continue to occur. The campaign against Proposition 90 has exposed this evil. The only question is whether we will heed the warnings, or succumb to an all powerful government.

Full legislative text, analyses and votes
are available on the State web server.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066