Many people start the new year with thoughts of making resolutions. Usually, by February, the resolutions have not become reality and go into the “maybe next year” pile. It is a good idea to set goals for self-improvement or more achievements, but the goals must be realistic if they have any chance for success.

This column would like to offer some goals for our politicians to consider. Some won’t make the consideration pile for legislators or executives because it is against their self-interest, but others might get enough support from the public, to at least cause some to introduce bills worthy of debate.

These are the bills this columnist would like to see debated on the floor.

1. Recall and referendum. This proposal would be like the one successfully used in California against an incompetent governor to legally removed him from office. Four years gives a person who is over his head in the job description a lot of time to foul up and do severe damage to the citizens.
2. Licensing of political candidates with a qualifying test necessary for them to prove their competence to hold the job. Politics have created the elective office as a career path and therefore the office holders should be able to meet the standards of ability to do the job the same as any other civil service position.
3. A break to help people with health insurance and nursing home expense. A bill to allow the premiums for health insurance and nursing home care to be tax deductible would help people afford to pay their own way. This would cut down on Medicaid and Medicare expenses paid for by taxpayer dollars. The premiums should be deductible if a family pays for the insurance on parents. This would help avoid the fraud of shifting assets to avoid being responsible for the individual needing nursing home care.
4. Pension reform that would guarantee benefits for retirees. The legislatures should investigate a plan similar to a 401 K that would allow a certain percentage of the employee’s compensation to be invested in an annuity. This would place the responsibility of payment with an insurance company that has had centuries of experience with the product. The annuity is guaranteed and it puts the pension plan in a private industry fund which pays taxes instead of a government agency that eats tax dollars.
5. Reduce the size of government and eliminate the unnecessary agencies that are dumping grounds for patronage. If the agency does not produce a worthwhile result, or if it is top heavy with management, it should be adjusted to meet the needs of the taxpayers instead of meeting the needs of the political parties to provide patronage.
6. In New York, the Department of Education and the Public Service Commission would be two choice agencies for this cleaning. Neither is doing the proper job for the amount of money being spent in perpetuating their existence.
7. Make New York more business friendly by reducing state imposed taxation and regulation. The small business owner is the backbone of the economy and most states encourage starting a new small business. There are also states that encourage growth with the business. New York has a penchant for burdening businesses with expensive permits, regulations, high Workman’s Compensation premiums, special taxes and a multitude of inconveniences based on unnecessary controls and revenue generation.

   These practices have driven businesses out of the state. Politicians talk about how terrible it is for the citizen’s children going out of state to get decent jobs, but they shy away from taking the responsibility caused by the laws they passed, or refuse to repeal.

8. Make politicians personally liable for their mistakes. A CEO of a business can be sued for incompetence or mismanagement. A professional, such as a doctor, lawyer, nurse, cosmetologist and other business person can be sued for damages that they cause to an individual or they can be sued in a class action suit. The politicians should be held to the same standards.
9. People who don’t vote should be penalized. A simple way to encourage people to go to the polls as they should would be to either show proof of voting in the last election or be required to pay an extra $100 in income taxes. People can get fined for spitting on the sidewalk. Why should they not be fined for avoiding an obligation?

Realizing that these proposals won’t be popular with those we hire (and pay handsomely) we hope at least some of our readers might bring up the subject with their elected officials. That could make for a very Happy New Year for the citizens.

This is the season for Christians to celebrate the birth of their Savior. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the religious emphasis and the commercial. One of the difficulties is that many of the merchants and the “politically correct” people make an effort to negate the spiritual and focus on the commercialism.

What other religious holiday for any religion generates so much buying and spending to stimulate a non-religious society? This should be expected. Money and power drive politics, justice and commerce. Religious beliefs can complicate the desire for money and power and therefore, if it does not enhance profits and the election successes, those in power have little use for it.

Or so it seems. For many Christians, this is a proper holiday to express love and generosity for those they love. For others, it is hollow and empty giving, because “it is the thing to do.” Or, “they gave me a gift, so I have to give one in return.” Office parties are a good example of that. Even those who do not celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday feel obligated to partake in the custom of exchanging gifts.

It is the banner time of the year for greeting card companies, toy makers, and merchants who actually depend on this religious celebration to make or break the year for profits. The media get a bonus from the advertising budgets of companies who are promoting the generosity of gift givers to spend even more “to show their love.”

Some time ago, a diamond company tried to convince men that they should spend six month’s salary for a diamond to give to the woman they loved. One would guess that six month’s salary is a cheap price to buy love in return.

The true meaning of Christmas is one that should be celebrated mainly in the heart and by interacting with others in loving ways. True unconditional love has no price tag. The love of a mother for her baby is true unconditional love. An infant is a lot of work and responsibility and cannot express a return of love for years.

Yet a good mother will dote on that baby and protect it with her life if necessary. She will do without things for herself to give to the child. That is the prime lesson of unconditional love. So many in our materialistic society have the attitude: “I will love you IF……!” That is pretty much a Quid Pro Quo, and may have legal standing, but hardly a standard for love.

A great standard for love is the ability to forgive. God sent his Son on earth to teach us about forgiveness and a lot of people with sins still throw the stones in our world. This is the season to reflect on the need for forgiveness and we should start by forgiving ourselves. Guilt is a heavy burden and people have destroyed themselves and their families because they have not learned to forgive themselves and others. This manifests itself in self-destructive feelings which can have tragic consequences.

Perhaps this season, readers of this column will take the time and effort to examine their lives and give themselves and others the gift of love and forgiveness. While a CD player or IPOD will play music, the relief of getting rid of the burdens of guilt and thoughts of “getting even” will create feeling far more beautiful than any form of art. It is well worth trying.

To all the readers, I ask for your prayers, as I pray for you. May God smile upon you and give you peace and may you find and give love because both are important. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

This will be the last Memorandum of 2005. The Memorandum will resume on January 3, 2006.

Last week, the Governor’s “Climate Action Team” released a report on how to stop global warming. Next week, we expect a report on how to stop earthquakes, tidal waves, the changing of the seasons, and the tilt of the earth.

Let’s start with the title of the government unit that issued the report: the “Climate Action Team.” That title suggests the arrogance of those participating. What climate action is the team going to take? I’ve got an idea, why don’t they get rid of the winter fog in the Central Valley, and those hot Palm Springs summers, that would be a climate action that would have some positive benefit to someone. The fact is the climate action team can’t take any action on the climate, because nothing we humans do affects the climate. Global warming, if it is occurring at all, is occurring because of natural phenomenon, not because you drove your kids to school last week.

Next, let’s look at the team’s suggestions to reduce “greenhouse gases.” (By the way, every time you breathe you emit greenhouse gases). First, the report recommended mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the bureaucrats wanted a “public goods charge on petroleum products” (a gas tax for those of you who don’t speak bureaucrat). Third, the report said that the state should “reshape” its investment strategy (this by the folks whose current investment strategy led to an $8 billion deficit) to invest in businesses that create greenhouse gas emission reduction technology. Finally, these bureaucrats wanted to make sure we got credit for reducing greenhouse gases.

So, the way to solve global warming is to raise taxes. For goodness sake, is there no problem that the bureaucrats think could not be solved with a tax increase? Plagued by crime – raise taxes and start a preschool. Mental illness a problem – raise taxes on the rich. The globe gets too hot – raise taxes on gasoline.

Forget that the one organization that makes the most money off of gasoline is government, (today, government makes 44-55 cents per gallon of gas depending on the price of gas) they want more. Forget that a tax on gas will do absolutely nothing to reduce global warming. Give the bureaucrats more money; they will cure what ails ya.

In light of this recommendation, I have some suggestions for future studies and reports. First, we should form an “Earthquake Action Team” to study the cause of earthquakes. They could recommend a tax on all construction as a means of reducing earthquakes. After all, the more dirt we move, the more likely it is that we might disturb some fault, and cause an earthquake.

Next, we should form a “Tsunami Action Team,” to study the cause of tidal waves. That team might recommend a tax on all watercraft, since the more boats there are on the ocean, the more water is displaced, thus leading to higher tides and danger on shore.

How about a “Hurricane Action Team,” which would study the cause of hurricanes. The tax for that? A tax on helicopters. Can you imagine just how much wind is generated in order to lift one of those heavy machines off the ground?

I could go on and on, but the absurdity of their recommendations is obvious. I think if we are going to institute a system of mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases, we should probably start with reporting the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by blowhard-bureaucrats, who issue meaningless reports, the obvious purpose of which is to build their bureaucratic empire, and increase their power and control over our lives. If we actually limited those emissions, or taxed their reports, we might really accomplish something beneficial for all Californians.

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

This is the time of year the column becomes the most politically incorrect of the year. Most regular readers probably won’t be able to see any difference because I don’t recall any time I could be called politically correct. Christmas time is the time to be merry and my outstanding sense of humor and a similar unconventional attitude, makes the column a good venue to vent with the ranting and ravings of the reincarnate of Attila The Hun. (Another name for the column)

I get offended by the commercialism of Christmas. This has been a holiday in our country for more than two centuries and it is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. That is why it has been called Christmas. However, there seems to be a movement in the country by the “politically correct” that says we should not celebrate religious holidays in the traditional fashion because it might offend those who don’t share Christian beliefs. Bullbleep!

This has gone to extremes and we are told by these politically correct people that the greeting should be “Happy Holidays.” I have developed a real attitude on this one. The last couple of times I had this greeting in a store, I smiled and asked: “What holiday is it?” The greeter seemed to be surprised at the question. One said, “Christmas,” and I said: “That’s more like it.” You may wish me a merry Christmas. She smiled and did so.

That was pleasant. The next store greeter told me that they were instructed to say “Happy Holidays” instead of Merry Christmas. I asked why and he didn’t have an answer, so we had a conversation on tradition, what the “holiday” is and why I wanted to be greeted with the traditional greetings instead of the bland greeting I got from him. He said he couldn’t do it because it was against the store’s policy. I told him to tell the manager that they lost a bunch of sales and I turned and left the store.

My attitude continues. I am a big fan of the Salvation Army and one of the largest department stores in the area refuses to let them solicit donations on their property. That is their right since it is their property. However, I also have the right to not spend my money in their store, and if enough people feel as I do, perhaps they will alter their practice.

Returning to the concept that saying “Merry Christmas” may offend someone and therefore we should not have public displays of the Nativity Scene or play Christmas hymns over public loudspeakers, I say we should all protest that practice. After all, I and, I believe a lot of Christians, are offended by that practice. How come that offensive behavior doesn’t count?

If someone said “Happy Chanukah,” “Joyful Kwanza,” or a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist greeting, I would be happy to receive it and feel honored that that person would think of me that way during their individual holidays. I cannot understand why they would not feel the same way if I wished them a Merry Christmas. Perhaps, my attitude is a bit out of step with mainstream America, now.

The big outrage in my mind is that these “politically correct” people expect us to spend lavishly during this season on gifts. What is this? No more Christmas presents, but instead, holiday gifts? That thought offends me. Why can’t my outrage at this practice have the same weight as those who are non-believers? Perhaps if more Christians refused to patronize the stores that do not sell their goods during the “Christmas” season, the economic bump, just might give them an attitude adjustment.

Finally, to all my politically incorrect readers: Merry Christmas and God Bless You. My politically incorrect gift to you is a prayer, and to Hell with the ACLU and those who disagree with me.

If you assume, as I do, that the purpose of the political process is to persuade people to entrust you with power, the solution to the losses the Governor faced in November is simple. It is also hard work. And it is the solution the Governor seems to be avoiding.

If I have any complaint with many of my Republican colleagues, it would be that they think they can outsmart, outwit, or outmaneuver the Democrats. They believe that if they can find just the right issue, or just the right tactic, they can slick their way into a majority in the legislature. They are wrong.

The press, the Governor, the pollsters, and many others are right when they say that a majority of Californians do not agree with the Republican agenda of smaller government, less taxes, more freedom, stronger families, and stronger communities. The liberals in this state start with that advantage in any election. Today, more people agree with them than agree with most of the Republican officeholders in this state.

However, it is a big mistake to then capitulate to that fact. The great thing about good ideas is that, while people may be misled for a while, they are not misled forever. They will follow those with good ideas when they are persuaded that those ideas are good for them personally and for society in general.

Polls represent facts. We may not like the facts, but they are important for assessing a successful political strategy. If the sole purpose of politics is to obtain power, then polls will drive policy. But, as Gray Davis discovered, people are fickle. If they think all a politician wants is power, they will deprive him of that power as quickly as they entrusted him or her with it.

That is why it is important to develop a cohesive political philosophy. There really are only two cohesive political philosophies available to anyone running for office. One is the collectivist theory (upon which socialism, fascism, and communism is based) and the other is the individualist theory (of freedom, free enterprise, and representative republics like ours). Each has a set of principles that cannot be violated, and there is no middle ground between the two. There is no “moderate” socialism, and no “moderate” freedom. A ruler either embraces one or the other as his or her guiding philosophy.

Then that ruler seeks to set about to convince people that his or her guiding philosophy is what is best for each citizen and for society in general.

I happen to believe that the individualist philosophy and the principles that surround it are what are best for society, and for every person in society. I also believe that I have to spend whatever time it takes persuading a majority of the people in this state that my philosophy, and the principles that implement it, are the right ones for them. I will obtain power when I have convinced enough people to agree with me. I can’t trick them into believing me, I can’t market them into believing me; I can only convince them. And that takes work.

I won’t win by hiring a collectivist from the other side, and trying to use that individual to implement my agenda freedom and free enterprise. I will only win by talking to enough people, in groups, or one on one, to change enough minds, to get a majority.

Ronald Reagan got it. He had enough faith in his ideas that he did not take his special election loss of 1973 as a signal to capitulate to the Democrats, or to get one of their operatives as his chief aide. He just got to work changing minds. He saw with a remarkable clarity the job that he had to accomplish. And he changed the world.

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