Tom Watson: Why Is Lois Capps Dodging a Debate?

Congresswoman appears to be reluctant to defend her record

By Tom Watson | Published on 08.11.2010

(59)

I read Rep. Lois Capps’ response to the call to debate with dismay and disappointment. Unfortunately, this represents a continuing pattern of dodging her constituents or only appearing in controlled and scripted events.

Tom Watson

Rep. Capps seems to have forgotten who works for whom. This type of attitude is typical of a Washington insider like she has become. She owes the citizens of this district — her employers — the opportunity to hear the candidates for this important office articulate and defend their positions and contrast the opposing policy views in order to make an informed decision in the voting booth come November.

This is a time-honored tradition in our country and it is the least a candidate asking for someone’s vote should be willing and eager to do. Congresswoman Capps is our representative, not royalty, and yet she will not take a few hours out of her time to participate in an open debate. Is she that ashamed of her record that she won’t get up and defend it?

She claims she is focused on creating jobs — where are they? The unemployment rate in California is at a staggering 12.2 percent with no economic relief in sight. I for one would like to hear how all the bills that Rep. Capps has voted for over the last year are going to help job creation.

As a businessman, I can tell you they have inhibited job creation by creating an environment of rising costs to employ people and a web of new complex and expensive regulations. Businesses and individuals are facing a wave of new taxes and costs for health care, energy and financial transactions that Mrs. Capps has voted for. Taxes are going up significantly in 2011 on income, dividends and capital gains as government spending grows unabated and we run huge ongoing deficits that compile into a crushing debt upon our children’s backs. That is not a recipe for job growth.

The House of Representatives has a recess until Sept. 10, five weeks that have been appropriately titled “Summer District Work Period.” Surely there must be a small piece of time during this five-week period to participate in a few debates. Mrs. Capps is also in the district nearly every weekend when Congress is in session. I encourage Rep. Capps to give her constituents what they demand — a fair and vigorous airing of the issues in debates that will give them the ability to make an informed decision in November.

— Tom Watson is the Republican nominee in the 23rd Congressional District election.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» sbnative on 08.12.10 @ 01:31 AM

Watson is right - Capps’ so-called town hall on health care reform was a joke! Indeed why won’t Ms. Capps grace us with her time? We grace her with our tax dollars…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» diesel man on 08.12.10 @ 02:39 AM

The reason that Lois Capps avoids a debate is simple, especially at a time of profound economic problems for our nation. She’s on the wrong side of the people’s interest.

See: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=16886

Note particularly the section on Budget, Spending, and Taxes.
The only groups that consistently gives Lois positive marks are the uber-liberal “Taxpayers for Common Sense” and “Citizens for Tax Justice”. Click on links to both to see who else they support.

2009 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 2 percent in 2009.

2008 Americans for Fair Taxation considered how each congressional representative stood on the FairTax, illustrated with +3 as a sponsorship, +2 as a co-sponsorship, +1 as support, 0 as does not support, and -1 as against. In 2008, the actions of Representative Capps is represented by -1.

2008 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 4 percent in 2008.

2008 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste - Lifetime 13 percent during their legislative career up until 2008.

2008 In 2008 National Taxpayers Union gave Representative Capps a rating of F.

2007-2008 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 0 percent in 2007-2008.

2007 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 5 percent in 2007.

2007 Representative Capps supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 10 percent in 2007.

2007 In 2007 National Taxpayers Union gave Representative Capps a grade of F.

2006 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 0 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Capps supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 0 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 16 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 3 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 8 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Capps supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 12 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 14 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 88 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the American Shareholders Association 30 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 15 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 9 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 38 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 9 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 5 percent in 2003.

2003 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 22 percent in 2003.

2003 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 55 percent in 2003.

2002 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 20 percent in 2002.

2002 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 25 percent in 2002.

2002 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 83 percent in 2002.

2001-2002 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Representative Capps a rating of 34 percent.

2001-2002 Representative Capps supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 10 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 6 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Representative Capps supported the interests of the American Shareholders Association 29 percent in 2001.

2001 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 15 percent in 2001.

2001 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 15 percent in 2001.

2001 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 45 percent in 2001.

2000 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 27.5 percent in 2000.

2000 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Representative Capps a rating of 20 percent.

2000 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 38 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 20 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 22 percent in 1999.

1999 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Representative Capps a rating of 59 percent.

1999 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 13 percent in 1999.

1999 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 49 percent in 1999.

1998 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 0 percent in 1998.

1998 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1998, the Concord Coalition gave Representative Capps a rating of 14 percent.

1998 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1998 Representative Capps, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 17 percent of the time.

1998 Representative Capps supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 44 percent in 1998.

1997-1998 Representative Capps supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 17 percent in 1997-1998.

Bottom line? If you like high taxes and pork-barrel spending, Lois is the one for you.

If you want real representation by a man of integrity who’ll fight for lower taxes and government accountability, Tom’s your man.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» JAW on 08.12.10 @ 05:49 AM

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE CANDIDATES DEBATE THE ISSUES.ONE SHOULD ONLY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WILLING TO DO SO. JIM WOLFE

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» SB Citizen on 08.12.10 @ 08:07 AM

Lois Capps has been a consistent vote for those who do not want the borders and immigration laws enforced.

Lois carrys a grade of F from NumbersUSA.

Her open borders and amnesty support is costing this country billions of dollars and lost jobs for Americans.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.12.10 @ 08:09 AM

As long as Watson and people like him continue to promote Bush’s failed economic policies, such as tax breaks for the rich, there is really little to talk about.

As long as Watson and people like him keep insisting on MORE deregulation - which got us into the mortgage meltdown, the Enron scandal and most recently, the lax regulations leading to the Gulf blowout, there is really little to talk about.

Yes, Watson wants some free media and a chance to repeat Republican mantras, however much they have already led us into this recession and dependence on foreign oil.

It’s the same mantra Schwarzenegger gave us. SO how has tax reduction worked in California? We have record unemployment, record deficits and a crumbling infrastructure.

Until Republicans come to grips with their failed policies, really, what is there to debate?

You have already flagged this entry.

» LakersGirl on 08.12.10 @ 10:10 AM

Richard, what got us into the mortgage meltdown was Freddie and Fannie who (surprise!) both were excluded from the Financial “Reform” bill. Putting regulations on business is a job killer. Look around Richard, unemployment is at close to 10%, businesses aren’t hiring because of all the strangleholds this administration has put on them and what else Obama and this Congress will be forcing small businesses and individuals to do in the future.
FYI, Richard, a Democratic run Congress both in DC and here in California have been in power during these crappy times. When Clinton was President, it was a Republican run Congress that helped to lead to economic prosperity. Here in California, RINO Ah-Nald and a legislature more concerned about unions and pensions and not “we the people” that has driven California into a Greece-like situation.
I’m not sure why people get upset with tax cuts, but have no problem being forced to buy something in order to be an American citizen (Obamacare)or letting government have full access to your bank accounts without a subpoena (the Financial Reform bill). A great book to read to educate yourself Richard is “The End of Prosperity” by Steve Moore.
It’s sad you put all the blame on Republicans. They definitely aren’t perfect but what’s going on right now with the Democrats is atrocious.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.12.10 @ 01:58 PM

RichardSaunders:

“tax breaks for the rich?” I am a small business owner that is a Sole Prop. I grossed over $260,000 last year. Big woop. Your mind says I’m rich - in fact your dear leader says I’m rich. After taxes, payroll, regulation fees, and on and on I net out just enough to pay for my home, expense, a 12 year old auto, my childrens education and no savings. You class warfare simpletons make make me vomit. The only true revenge will be the total collapse of the system. Good riddance when it happens.

“As long as Watson and people like him keep insisting on MORE deregulation - which got us into the mortgage meltdown, the Enron scandal and most recently, the lax regulations leading to the Gulf blowout, there is really little to talk about.”

Yes please, just shut up.

“It’s the same mantra Schwarzenegger gave us. SO how has tax reduction worked in California?” Tax reduction?!!

“We have record unemployment, record deficits and a crumbling infrastructure.” Go get your money from your beloved SEIU and the wonderful unions that are sucking us dry. Or even you freeloading, hands always out, want something for nothing jerks.

“Until Republicans come to grips with their failed policies, really, what is there to debate?” No need. we will make the decision in Novemeber.

You have already flagged this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.12.10 @ 03:12 PM

Its not unusual for a highly popular, multi-term incumbent to avoid shining the spotlight on their political opponents. If Mr. Watson has compelling policy platforms I’m sure he can convey them effectively in the local news media and with a barrage of ads I imagine he plans to deluge the public with during the campaign. Certainly one issue virtually all Santa Barbara area politicians, public service officials and community leaders are weak on is ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Mention it to most people and you get a blank stare followed by the usual litany of excuses why we don’t need, can’t do or shouldn’t have an effective economic development program as seen in SLO, Santa Maria and Ventura City and County. The middle class is dying right in front of our noses and no one seems to care. Tom, if you’re serious about being elected, write a thoughtful, informed and convincing op-ed piece on this topic and give various versions of it to the Noozhawk, News-Press (ugh!), the Indy and the Pacific Coast Business Times.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sbnative on 08.12.10 @ 03:43 PM

The points that Lakersgirl and Cindy bring up are HUGE: Democrats have been running Congress since 2006, and Barney Frank was head of the oommittee that resisted Bush’s attempt to ‘reform’ Fannie & Freddie—FYI. We know the Democratic operatives want to spin away from those facts ASAP; we also know that whatever party is in power will be blamed regardless of how many of the other party’s players are running Congress. Fine. We can now blame DEMOCRACTS for everything, since A) their party is in power, and B) they are the majority in Congress. Cindy is right. Come November it’s time for fiscal conservatives (which happen to be Republicans) to take a crack at this gory mess. (Which was not—despite Democratic operatives mantras—caused by [only Republicans…) Barney Frank, et al.: Your days are numbered.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.12.10 @ 03:52 PM

OK let’s set the record straight. Obama wants to go back to the same tax rates of BOTH Reagan and Clinton, with people whose Net Income (NOT Gross) exceeds $250,000 paying a top rate of 38% rather than 35% currently owed.

I’m pretty sure that folks clearing a quarter of a million dollars can afford it and I’m also sure it won’t keep them from investing or spending to help our economy. At the same time, Obama wants to give tax breaks to people earning less, you know, the consumers who make up 80% of our GNP. So Bush started with a surplus and drove us into a deficit with his borrow and spend policies. Yes, we had 9/11 but Bush started a war in Irag that has cost us $1 trillion dollars, most of which went overseas instead of being used domestically to invest in America.

And yes, Obama wants regulations because it was lack of SEC oversight under Bush that caused the mortgage meltdown, and the lack of regulation under Bush that cause Mineral Management group to not check drilling equipment.

These are inescapable facts.

Also Schwarzenegger refused to reinstate the vehicle licensing fee in California, lowered only temporarily under Davis when we had a surplus and designed to be raised again during deficits. This single action cost California $1 billion per year and continues to do so.

Yes CA has a democratic legislature but Republicans have a stranglehold because we need 2/3 to raise taxes and pass a budget. This is undemocratic as we have minority rule, rather than majority rule.

What riles us moderate democrats is that Republicans, those pillars of responsibility, not only don’t want to take responsibility but keep up the mantra of lower taxes, increased borrowing and spending, and deregulation, in the face of the utter failure of such policies. They are even blocking the very immigration reform posed by Bush, which would really get our country back on the right track.

So yes, as long as Republicans avoid reality and instead pose old, failed ideas, there is no incentive for Capps to debate, nor for the public to listen to what they have to say.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Reality Check on 08.12.10 @ 04:25 PM

Lois doesn’t need to debate. She has the most gerry mandered congressional district in Congress and she is a narrow minded idealog. She has no interest in hearing from non supporters in her district or from anywhere else for that matter.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» b_reynaldo on 08.12.10 @ 05:26 PM

“The middle class is dying right in front of our noses”

No, the middle class is being replaced by impoverished, poorly educated immigrants (legal and illegal) from Mexico. Factories and high-paying jobs are being driven out of California by fanatical environmental regulations and punitive taxes. And these facts are celebrated by people like emptynewsroom who despise the white middle class and believe California will only be a just society when it is returned to Mexico.

Look what happened to Maywood, Bell and Cudahy. These bankrupt towns are Santa Barbara’s future.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.12.10 @ 06:32 PM

How is it you suggest I “despise the middle class”? I’m one of them! When right wingers like you and AN50 grow up and can engage in intelligent debate with progressives instead of buying into clueless stereotypes about “evil liberals” fed to you by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, then perhaps you’ll find we respond favorably to some of your ideas. As for “fanatical environmental regulations”, I notice you don’t care to live in Orange County. The tree huggers and enviros you so dislike are why Santa Barbara is not an ugly eyesore like Oxnard. Thank you, you’re welcome.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.12.10 @ 07:58 PM

RichardSaunders, you are beyond delusional. I hate how you you find it so easy to be absurdly blind. Typical. Clueless. Ignorant. A lamb to the slaughter. And believe me when I say that my comment was severely edited by Noozhawk. Empty, your name says it all and Petry has it right. You ARE Maxine. Beyond the fact that you are the most censored commenter here. Boringly predictable.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.12.10 @ 10:01 PM

So Empty, dazzle us with your intellect and wit and tell us what your economic plan for success is.
Richard, you too are sounding more and more like Empty, just sputtering partisan dogma. Forget the damned parties. Lois is a perfect example of a party zombie, unable to do anything but what she is told. Not much different from the Bush oligarchy. So instead of this tired Empty style us versus them crap put your ideas for economic revival on the table and let’s see what you have.
I’ve done it and so have others both right and left, let’s hear you two. You are certainly not going to hear anything cogent from politicians.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.13.10 @ 08:25 AM

AN50 and Cindy,

Your comments are a perfect example of why not engage in rational debate. None of my comments carried any slander or characterization of you or your motives. All I did was lay out what I believe to be facts.

Your reaction was to attack me, characterize me as delusional, etc. So there is little reason to have a debate when one side bypasses logic, reason and facts and resorts instead to emotional, unsupported accusations and attacks.

Please take a deep breath and respond:

Doesn’t Obama simply want to return to the to tax rate of 38% for people whose NET income (not gross) exceeds a quarter of a million dollars?

Isn’t this the same tax rate we had under both Reagan and Clinton?

Didn’t Bush take us from a surplus to a deficit, largely not due to a war he started against Iraq - a nation that was proved not to have been responsible for 9-11, a nation that did not have weapons of mass destruction?

Didn’t Schwarzenegger block a return to the regular vehicle licensing fee, creating a billion dollar per year hole in California’s budget?

Please address the issues, or risk continuing to demonstrate that a debate based on personal attacks is really not worth having.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Randy Thurston on 08.13.10 @ 09:26 AM

RichardSaunders. I can certainly understand their frustration. The current administrations presentation never never talk about net. They only say (now it is $200,000) a specific amount and you can take this to the bank, it is not net. To think otherwise shows how you totally misunderstand this issue. You also misunderstand that small businesses will not be able to expand, invest in new technologies, new equipment, new employees. In fact it will be just the opposite. Contraction, maintaining old inefficient equipment, and firing employees will be the norm. You can pull your hair out all you want while you are screaming that this will not happen but the tantrums you want to visit upon us will not change reality. You talk about Reagan, Clinton, ad infinitim. It is like listening to a ninety year old reminisce about the old days. One thing that was proven with Reagan is that the Laffer Curve is right on target and that Keynesian economics never works. Clinton was blessed with a check and balance administration with the repubs controlling congress. Reagan was able to cut, that’s cut, taxes even with a dem congress. They had to work with each other. The reason the dems are going to get crushed this fall is because Americans want checks and balances in their government. Now I’m sure you are going to bring out the endless internet based and biased stats that bloggers are addicted too, but I was there and I know what happened. Right now I’m just biding my time till Nov.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.13.10 @ 09:48 AM

Richard, all I did was ask you to present ideas, preferably your own and not “the party’s”. My accusation of you sounding like Empty stands as you have avoided my request and gone into “excuse, whiney” mode. Forget what others say about you and put your Ideas out there.

For example, on local economics, forget this indulgence with the tourist industry, it only moves wealth around and creates little in permanent growth in the local economy to support social spending expansion (how do you like that for an appeal to your liberal sensibilities?) Instead, encourage more resource extraction (oil and gas, diotomatious earth, sand and gravel), more high tech manufacturing in the non medical industrial areas (telecom, satcom, controls, energy efficiency, LED technology, etc…), more agricultural expansion for food and fiber (strawberries, wheat, hemp, cellulose, citrus, etc…) and reinvest the revenue these wealth generating industrial sectors generate into bolstering our crumbling infrastructure by actually building and expanding road arteries, roof top solar electric production and education in the engineering, science and mathematics fields.

All of these things together have a certain synergy that creates even more opportunities for economic growth while helping the liberals fund their pet social coddling projects. Win-win for all Richard. So there are just some ideas I have thrown out there in a non-partisan way to illustrate that ideas matter and politics fails. Of course I would do my own political policies a major disservice if I did not also plug the best system for delivering opportunities to expand economies and that is our capitalist/free enterprise system. If moving crap around while your pile of wealth shrinks then socialism is for you. But if you truly want everyone to have more then get the government monkey off our back.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 08.13.10 @ 11:27 AM

This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Ms. Capps is a lovely person who never had any business in Congress and was only elected because her husband previously held the office and because there are too many people in this district that will only vote for a Democrat, no matter how ill-informed, ill-equipped, and unresponsive to voters. She has repeatedly shown no knowledge of the issues, wanton disregard for her constituents, and her propensity to parrot Nancy Pelosi, that lying monument to shameless abuse of political power - as bad as, of not worse than, anyone in the Bush administration

Voters: follow the lead of the great John Adams - use your intelligence, educate yourselves, and vote the issues, not the parties,

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.13.10 @ 12:32 PM

Here’s what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget has to say about entrusting the GOP with economic policy: “Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts—in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too.” Now, there’s a “new catechism” that’s “little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes” making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in “serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy.” Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy. Read it and weep conservatives—http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.13.10 @ 12:55 PM

John and AN50 those were excellent comments! Beautiful.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.13.10 @ 03:18 PM

Outstanding, my little trolls! Carry on our mater plan of ignoring reality.

Reagan was wrong, Bush drove us off the cliff. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.13.10 @ 03:46 PM

So Maxine, what is your weekly payroll you have to meet?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.13.10 @ 04:02 PM

Don’t all boiler rooms have people working on commission?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.13.10 @ 04:21 PM

Wouldn’t know about that son. The only boiler room I’ve ever been in is the old Enterprise aircraft carrier. But you do seem to be fixated on boiler rooms. Me, I like to point out the fallacies of your other fixations.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.13.10 @ 04:30 PM

So empty, I’m interested in your answer to Petry’s question, “what is your weekly payroll you have to meet?”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.13.10 @ 05:47 PM

Well then why did you have the Rip-Off Reports link taken down? Just wondering . . .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.13.10 @ 07:36 PM

No idea what you are talking about Maxine. Never heard of it. But if you have a personal problem with me we can meet for a beer.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.13.10 @ 07:39 PM

You don’t have a job do you Empty?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.13.10 @ 10:41 PM

Dan Petry, AN50 and Cindy, I’d be very interested in your views on the Stockton article. What is your take, please?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.14.10 @ 12:18 AM

Actually do you mean Stockman? I’ll give you my opinion after Maxine tells us about their weekly payroll. You see, it’s a give and take. You can be a sideline junky or one who walks the walk…your choice.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.14.10 @ 12:32 AM

Empty, do you have a job?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.14.10 @ 12:45 AM

Before I spend time on that can you give me your opinion on a President abusing an intern and getting a BJ in the Oval Office?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.14.10 @ 09:08 AM

You mean Stockman? If that is the individual you are referring to then I can only say that Stockman’s job, in the WH during Ron’s first term, was essentially saved by Reagan’s loyalty to his employee. His hostility towards Reagan’s economic policy team was well detailed but Reagan used him as a foil to have the other’s prove their points. And it worked. My opinion is that he should have been fired on day one.

We’re not going to tax our way out of the entitlement quagmire. That’s the fundamental flaw in Stockman’s thinking. I agree with Stockman that Paul Volcker was the great inflation killer. But lower tax rates helped spur growth while Volcker brought down the money supply and stabilized the dollar. In fact, gold basically declined through the whole period, while stocks went up. Government debt held by the public did increase $2.4 trillion. But household wealth jumped $32 trillion.

Now, Stockman is more on point when he says Bush and the GOP overspent and created new entitlements. But blaming Bush’s tax cuts for the Great Recession and for dropping revenues to 15 percent of GDP is utter poppycock. Of course, Obama is overspending even more, with still more entitlements.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 08.14.10 @ 09:10 AM

Some folks herein seem to confuse unhappiness with the current political situation with support for the Republicans. For those folks, I suggest education in basic logic. I, for example, do not support either party. And as a further exercise in basic logic, you should know that this does NOT imply that I support the Tea Party or any other group. Let’s debate ideas, not idealogues. As has been asked, anyone got any?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.14.10 @ 11:47 AM

Good point Johnny. I have given mine, which basically calls for encouraging wealth growing industries (those that expand the national wealth in tangible ways, as opposed to purely speculative ventures or services). If you think of the economy as any other system then it needs three things to expand, material, intellect and energy. It is vitally important that if we are to expand our country’s wealth we need abundant cheap energy, more than anything else. That is why I reject socialism, Keynesian and other such forms of “redistribution”. They may enrich some make others poor but they do not generate wealth. Don’t get me wrong here, capitalism is just as susceptible to “redistribution” as any other system and socialism can also see growth. It’s just that of these two systems capitalism has done a far better job of expanding wealth than socialism and mostly due to how these systems work not how politicians work them.
The problem is as you pointed out John, that we get wrapped up in taking political sides rather than looking at what works, both in the short term and the long term.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.14.10 @ 11:53 AM

Richard, I haven’t read the article you refereed to, nor seen it. If it is what Dan is referring to then I ditto his comments. There are many aspects of the Reagan economic policy that gave me heartburn, particularly when some of these aspects allowed for the dismantling of our manufacturing base by Wall Street pirates. But on the whole it was a good overall policy that allowed for a greater amount of economic growth than the feds could spend as Dan said. I just would have rather seen that growth in less speculative ventures than we did and agree that just moving wealth around does nothing to grow it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 08.14.10 @ 03:15 PM

Thanks, AN50. Way too much energy herein focussed on the past (is it my imagination or is mostly by the Rep haters?) and not nearly enough on the future. We need a government (and an educated population) that understands that only the private sector can generate the wealth (wealth in classical economic terms, not as in tax the wealthy) that pays for government. Obama may be the most hostile to business of any President since Roosevelt. His lack of experience in the private sector and apparent complete misunderstanding of macroeconomics has become quite obvious. AS has his devotion to the reallocation of wealth. But, Mr. President, there first has to BE wealth to reallocate. And I voted for the guy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.14.10 @ 10:38 PM

AN50, here is the article Stockman, Bush’s first budget chief and lifelong Republican, wrote recently: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10

Dan, you asked what I thought about Clinton’s Oval office offense. I thought it was wrong to use his persona to take advantage of and impressionable woman.

Now I hope you will let me know what you think of Stockman’s critique of current Republican leaders’ tactics and economic policies.

This could be the start of a real dialog, not just back and forth name calling. Thanks.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.15.10 @ 03:55 AM

I have always thought Stockman was full of crap. Even when I was a faceless military attaché at the WH during Pres Reagans first term. He was an arrogant, condescending, elitist who could not understand why no one listened to him. I guess he has found his niche. That’s my opinion. Try again. As for Clinton…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» RichardSaunders on 08.15.10 @ 10:11 AM

Dan,

Stockman was just not a “faceless military attache”. He was Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985). So what did you think of his policies, which basically involved tax cuts for the most wealthy but without spending cuts, raising our deficits?

That’s what Bush did and that’s what Republicans want to do now. I think 16 years of Reagan and Bush have shown that trickle down - giving the biggest tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations - doesn’t lower deficits, it increases them. Borrow and spend doesn’t work.

Please respond to Stockman’s ideas as expressed in his article, regardless of what you think of him personally.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.15.10 @ 11:30 AM

RichardSaunders – I don’t agree with your premise and how you have tried to frame your question as if it were fact.

“…So what did you think of his policies, which basically involved tax cuts for the most wealthy but without spending cuts, raising our deficits?” Wrong.

Those were not Stockman’s beliefs, quite the opposite – I listened to him pontificate quite often. In addition, you have purposefully misstated Reagan’s policy. President Reagan proposed across the board tax cuts, lowering the capital gains tax, elimination of the death tax, lowering the corporate tax rates, and the elimination (cuts) of a number of useless departments and programs – Education and the EPA (too bad that did not happen). However, those spending cuts were axed by the Democratic controlled Congress and Tip O’Neil. So let’s get it right.

Nevertheless, I understand your interpretation of history is through the lenses of your liberal beliefs. I can accept that, not your attempt to re-write history to shape your question.

Stockman was the OMB director, and his personal policies were not respected by President Reagan’s financial team. His hold on the OMB position was tenuous, at best, because he tried to undercut the team constantly and always tried to undermine the true proponents of Reagan’s philosophy. Out of loyalty and to give balance, Reagan protected him.

“giving the biggest tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations - doesn’t lower deficits, it increases them.”

Keynesian economics has NEVER worked and never will but it is the addiction that progressives have that they cannot shake no matter evidence to the contrary. You are just stating your core beliefs. Beliefs that have always failed when exposed to reality.

“Borrow and spend doesn’t work.”

Now you are on the right track. Your belief that what the democrats and Obama are currently doing is damaging our country is right on. I agree with you there. I never agreed with it when the republicans were seduced by it and I don’t now.

So my opinion of his piece…he was and is full of it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.15.10 @ 11:36 AM

“Attack the messenger”. Its the right wingers last line of defense when they have nothing. President Carter, Vice President Gore, Oscar winner Michael Moore—all attacked and vilified because they have said and done worthwhile things that paint the conservatives into a corner. With nothing left at their disposal, they attack the character of these people. Its all so predictable and pointless. . .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.15.10 @ 11:52 AM

Empty. Yes or No - do you have a job?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.15.10 @ 12:12 PM

See! You’re not attacking my ideas, you choose to attack me personally. Yes, I have a job. Its bursting the bubbles of bull**** drifting over from the right side of the political spectrum.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.15.10 @ 02:43 PM

I have forgone the waste of time in responding to your “ideas,” primarily because they are cut, paste, and pedantic liberal talking points. If I wanted to further waste my time I could read those on any far left blog. Be original.

You would garner more respect if you actually suggested solutions or made a presentation. Even submit an article for publication in Noozhawk. Take a position, elaborate it with your own thoughtful approach, and submit it for publishing.

I ask you about your employment situation because the positions you take are so destructive to business that you either do not work, or work at an low risk non-management entry level. It is obvious that you have never started or run a business, or had to meet a payroll. You write as one who is always on the sidelines and never has “skin” in the game. Show us otherwise and we will give you respect. Otherwise you are just Maxine, and not worthy of my time to respond to beyond this commentary.

I am not attacking you personally. I can honestly say that I have not cyber stalked you nor have I made physical threats on your life. I think we both know that you cannot claim the same. So grow up, take a position, and add you own twist and print them. Simple. Otherwise, you are just white noise in the conversation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.15.10 @ 06:02 PM

What kind of right wing, Fox News-fueled fantasy world do you live in anyway? Democrats are easily as entrepreneurial as any Republican and if anything are far more willing to ensure that their employees are well rewarded and have the benefits necessary to raise a family and send their kids to university. Compare WallMart to Costco as an example. One coaches their underpaid workers on how to apply for benefits from the state (the GOP approach) and the other pays better and has benefits (the Dem approach). I’ve personally met hundreds of very successful business owners, corporate directors and industry thought leaders that are proudly progressive in their personal lives and business dealings, so cut the nonsense. Your false allegations that I have “cyber stalked” anyone or made “physical threats” on anyone’s life would be libelous if they weren’t so ridiculous and laughable. Again, why do you insist on making pointless accusations instead of having an intelligent adult conversation about the issues? I can see why the Noozhawk comment boards are becoming a ghetto of ideologically bankrupt right wingers—few people beside myself are willing to waste their time trying to talk sense into this crowd.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.15.10 @ 08:41 PM

Dan I see your point with Empty. No one said anything about republican or democratic entrepreneurs but empty proceeds to go off on the far left tangents we have seen as a norm with this person. It is obvious that empty just uses these boards as a soapbox for his/her personal issues no matter the original article. I also think you are right that empty probably does not have a job and definitely is clueless about how business works. And I don’t believe for a minute that this person has met hundreds of successful business owners let alone industry leaders. The few that I have met would laugh empty out of the room. Charlene has called empty’s personality down to a finite detail. Empty is definitely a severe narcissist with delusions of grandeur. By stating that they try to talk sense into this crowd proves Charlene’s diagnosis. No one is asking for empty to convince us of anything. All that is asked is that their points are stated along the lines of the original article, and rationally at that. I have noticed that there are a number of liberal commenters that participate at first then immediately drop off when this person starts with their inevitable rants. It is obvious that they do not want to be tainted with such a wingnut.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.15.10 @ 10:58 PM

Party on, preventers of progress! See you at the bottom of the food chain: New York Times—After three decades of spectacular growth, China passed Japan in the second quarter to become the world’s second-largest economy behind the United States, according to government figures released early Monday. The recognition came early Monday, when Tokyo said that Japan’s economy was valued at about $1.28 trillion in the second quarter, slightly below China’s $1.33 trillion. Experts say unseating Japan — and in recent years passing Germany, France and Great Britain — underscores China’s growing clout and bolsters forecasts that China will pass the United States as the world’s biggest economy as early as 2030. America’s gross domestic product was about $14 trillion in 2009.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sbnative on 08.16.10 @ 01:22 AM

I don’t think Empty CAN produce a logical point… his last post a case in point. The idea of an educated (voting) populace is righteous, but I can tell you firsthand it ain’t happening in schools and colleges these days.

Anyone got any must-read book tips on how to survive Obama’s “economy?”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» passing-by on 08.16.10 @ 09:02 PM

Cool… this thread has devolved into a personal spitting match between Petryphiles and Emptyphiles.
Now Petry demands to know if Empty has a job “yes or no”!
How about this: If Empty admits to being unemployed, will Petry admit to not graduating from West Point?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.16.10 @ 09:32 PM

The battle of the ideological titans! Okay, I admit that I do in fact have a day job. However, at heart I am a useless layabout hoping to one day win the lottery or land a cushy job with a government contractor owned by a Washington-connected Republican. Petry, where’s that diploma?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Randy Thurston on 08.16.10 @ 09:58 PM

We doubt you have a job. As for Dan I have seen his ring “Spirit of 76” he doesn’t have to prove anything to me. Go Tom Watson.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Cindy Rivers on 08.16.10 @ 10:25 PM

The difference between you guys and Petry is that he has the stones to actually write and submit opinion pieces. Even if they are only local at least he does it. You have his picture and his full name. You, on the other hand sit on the sidelines and snipe and bitch and hide your identities with stupid nick names. At least say who you are. I like the fact that he has your number so well it forces you to into fits. That is all that is important to me. Plus he writes some great pieces. I absolutely loved his 17th amendment and progressives killed democracy articles. I send all his stuff to friends of mine all over and they love it. I wish he would write more.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» mas gaviota on 08.17.10 @ 03:01 PM

Mr. Watson, if you were a serious candidate, I am sure that Ms. Capps would debate you. Come November you will join the growing ranks of losers who thought they could beat Capps. The good people of the 23rd are too smart for your weak teabagger nonsense platform. My suggestion is for you to move to Bakersfield, where the stupid is strong, and you may have a chance running for dog catcher.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 08.17.10 @ 06:45 PM

Having witnessed Capps answering unscripted questions in person ,I believe that she definitely would not benefit from accepting Watsons challenge to debate.
Watson on the other hand will rely on the electorate not being diligent in issue research , being mis/uninformed and possessed of short memory . Not so much an issue here as in say Arizona , Texas and Mississippi .
Remember folks, when goIng forward put in D , when you want to go in reverse , put it in R .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Daniel Petry on 08.17.10 @ 07:26 PM

Wow. Smarmy elites, who knew. What you are saying is that you have elected a cadaver. Just stuff her. Look how much time you’d save.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» emptynewsroom on 08.17.10 @ 10:21 PM

And still no diploma to prove that “Duty, Honor, Country” is more than just a slogan. Missing that “Toothbrush Toilet Cleaning 101” credit?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Randy Thurston on 08.17.10 @ 11:06 PM

D don’t waste your time with this sad person. Charlene nailed him perfectly. Past this I won’t either.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.