The word “bipartisan” is heard ad nauseum in California and American politics, but there is little action to show for it. I want to take a moment to discuss what that word means to me, and how I have and will incorporate it into my legislation if elected to Congress.
I’m proud to be a member of the Democratic Party, the party that established Social Security and Medicare, that passed the Voting Rights Act, and is the de-facto big tent party in American politics. That being said, owning your positions and not being afraid to take a position does not mean you are partisan, it means you are principled; and, principled, reasonable people can work together.
Throughout my legislative career, I have always stood up for policy, not party -- I’m all about getting things done. Republicans have supported a number of my bills, including the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission which took redistricting out of the hands of party bosses and back into the hands of the people.
In 2001, several of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, met to discuss how we could create an atmosphere where we would not have to deal with labels and really just share ideas amongst ourselves about how we could work together.
It was at an early meeting that we decided to legitimize our coalition and call ourselves the Bipartisan Caucus of the California State Assembly. Rarely is there an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and talk about important issues, but we did it together. We paved the way for bipartisan legislation and proved to the legislature and the State that it was, indeed, possible for Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve problems.
Within the Bipartisan Caucus, I took the lead in authoring the legislation needed to create a new redistricting process which was more representative of the needs of the people, not the political self-interest of the politicians.
After passing the bill in the Senate with a two-thirds vote, the Assembly refused to take the bill up; so, I joined Governor Schwarzenegger, California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the citizens of California to put it on the ballot as a voter initiative.
In November 2008, the initiative was passed by the voters of California, and the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission was established. Now, the redistricting process is the responsibility of citizens -- 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 3 Independents -- in an open-door setting.
Throughout those years of trying to pass this legislation (2002 to 2006), I learned that being bipartisan does not require being a Democrat, a Republican, or anything in between; it demands reconciling political differences, finding common ground through compromise, and enduring shared sacrifice for the greater good.
Yes, I have a “D” after my name, but it doesn’t take a party affiliation to have a good idea. I have the experience of participating in the creation of a bipartisan caucus and drafting bills with overwhelming bipartisan support -- something which distinguishes me from my Republican opponent.
When I get to Congress I’m going to do exactly what I did in California by joining a bipartisan caucus.
Over the past 13 years, I have authored more than 120 pieces of legislation -- a majority of them receiving overwhelming bipartisan support.
I will not go to Congress to be a vote for the Democratic Party, I will be a vote for solving problems and compromised solutions; I will not go to Congress to make a statement, I will go to work with as many people as possible to help fix our community and our country.
This is what I’ve done, and that’s what I will continue to do.
Particularly since Sen. Lowenthal makes no effort to also make it clear to his readers that the Long Beach City Council is an entirely non-partisan legislative body. Because this is so, the two legislative bodies are not fairly comparable on that level. There areany number of comparisons that might have been appropriate to draw, but I think Lowenthal could have made his point that he believes he has been able to serve in a relatively bipartisan manner, and how, without claiming that this somehow distinguishes him from Mr. DeLong. I think Sen. Lowenthal might have been better served to have avoided that comparison, just as I think he would have been better served to have avoided touting his alleged bipartisan prowess at the very same time he chooses to describe historical events in so partisan a fashion.
Lowenthal is appropriately counterpointing that he actually has a proven track record of bipartisanship while his opponent does not. You may infer that DeLong somehow failed to accomplish that, but I don't see how....like I do I'd suspect others will infer what Lowenthal actually conveys: that if you really care about bipartisanship as a signature approach to lawmaking Lowenthal has a successful history of bipartisan lawmaking an extremely partisan state legislature. DeLong, he reminds us, may claim he will lead this way but in fact does not have any history of that. Crystal clear to me.
Just because DeLong's career has been limited in scope, as to not have yet offered him opportunities to have had done what Lowenthal has done, does not mean that it is an unfair comparison for Lowenthal to point this out. In fact, I would say that these experiences are probably the most apt subjects for Lowenthall to point out that distinguishes him from DeLong.
Bigger picture time: Sen. Lowenthal has been a highly influential member of our State legislature since 1998. During all of that time, and by most any measure, California's standing in the nation has been gradually eroding. Among the highest cumulative taxes in the nation, among the deepest public debts and deficits, unemployment consistently above the national average, and routinely at or near the worst ratings in the nation for places to do business. All of the measures that prevent our State economy from thriving. Due in large part to our immediate proximity to Mexico, our challenges relating to illegal immigration are the greatest of any other State, but rather than take positive steps to address those challenges, Sen. Lowenthal and his Democrat colleagues in Sacramento recently sent a Bill to the Governor's desk that would have effectively made California the first official "Sanctuary State" in the nation. Gov. Brown fortunately vetoed AB1081 as fatally flawed but Sen. Lowenthal voted with all of his Democrat colleagues to send it to the Governor's desk in the first place. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=527112b2d720a03cc0dcf52b6fc2 If I had no other reason to refuse to support Sen. Lowenthal's current candidacy, this would suffice for me.
The rest of us refer that move as "bait and switch" :)
As for me, my time is better spent on moving forward. Thanks for the dialog!
How about that definitive proof that former Chief Batts was involved in multiple domestic violence incidents? No? Hmm....I didn't really think so.
Humm... are you saying I am nothing... only clever?
My ticket-issuing days are, thankfully, long past. Else I would have to cite Ruehle for foolishness. Routinely.
Where do you differ from Obama on any major issues? Other than the redistricting commission, Mr. Lowenthal had to go back to the 1960s for an accomplishment to brag about for the Dems. The vaunted redistricting commission did a pro Dem gerrymander as good as anything the legislature could have done. Regarding "120 pieces of legislation -- a majority of them receiving overwhelming bipartisan support," like what? There are a lot of routine bills like "Be Kind to Butterflies Week" passed every year. Please "California Breaking Bad" with specifics on the results of the Dems and government employee unions controlling Sacramento. http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/breaking-bad-california-vs-the-other-states/ 3 of many telling statistics, CA has the highest small business failure rate in the country, 69% higher than the national average. CA has 12% of the nation's population and 33% of nation's welfare recipients. "From 2007 through 2010, 10,763 industrial facilities were built or expanded across the country — but only 176 of those were in CA. So with roughly 12% of the nation’s population, CA got 1.6% of the built or expanded industrial facilities." If you like how the Dems run Sacramento, by all means, vote for Mr. Lowenthal for Congress, and he will try to do the same for America.
You can try to construct any type fo alternate reality that gets you through the night, but you know that this is not true and anybody can look at most votes and see that. Republicans have been the lemming party for as long as I can remember. How long has this phrase been around, that perfectly describes the lockstep of the Republican party... Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. I think that observation has been around for my whole life, at least.
Don't take my word for it, here is a video of Lowenthal singularly blaming Republicans for all the nation's woes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_z4nriUjEU
I can see, as can anyone willing to see, the results the Dems and GEUs that control the state government in Sacramento have inflicted/given on CA. If you like those results, then you should vote for Lowenthal. For examples, "CA public school teachers the highest paid in the nation. CA students rank 48th in math achievement, 49th in reading." "California now has the 2nd lowest bond rating of any state." "America’s top 650 CEO’s rank California “the worst state in which to do business” for the 8th straight year (May, 2012)." "California has the 2nd worst state income tax in the nation. 9.3% tax bracket starts at $48,029 for people filing as individuals. 10.3% tax starts at $1,000,000. Governor Brown has put on the ballot a prop to change the “millionaires’ tax” to 13.3%, starting at $500,000 – including capital gains. If approved, CA will be by far #1 in income tax rates." CA pays ~3X per mate more than TX, but CA has to release criminals back onto the streets. http://reason.org/news/show/private-prisons-save-california-bil
"The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. 'It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree' necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. 'Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].'” http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/16/fact-checking-the-obama-campaigns-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/ "$415 billion—comes from slashing Medicare’s reimbursement rates to hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors. This significant reduction in fees is driving many doctors to stop accepting new Medicare patients, making it harder for seniors to gain access to needed care." http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/101012-628841-obamacare-medicare-cuts-danger-to-senior-citizens.htm
Well rationing of health care to the elderly is already starting. "On Oct. 1, the Obama administration started awarding bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on elderly patients. It will result in fewer knee replacements, hip replacements, angioplasty, bypass surgery and cataract operations." "In addition to the across-the-board cuts, the Obama administration will now impose a new measure on hospitals: "Medicare spending per beneficiary." Hospitals that spend the least on seniors get bonus points, and higher-spending hospitals get demerits." Please see http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/101212-629190-obamacare-medicare-cuts-danger-to-senior-citizens.htm If you are on Medicare, know someone who is, or plan to be on Medicare, vote like your and their lives depend on it, because they do. Socialized medicine is always government rationed medicine. "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." Thomas Sowell Obamacare summarized in one sentence: http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/09/10/doctor-diagnoses-obama-one-sentence So again, the question to Mr. Lowenthal is do you support cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare?
Since there are only two in the race, if you're arguing against one, you're advocating for the other, no? Unless you're suggesting abstention. I think it's refreshing that you openly claim your Tea Party membership in your profile. There is quite a large chapter (405/605 Tea Party Patriots) represented in the new 47th Congressional District yet few if any commenters on the Long Beach or LosAl/Seal Beach Patch sites openly identify with the movement. Puzzling. Would you allow that the movement is decidedly not bipartisan?
Well aren't those the same cuts Obama made? Why, yes they are. Bang. Talking point killed by fact. Dontcya hate that facts have a liberal bias? Also on the Ryan-Romney plan... Ending social security as a risk free investment, a program I have been paying into for over 38 years. Changing the program to one that will pay fees to wall street millionaires to "manage" investments rather than the fee-less low risk investment it currently makes. Ending Medicare, a program I have been paying into for over 38 years. Changing it to a voucher system that will ensure that if I want the same coverage that I would get if it were unchanged, I will have to find THOUSANDS of dollars to make up the difference between the voucher and the cost for health care. All because I'm 54. Between the Ryan-Romney plan to scrape both these programs in the name of saving them I see no way anyone between the ages of 45-55 could possibly vote for them. I hope that Lowenthal will be a backstop to protect my 38 year investment from people who want to take away what they call an entitlement, but what I call a 38 year investment. Oh, to "save" Social Security, raise the cap to $125K. To "save" Medicare open it up for anyone to purchase as their health care provider.
Who insisted that there would be no stimulus unless about 30% of it came in the form of tax cuts, when every economist stated that you gat about 10% of the bang for the buck by using it for tax cuts rather than direct investment into things like infrastructure improvements? Oh, that's right. The GOP members of the House and the Senate. The same ones who said in the middle of a financial and jobs crisis that their primary job was to make sure Obama was a one term President. Is there blame to pass around? Yep. But a lions share has to be placed on the shoulders of the party that put partisan politics above doing what was in the best interests of the working class.
If Medicare were an "open enrollment" program that any person could choose to be part of the cost for Medicare would drop. If the college system can have public and private options, sending packages can have pubic and private options, why can't medical coverage have private and public options? Is it possible that private options will be unable to compete on cost and services with an open public option? Why do you oppose the free market?
http://belmontshore.patch.com/blog_posts/is-gary-delong-tea-party-approved