From the NRCC.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On February 24, Moe Lane posted a short piece alerting one and all to the fact that one of the Republican candidates for Washington State’s 3rd Congressional District is a favorite of the hard-core lefties in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — one of Obama’s favorite Big Labors cohorts. Mr. Lane, though, was sure that Jaime Herrera “regrets that endorsement now.” Unfortunately, I am not so sanguine because Herrera has been far more compliant with Big Labor’s goals than is evident from what Lane might have thought was a mere wayward endorsement.

There is a reason, it appears, that the SEIU endorsed Herrera. As a Republican she seems to be far more one of them than one of us at least as far as Big Labor’s needs go!

Moe Lane cited the Clark County Politics blog on the SEIU’s endorsement, but if you don’t want to believe the CCPblog — admittedly a right leaning site — here is a Progressive Voters Guide for Washington and here is the Voters Guide for Equal Rights Washington, both left-wing groups that show SEIU support for Herrera. On top of that, here is SEIU Local 1199 NW’s endorsement page which also announces its endorsement of Herrera.

But, let’s address that possible “regret” that Mr. Lane so casually extends to Ms Harrera. Could Lane be right, could it be that Herrera was just by happenstance on the receiving end of an SEIU endorsement and now wishes it never happened? Was it all just an unfortunate incident? I have to say that after looking up some of her votes over the last few years, I must conclude that Herrera was given the thumbs up by the SEIU for a reason. Jaime Herrera was quite a friend to Big Labor.

Herrera’s Pro-Union Votes

In both 2009 and 2010 Herrera voted “yes” to forcibly unionize child care workers in the state, a favorite SEIU cause not just in Washington but in many states. (For instance, I had a hand in fighting the SEIU’s efforts to forcibly unionize in-home healthcare and child care workers in Illinois in 2009. Also see John Stossel’s recent story on forced unionization of Michigan’s in-home workers.)

In the 2007-08 session, Herrera voted yes on HB 2449 a bill that provided “collective bargaining for child care center directors and workers.”

Then in the 2009-10 session she not only voted yes on HB 1329, she was also a co-sponsor. This bill also provided for the collective bargaining for child care center directors and workers.

It turns out that Herrera is co-sponsoring a bill that would force these child care workers to unionize even though those very same workers previously rejected the SEIU and had already told the union that they didn’t want to be part of their organization.

Not only that, but this bill would also force unionization of church-based child care centers.

These several bills that would force child care workers to unionize aren’t the only forced unionization bill that Herrera voted for. She also voted yes on HB 1389.

According to its summary, HB 1389, “Adds the operating and maintenance employees at a commercial nuclear power plant to the employees covered by interest arbitration under the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act.” In other words the bill would place workers at a private power plant into a state employee’s union.

As it happens, Herrera was one of the few Republicans in Washington State to vote in favor of these many Big Labor bills. Herrera said in a phone interview that her votes on these Big Labor bills were a “moral issue.” I guess if by “moral” you mean getting political and financial support from unions, then that would be the case. Other’s mileage might vary!

Just call it Herrera’s attempt to emulate an Obamaesque style of “community organizing.” It’s organizing by hook or by crook and since none of these bills bothered to ask the actual workers being unionized, I’d say it is mostly crook.

Again according to Clark County Politics Blog Herrera promised she “would be a friend of organized labor.” Well, even if she didn’t say that exactly (as I only have this one source to say so) her votes most certainly lend credence to that sentiment.

The Washington Third

Currently Democrat Brian Baird holds Washington’s 3rd Congressional seat. He is retiring at the end of this term. Democrats seem to be lining up behind Denny Heck as their nominee to replace Baird. Three other Democrats are also still in the running: State Senator Craig Pridemore; Cheryl Crist; and Maria Rodriguez-Salazar.

There are three Republicans vying for the GOP nomination. Along with Herrera, former serviceman David Hedrick of Camas is in the race and former deputy assistant secretary of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs David Castillo of Olympia is also running.

Me, I have no dog in that hunt, but with Herrera’s constant sop to Big Labor, I’d suggest that Washington’s Republicans look a bit more carefully at her record and then that they should consider looking to support either Castillo or Hedrick instead.

David Castillo for Congress www.castilloforcongress.com
David W. Hedrick for Congress www.davidwhedrick.com

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Hill is reporting that 70 percent of our Congressmen’s Washington offices violate OSHA’s workplace safety rules. Of course, if our employers were to be found in violation of OSHA rules we’d have our places of business closed down and the owners prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But, you see, Congress doesn’t have to abide by the laws everyone else suffers under, now do they?

Of the 541 offices in Congress, 154 were found to be completely in compliance with OSHA standards — those of 64 senators and 90 House lawmakers — leaving 387 offices that had at least one violation. This is a marked increase from 2008, when only 37 offices were found to be in complete accordance, or in 2006, when only seven offices were in compliance.

Sure some of the OSHA violations were minor infractions, to be sure, but the fact that these violations add up to so many is astounding.

Now, I’d also like to point out that OSHA only investigated our representative’s Washington offices. Let’s wonder how much worse the number of violations would be if these congressmen’s home offices back in their home states were investigated. If they don’t much care to observe OSHA regulations in Washington D.C. how much less will they care about the conditions back at home?

The mind boggles at the prospects.

In any case, this is just another example that Congress doesn’t think it has to abide by the rules it forces upon the rest of us in fly over country.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Incumbent Democrat Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii’s first district is expected to resign his seat in Congress in order to make a run at Hawaii’s gubernatorial seat. That leaves his House seat open and it is looking as if the Republicans have a good chance to win it with the candidacy of Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou.

A special election is now set for May 22 to fill Abercrombie’s seat.

If Charles Djou can win this seat it will be one more slight to Democrats because Hawaii’s District One is Barack Obama’s old hometown on the Islands.

Djou has signed the taxpayer protection pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform and has been listed as one of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns contender candidates for 2010.

Djou is a social moderate and is pro-choice in the heavily pro-choice Hawaii first district. While he isn’t the conservative of our dreams, he does have a chance to take this special election, ala Scott Brown (R, Mass). One reason is because he is opposed by two Democrats vying for the same seat leaving Djou able to muster all the GOP votes while his opponents split their party’s (if both stay in all the way until May, that is).

The DailyCaller describes Djou’s stance on the issues as such:

Djou described himself as a strong fiscal conservative who has never voted for a tax increase during his time on the city council and as a member of Hawaii’s State House.

On national issues, he opposes the healthcare bills currently before Congress and expressed support for alternate measures including tort reform and medical savings accounts. Djou also touted his efforts to introduce curbside recycling in Honolulu and called himself a responsible steward of Hawaii’s environment, which is critical to the state’s tourism industry. He criticized the cap-and-trade proposals currently under consideration in Congress for their focus on mandates instead of incentives.

For more info about Charles Djou download his .pdf info sheet.

You can see Djou’s website at: www.djou.com.

Or subscribe to Djou’s Twitter Feed

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Republican Joe Walsh won his party’s nomination for the Illinois 8th District Congressional seat this February. He’ll face Democrat incumbent Melissa Bean in November. But as of right this minute he’s broke.

Mr. Walsh is fond of calling himself the “tea party candidate,” but with his empty campaign coffers this is an excellent time to ask the question: can the tea party groups that endorsed him help him raise money?

This isn’t a sudden situation, though. In December just on the eve of the primary his campaign chief quit the campaign and then sued candidate Walsh over unpaid consulting fees. And now, the Daily Herald reports that two more full time staffers have left the campaign because Walsh cannot pay them.

The Herald also reports that Walsh lagged behind his primary opponents in fund raising the whole time and mentions that Bean has reported that she has $784,000 in her accounts ready to be spent on the upcoming general election in November.

Walsh needs to kick his fundraising into high gear if he expects to be able to beat an incumbent. Not only that, but it is likely that Bean will be able to command some outside financial support for her campaign, too.

Let us hope that the grassroots groups that Walsh says propelled him to victory in the primary can help him raise the cash he needs for the next step of his campaign. Getting folks past a primary is one thing but whether tea party groups like it or not elections cost a ton of money! Let’s hope they understand this.

This is something that the left does quite well; raise money. It remains to be seen if these local tea party groups (not just in Illinois 8, but all across the country) can also become a source of funding for their candidates as well as a source of votes.

Raising money is distasteful, annoying, and something that very quickly turns people off — especially people on the right. But if the various tea party groups want to be consequential they had better realize that money is one of the most important tools for taking control of our political system.

If you would like to donate to Joe Walsh go straight to his donation page at: http://walshforcongress.com/donate/

http://walshforcongress.com/

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A group made up of some of the biggest names in contemporary conservatism got together a few days ago and crafted what they are calling the “Mount Vernon Statement,” a manifesto of sorts meant to give direction to today’s conservative movement. Put succinctly, it fails to fill the bill.

Taken as a whole this statement is fine as a short history lesson. It explains pretty clearly what the founders had wrought when their basic work was done with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. But as a statement of principles that might guide today’s discussion I do not think the letter works.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that this effort is harmful. In fact, I think every young person should read it for its explication of our historically conservative American principles. The problem is that this thing doesn’t seem to speak directly to what we are facing today like a statement that perhaps aims to become boilerplate should.

Some of those involved with the statement said that the 1960 “Sharon Statement” served as their inspiration. The Sharon Statement, intended to give some ideological umph to Goldwater conservatives, is an effort that works much better as a rallying cry to action. Sadly, the Mount Vernon Statement falls a little flat in this respect.

Historically I have two minor qualms about the newest effort. First of all its name doesn’t resonate. Yes, George Washington was the indispensable man of our early republic. Without him the warring factions facing off in political battle during our early republic just might have strangled this baby in its crib. But, as steadying a force as he was, Washington was not really the ideological or intellectual father of our nation. He was the father that kept the kids from beating each other up, the father we looked up to as a model of comportment, the man we looked to as the solid rock of the family, certainly, but he wasn’t the idea man. For that we looked to men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams among many others.

So, naming this letter after George Washington’s estate seems a bit odd. Better that these folks should have met in Independence Hall, Philadelphia and called this the Philadelphia Statement, the Independence Statement, or some such thing. The words “Mount Vernon” are obviously meant to lend historical heft to the document but they just don’t succeed as a meaningful ideological association. In fact, it’s sort of hollow. Are we naming our bedrock ideological principles for the man that didn’t craft them? That seems a bit odd to me.

Secondly, I find fault with this paragraph (my bold):

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The word “recognizes” is not the correct word to use for what the founders thought about the word “virtue.” They didn’t merely “recognize” virtue existed. They built their entire political edifice on the insistence that our political leaders practice virtue and that they base their every move on the need to be seen as civically virtuous. This is an idea about which few of our political leaders today have the slightest clue, not to mention that the public is generally ignorant of what the founders meant when they discussed public virtue. Sadly, this letter doesn’t help us regain a proper perspective on the founder’s idea of public virtue.

The Mount Vernon Statement missed an opportunity to better explain what virtue in government could mean as a rallying cry for today’s conservative movement.

The Mount Vernon Statement is a fine little history lesson but compared to the Sharon Statement, it just doesn’t seem to as immediately take on the issues that we face. Where is the discussion of the destruction of our educational system, where is the warning against our worst foreign threat, where is the assertion that our system of jurisprudence has been undermined? All these things are broadly implied by the Mount Vernon Statement, granted, but one wishes that today’s problems were more directly addressed.

While we don’t want a statement that names names or attacks specific policies directly — that would detract from the essential universality of such a statement of principles — still to my mind the Mount Vernon Statement is a bit too broad. I feel that we need something a tad more direct. The Sharon Statement was perfect for its mixture of what were then current issues and timeless conservatives principles.

Should you have signed onto the Mount Vernon Statement, or should you feel that you’d like to do so, I can find no harsh words for you. As I said, there is no great harm done by this effort. Unfortunately, there is also correspondingly little succor that this effort can lend to our cause. It seems like a nice history lesson but as a manifesto to rally around it is more like a staid assertion than a battle cry. It is eminently forgettable.

Part Two

Yes, it’s easy to criticize. Surely it will occur to the minds of many readers of my criticism here that I should offer solutions along with my criticisms. So I offer the following basic idea of what I’d consider a better “statement” than what resulted from the efforts at Mount Vernon, Virginia. I’ll call it the “Huston Statement” for lack of a better title and since, well, I’m the one writing the thing.

Remembering that I am one man, not a committee of 80 some high-powered conservative operatives, here are the ideas I thought of while reading the Mount Vernon Statement, humbly offered as a basis upon which to further the discussion:

The Huston Statement

Since our political climate has long since drifted from the first principles of our founding and since we now face a crisis threatening to tear down our American moral center we commit ourselves to re-establishing our American character.

We believe that our Constitution and the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence form the best guide by which to nurture our American character and provides a firm bedrock upon which to build a government.

We as Americans believe:

That as individuals we have the right of self-determination, to be free of overweening involvement in our lives by government at all levels from local, to state, to federal.

That as free men we must strongly assert that we are responsible for ourselves, our family, and our property and that others owe us nothing but to observe our rights as we observe theirs.

That our liberties depend on our civic virtue and that it is up to each of us to become informed citizens.

With these God-given liberties in mind, that our representatives must strive to keep government out of the lives of the people to the greatest extent practicable and that they should honor the principles of limited government as handed down to us from our founders.

And we assert that adherence to these principles will act as a beacon of freedom to the world, that we should actively promote them abroad giving succor to all those that would follow in our footsteps, and that we should not lend legitimacy to foreign bodies or nations that retreat from them.

We affirm that:

Private property is sacrosanct

The market-based economy free of government meddling must be preserved

Employees must be free of compulsory associations

Governments must be accountable to the voters not to judges and unions

Communities have the right to draft standards without federal approval

Education is a local responsibility solely under local and state control

It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

And that our Second Amendment rights are God-given and cannot be infringed

Additionally, we as Americans also reaffirm that legislation is the rightful duty of our constituted bodies of representatives and not the venue of capricious judges. Ruling from the bench is no better than the ill-considered tyrannies from the throne from which we so long ago rebelled.

Finally, let us understand these principles to be an affirmation of our American character, one that has made our nation the richest and strongest nation in human history. Any force, whether domestic or foreign, that wishes to materially alter this character is an enemy to our nation and one that should not be treated lightly but faced squarely and with resolution.

Well, this is how I see a statement of principles that are geared to today’s issues but are still the sort that attest to our timeless conservative ideals.

I hope this can serve to continue the discussion that the Mount Vernon Statement started.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

When an average citizen donates money to a politician it is usually because that citizen believes in the politician and wants to help him have the war chest to conduct a campaign. Unions like to pretend that they donate to politicians out of the goodness of their hearts, just like common citizens do. Everyone knows, though, that they are merely making an attempt to buy them. A union in Alabama has as much as admitted that they were trying to buy a politician, but when he didn’t dance to their tune, these union folks demanded their contributions back.

Al Henley, secretary-treasurer of the Alabama AFL-CIO, seems to be a mite miffed with Alabama Representative Parker Griffith. You’ll recall that Griffith was the one-time Democrat who jumped the sinking Donkey ship and became a Republican late last year.

Apparently while he was a Democrat the AFL-CIO had no problem giving him campaign money. Now that he’s a Republican, though, the union has taken sudden umbrage at Griffith’s voting record. “Parker Griffith, we feel you have swindled us,” Henley said at a recent rally in Hunstville, Alabama.

Henley criticized Griffith for voting “no” on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the stimulus bill and health care reform.

Of course, there is one interesting fact, here. All these votes were made before December of 2009. It is now February of 2010. What happened between December of 2009 and today? Griffith became a Republican. These union folks weren’t complaining about giving Griffith money before he switched parties, were they?

Still, it is pretty obvious that these unions feel that if they’ve given campaign money, then they should be able to get 100% compliance with their orders to that politician. Who wouldn’t see this as an assumption of buying that politician?

(Cross posted at TheUnionLabelBlog.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Yesterday our Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives proved that he still isn’t seeing the problem with the GOP. He’s living in denial, at least he is if we can take his words at face value.

On the Mike Gallagher radio show yesterday, leader Boehner insisted that there is no substantive ideological differences between the Tea Party folks and the Republican Party.

(As reported by The Hill)

“There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in,” Boehner said during an appearance on the conservative Mike Gallagher’s radio show.

Boehner went on to say that the GOP has a job ahead of it to, “prove it to the tea party activists that we really are who we say we are.”

I can only shake my head at Mr. Boehner’s blather. Granted it might be mere bombast and hopeful talk from a man hoping to convince voters to buy his product. He may know he’s blowing smoke in part. But let’s assume he’s dead serious.

So in that case, Mr. Leader, if there was no palpable difference between your party establishment and the tea party folks, there would have been no tea party folks in the first place.

There are plenty of differences between your party bigwigs and the principles of the tea party activists. Let’s look at some of these differences:

Corporate Welfare
The GOP is always looking for ways to coddle the big corporations over the little guy. Of course, conservatives don’t want business (whether big or small) penalized or scorned, but corporate welfare is unnecessary. In fact, it’s destructive to our economy. Most of these Republicans claim to be the friend of small business. Few prove it.

Principles
One of the things that galls Tea Party folks most is how most of Boehner’s Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths. They run for office claiming that the left is to be fought against, yet once they get to D.C. these same jaw-jawing Republicans bend over backwards to acquiesce to Democrats. Suddenly they are standing next to people like Teddy Kennedy and signing onto their bills in some lame effort to seem “reasonable.” On the other hand, Democrats never return that favor and Tea Party folks know this.

But the biggest difference is…

Big Government
Malcolm Wallop, a Senator from Wyoming, once said as he was retiring in the early 1990s that the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that if the Democrats proposed a bill to burn Washington to the ground today, the GOP would say no and offer a counter bill that would phase the program in over three years. John Boehner wants to pretend that his party stands squarely against raising taxes and is a small government party. The problem is this is a smoke screen that hides big government spending just like the Democrats. Only they just want to “phase it in” at a slower rate.

The GOP was for the wild, useless spending on “No Child Left Behind,” it was for the first stimulus, and bailouts. The GOP has offered its own, smaller versions of Obamacare, it is for all sorts of welfare spending like the drugs for senior program and a whole slew of other big government bills. They just want their big government to be a little smaller than the Democrat’s gargantuan government. But make no mistake, in the end most Congressional Republicans want big government.

Many elected Republicans make noises as if they are against earmark spending, too. Few have the courage of their convictions to eschew them. Big government beckons and most Republicans follow the siren call.

Few elected Republicans in Congress are against the spending on foreign aid, the Dept. of Education (as un-constitutional a department as can be imagined), or propping up Big Agriculture. Few of these Washington Republicans are for doing anything to make government smaller. All of these issues reveal a schism between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party folks. There are other issues, of course but these are some of the major ones. Tea Party folks know all of this. It seems Mr. Boehner does not.

Oh, Boehner and his cohorts all claim to be for all these things, but almost none of them do anything about it.

Still, Boehner is right to say that the GOP is the only party of power that the Tea Party people can even come close to supporting. But Boehner is wrong to think that the GOP can co-opt the tea party groups. It is the ‘tother way ’round, leader Boehner. If they do it right, it is the Tea Party groups that will co-opt you and your party, sir, not you that shall take them over. If that happens it won’t just be Mr. Boehner’s party that is the lucky one. It will be the whole nation.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

David Ratowitz is presenting himself to voters as the business oriented, conservative candidate for their 5th District Congressional seat. Ratowitz says he represents “hard-fought professional achievement” and “personal resilience,” and says his “genuine free market outlook” makes him the perfect candidate for conservatives. Also, many of Mr. Ratowitz’ press releases state that he’s for fiscal responsibility and have taken the Obama administration to task for its bad fiscal policies. (www.ratowitzforcongress.com)

So, one would assume that Mr. Ratowitz’ own history should be above reproach. If not pristine, one would hope that any past business troubles or tax issues would be few and far between. After all, everyone makes a few mistakes especially if they are active businessmen.

Now, between 2000 and 2007 Mr. Ratowitz was a businessman in New Orleans, Louisiana. On his campaign website he admits that hurricane Katrina wrecked havoc with his business, but he says he “worked on the ground to rebuild his business and community.”

But perhaps his success in Louisiana isn’t quite as advertised? Public records show that Mr. Ratowitz is still in arrears in his property taxes in the Pelican State. The property tax website for the City of New Orleans shows that Mr Ratowitz still owes quite a lot of money in past due property taxes.

The New Orleans website shows the following real estate taxes in arrears:

• For property at 1119 Terpsichore St, Mr. Ratowitz seems to owe $15,920.81 (record 101105116)
• For property at 1113 Terpsichore St, Mr. Ratowitz seems to owe $1,069.58 (record 101105115)
• For property at 3931 Annunciation St, Mr. Ratowitz seems to owe $8,624.07 (record 614107102)
• For property at 1323 ST Mary St, Mr. Ratowitz seems to owe $11,140.15 (record 412100111)

Then there is the Limited Liability Corporation called Ratowitz, LLC that had its license revoked by the State of Louisiana on May 22, 2003. One wonders what caused the State of Louisiana to revoke Mr. Ratowitz’ license? (search for the last name Ratowitz in the search field HERE)

All of these taxes seem to have come due long before Katrina came bellowing through New Orleans, too. So, it’s a bit hard to imagine that this natural disaster was at the root of Mr. Ratowitz’ troubles. Granted that messy storm didn’t help anyone there.

Anyway, it is all pretty interesting and one wonders what Mr. Ratowitz might say about these issues. I contacted the Ratowitz campaign and presented him with this post and asked for a statement.

I was told that they’d get back to me on the Sunday before the primary. Candidate Ratowitz gave an extensive reply, so here it is in its entirety:

The properties at 1113 and 1119 Terpsichore, New Orleans were sold last November. The taxes were paid at that time, I don’t know why Orleans Parish, LA has not updated the tax records but that is a situation for the new owners and Orleans Parish to resolve. The other two properties are tied up in my divorce proceedings, my ex-wife who intends to move back to New Orleans now controls those properties. One of them, 3931 Annunciation, New Orleans is under contract and the taxes will be paid upon the sale, with the remaining proceeds used to pay off the outstanding tax bill on 1323A St Mary, New Orleans. The other property is a condominium which I believe my ex-wife intends to move into. When the divorce is finalized title will transfer.

Ratowitz, LLC was an entity formed to develop a single property. That property was developed and sold and the Limited Liability Company dissolved. Louisiana, like all states provides two methods to dissolve a limited liability company. The owners can pay a fee to formally dissolve the company, or they can simply not pay the annual fee and the Secretary of State will dissolve the company by default. Not paying the fee is the way most limited liabilities companies that no longer have any assets are dissolved.

The claim that these property taxes were owed prior to Hurricane Katrina is simply incorrect. Three of the four properties mentioned, I did not even own until after Hurricane Katrina.

I disagree with your contention that my business should be “pristine.” Business, particularly small business is never pristine. When I tell a group of voters that I am a small businessman, it is not to tell them that I am “pristine” or insulated from the problems and complications they face on a daily basis and which they expect their Congressman to address. Rather, I tell voters that I am a small businessman so that they will know I have faced the same problems they have, that I have resolved them without government assistance, and therefore I am the only candidate in the 5th District race they can rely on to say no to any business that claims: “We have made decisions that turned out badly and we need taxpayer money to bail us out.”

My business was the development, ownership and management of property in New Orleans, LA. All of my properties were damaged beyond use by Hurricane Katrina. It was more than six months before I had any property in usable condition, and it took more than a year to return all of the properties to marketable condition. During this period, when I lacked to ability to generate revenue, interest, utilities and property taxes continued to accrue. By the time my properties began generating revenue, the business was already in a deep hole. Insurance too was slow in coming and then not without a fight. I settled insurance claims as recently as September, 2007. To this day, I have four outstanding insurance claims, ironically all with the State of Louisiana.

All small businesses face cash shortfalls from time to time. Eighteen months after Hurricane Katrina, and shortly after I had returned my properties to marketability the real estate market began a decline that continues to this day. I do not need to remind anyone of the foreclosure crises or the large number of Americans in the real estate business that have faced financial ruin. I did not become a successful businessman because I remained magically unaffected by the market forces that ravaged my industry. Rather, my success came from confronting and overcoming those forces, in this case through personal sacrifice and shrewd and pragmatic use of limited cash.

Naturally, I agree that a candidate for public office must explain a decision to stretch scarce cash by deferring payment of property taxes. In my case, the decision was based upon the fact that the properties in question had enough equity to pay the associated property taxes upon their sale. Further, Orleans Parish, like Cook County and many counties throughout the country has the ability to bond outstanding property taxes along with penalties and interest and sell that bond to an investor. This means that Orleans Parish immediately realizes the tax revenue along with the interest and penalties, an investor realizes a profit when I pay those taxes, and I am the only one who suffers from the difficult decision forced upon me. While I recognize this was a difficult situation, I have resolved it through personal sacrifice and without cost to the taxpayers.

America faces a severe financial crises. While some people prefer a made-for-TV politician, unsullied by the real world challenges faced by voters in the 5th Congressional District, I point out that we elected such a candidate as President and that has not worked out so well. Now is not the time for inexperienced leaders who must learn on the job. I offer my own experience, the good, the bad, and the ugly to the voters as the only candidate in the 5th Congressional District race to have actually dealt successfully with the very challenges in my own life that I will be called upon to deal with as Congressman.

I thank you for this opportunity to reply.

David Ratowitz

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Rep. Paul Ryan is re-introducing legislation in Congress today — amid criticism that his is ‘a party of no’ — to offer Republican alternatives to health care and spending the same day President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address to Congress.
Ryan, the House Budget Committee Ranking Republican and chief sponsor of the bill, said the legislation will “restore our long-held legacy of leaving the next generation of Americans better off.”
The legislation, “A Roadmap for America’s [Socialist] Future,” was initially introduced in 2008, yet the version introduced today “will reflect the dramatic decline in our nation’s economic and fiscal condition” since then, according to a release from Ryan’s office.
“

Simply saying ‘no’ to the further government expansions

– simply maintaining today’s ‘status quo’ –

is no longer an option

: our health care sector must be reformed; our economy needs sustained job creation and real growth; and we must tackle the greatest threat to our economic and fiscal future – the crushing debt burden driven by the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending,” Ryan said in a statement.

Here is the website if you want to check it out.

In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama will declare a new found commitment to “fiscal responsibility” to cover the huge spending and debt he and congressional Democrats have run up in his first year in office. But next Monday, when he submits his actual budget, I fear it will rely on gimmickry, commissions, luke-warm spending “freezes,” and paper-tiger controls to create the illusion of budget discipline. Meanwhile, he and the Democratic congressional leadership will continue pursuing a relentless expansion of government and a new culture of dependency.
America needs an alternative. For that reason, I have reintroduced my plan to tackle our nation’s most pressing domestic challenges—updated to reflect the dramatic decline in our economic and fiscal condition. The plan, called A Road Map for America’s Future and first introduced in 2008, is a comprehensive proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting every day because of Washington’s reckless spending, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.
The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats’ approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion “stimulus” last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a “progressive” strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

This is the right move as poll after poll is showing the decline of the Democrats and rise of Republicans.

[edited]

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post