Comments by concerned4ca

Page 1 of 1

Posted on January 14 at 10:08 p.m.

I suspect that any organization that served a population of children was an attractive gig for people who are sexually attracted to them. Not reporting these crimes was wrong the Catholics, Penn State, and the Boy Scouts et al. These organizations had and still have a great tradition of doing good for our children. Apparently not every was good but ask anyone in the scouts and see if they think it was a worthwhile experience. These organizations need reforms but tearing them down and selling boy scout camps will deprive thousand of our youth of the joys of scouting. Lawyers will get millions of dollars so they can live in even bigger mansions but this will not make a better society; most likely just the opposite.
There are other organizations that have high populations of kids and adults in positions of trusts, like our schools and the teacher unions. Maybe they were smart enough not to keep files but just to turn a blind eye.

On Scouts Could Face Millions in Penalties

Posted on September 3 at 2:44 p.m.

I support SBCC and think they do a great job but I do not support Measure S. Did you know they have only spent $47 million of Measure V funds (2008) which totaled $175 million?
This bond now calls for demolishing the Schott Center which was slated for renovation with the 2008 monies that were going to renovate it "while maintaining its historic character".
Did you know the cost of renovation and construction in measure S is approximately $800 per sq ft. Deckers just built a new state of the art & elegant corporate headquarters for about $500 per sq foot and contractors tell me that 200-300 is normal.
Vote no on measure S, we can do better.

On Answers to Questions About Measure S

Posted on September 9 at 11:07 a.m.

Dear Validated,
Your comments are very good and point out the abuse taxpayers are taking at the hands of the unions and their politicians. I encourage you to publish this detailed information to a wider audience. Maybe a guest editorial in local papers etc.

On Fighting Fire with Cash

Posted on October 26 at 6:28 p.m.

Stoker is not as antiquated as Dianne Feinstein, who is so old (79) she is no longer allowed to speak in public. That is why there is no advertising and no debates in the Senate race.

On Stoker-Jackson Debate

Posted on October 25 at 11:18 p.m.

I attended the debate Thursday night at Temple B’Nai B’rith. Much of the content in this article was repeated there. Both candidates were articulate promoters of their positions. Stoker calmly laid out his rationale where as Jackson was somewhat more combative but it seemed a little unnecessary and negative, at times she seemed to find disagreement needlessly just to “debate”. When asked if they supported Prop 30, (Jerry Brown’s tax increase) Hannah of course laid out all the good things she could spend the tax revenue on but never noted that California is already paying some of the highest state taxes. Taxes which themselves are driving business and jobs from our state. So she was all about benefit but failed to mention the very real costs. Every balanced decision maker understands there are always costs and benefits. Mike Stoker made a good point. As a state senator he will not be voting for proposition 30, instead he countered the right question is what will we do if it doesn’t pass. He rejects the notion that the only thing to cut is education; instead he vows to cut Sacramento administration and bureaucracy before education gets cut another cent. That is a different tune than we hear from Brown and the rest of the Sacramento crowd. We need new leadership. This seems as good a place to start as any.

On Old Faces, New Races

Posted on October 23 at 9:47 p.m.

Stoker has already proven himself to be a balanced representative of the voters. His awards as “Most Valuable Public Official in County Government in America” and being named as “Public Official of the Year” prove he is not just another politician. Sacramento has too many politicians who only represent the most vocal extremes of their respective parties and Hannah-Beth would be another one.
We need to restore California’s competitiveness including a rational tax policy.
We need a change in Sacramento not more of the same policies.
We need Mike Stoker!

On Stoker-Jackson Debate

Posted on September 26 at 11:12 p.m.

I am not really against her wealth but it seems an appropriate response to Eastbeach's comment re: Issa. Her wealth does not matter, neither does Romney's. (I bet you would vote for Romney if you could just see his precious tax returns, really?) But my issue is not with anyone’s wealth, it’s really with Feinstein as a candidate for US Senate. I have been a vocal supporter of her in the past. Even as a Democrat she has been a moderate on some issues, and rarely has she taken an extreme left position. But now she is nearly 80 years old. That is okay too, she has had a long and successful career but she won’t be able to do it forever. If she were my relative, I wouldn't even let her drive the car and certainly not drive my kids to school. Even most public company’s ask their directors to step down when they are 72. Just think about it. But now you are eagerly electing her to fulfill one of the toughest jobs in the US for one of the most important states. I am only looking for the best possible senator for California. The Dem's should have run someone against her, or asked her to retire after a great career. Dem’s winning in this state is a slam dunk.
I will admit it is frustrating. Dem's run this entire state; cities, counties and Sacramento, and they have done a wonderful job; its last or close to last in nearly every measure. Their only answer seems to be the same as last time around: 1) raise the taxes, which are already the highest of any state, as though that will fix the economy, 2) Protect the unions not matter what, and 3) cut education. I think we all deserve better. It’s pretty hard to take if you are just a taxpayer watching the leadership do the same thing over, over and over again. Things keep getting worse each time, bigger deficit, poorer roads, lower scores in education, fewer services, and higher fees. Then the Dems wonder why not every voter isn't singing their praises. While the republicans may never win an election in this state, but you need to recognize that while some 43% of the voters are Democrats, which leaves 57% who are not. Granted only 30% are registered as Republicans. But it does tell you that not everyone thinks the Dem's are doing such a wonderful job that you should just blindly elect every Democrat that runs. You should at least look at Feinstein next to Emken, in a debate. If Feinstein still has her mojo, what is she afraid of? What are you afraid of?

On Republican Candidates Talk to Their Party and Their Public

Posted on September 25 at 11:09 p.m.

Darrell Issa is in the house and I cannot vote for or against him. But I can vote for Feinstein, she is running for the Senate. Here is a list of wealthiest members of the Senate. The top 7 are democrats so I guess both parties have filthy rich people. Sen Feinstein is 7th.
I liked your list of presidential candidates and years of tax returns. I did notice you missed John Kerry who is currently listed as wealthier than Mitt. ($281 million). His wealthy wife filed separate returns and he tried to get everyone to accept his individual returns as adequate disclosure. In the end he relented and release hers too. They paid 13.1% taxes on $5.1 million in income in 2003. Did that bug you in that election?
I really do not care what Mitt does with his money. I really care what he does with mine. But back to Dianne Feinstein, she will be 80 this year and 86 when she finishes the term. I want better representation than an 80 something year old. The voters really deserve to see if she is still able to perform intellectually and she is denying everyone that chance. This is an election not a coronation.

On Republican Candidates Talk to Their Party and Their Public

Posted on September 25 at 8:39 p.m.

Dianne Feinstein won't report her massive wealth (estimated at nearly $100 million) or her tax returns. Yet she has the nerve to criticize Mitt for disclosing his. I expect her tax rate is even lower than his and that would be really hard to explain. Now she is nearly 80 and refuses to even debate the opposing candidates. The Democrats made a mistake not replacing her with a candidate who knows what is going on. Check out this funny interview with her.

On Republican Candidates Talk to Their Party and Their Public

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: