Page 1 of 3
Posted on May 28 at 10:26 p.m.
I remember broken records that kept repeating until you nudged the armature. So keep saying "union" so we won't be able to see all of Roger's huge donations from developers and oil. Or you could see this videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1BSWU...
And say, Roger complained that HE wanted the SB police union endorsement. If he got it, would you still complain about union support? Such hypocrisy is truly a sight to behold.
On City Cops Endorse Wolf
Posted on May 24 at 11:04 a.m.
In response to John Locke, there is a bevy of non-union groups and individuals supporting Wolf - The Sierra Club, Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League PAC, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and a ton of people. You can look it up because unlike Aceves, Wolf lists her endorsers on her website: http://janetwolf2014.com/endorsements/
So while foofighter and others continue to say, "Ignore the big oil, big developers and big gambling behind Aceves' curtain," responsible voters are looking at ALL the issues and Wolf comes out on top.
Gotta LOVE Aceves' spin that City Police shouldn't mess with a County election. At the same time, Aceves cries that City Police should have considered HIM for an endorsement. Hypocrite!
Keep screaming "Unions." It has no traction, except with the few people already supporting Aceves...and they can vote only once, thank goodness.
P.S. Do some of the city police know the REAL reason Aceves had to retire from the Police Dept. early?
Posted on May 23 at 10:17 p.m.
The word "Union" is a tiny, little handkerchief that won't hide the fact that Aceves has no clothes. You can scream "union" but that doesn't address why people who know him don't want to work with him. Naked as a jaybird, Aceves has no visible endorsers. However, the donations he's received have laid bare the fact that he's supported by big oil, big developers and big gambling.
So keep screaming "union." Before your hollow echo is over, the voters will have spoken, "We've re-elected Janet Wolf." Then in November, Aceves will have to go hat in hand back to the Goleta voters he tried to abandon and try to make his case why they should re-elect someone who tried to sell them out to big oil, big developers and big gambling.
Posted on May 23 at 5:45 p.m.
Nice try at spin, Roger! Let’s see, none of the 4 Goleta council members you currently work with endorsed you - 3 endorsed Supervisor Wolf.
SB City Police always endorse one of their own, but they didn’t endorse you and instead endorsed Janet, (As did the County and the City Firefighters and the Deputy DAs.)
Of the 4 people on the Board of Supervisors you want to join, 2 have apparently remained silent and 2 have endorsed Supervisor Wolf.
You claim to be a lifelong Democrat, but every local Democratic organization as well as many Republicans and Independents have endorsed Supervisor Wolf.
Is it that you don’t get along with those who know you best?
So let’s look at YOUR endorsements. Everybody running for office lists their endorsements on their website and literature. OOPS, no endorsements for Roger are listed on his website nor his glossy literature except for quotes on one mailer from three former Goleta officials.
The people you worked with most closely have endorsed Supervisor Wolf. At a minimum it means they don’t want to work with YOU. And most want to work with Janet Wolf.
You can’t spin your way out of the truth, though it’s very nice of your few supporters to try.
Posted on May 8 at 8:03 a.m.
I most enthusiastically recommend candidate Roger Aceves with no qualifications whatsoever. I can’t begin to describe his accomplishments.Most agree that Aceves will be an unqualified asset to the County. Anyone with half a brain would vote for him.
His contributions to Goleta can’t be measured. Some people say he is holding down the whole Goleta City Council. He believes his greatest assets are his willingness to work hard and his extremely intelligence. We think he has a great imagination. When it came time to review the results of his years on the Goleta’s Council, residents agree that nothing could be better.
All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too highly. I would urge voters to waste no time in voting for him.
On Questions for Aceves
Posted on May 1 at 4:22 p.m.
You persist in spreading the falsehood that Janet hasn't done anything about the pension issue. So here are the facts about the steps Janet and the other Supervisors have taken to directly address the pension deficit:
1. They have negotiated with employees and their union so that now the employees are contributing more to their pensions.2. They have negotiated with the union so that NEW county employees come in under new rules that reduce the county's pension liability for new employees. For example, the method of calculating pensions is more realistic and will result in a lower liability.3. The county has increased its payment into the pension system to reduce the deficit.
This has put the county on a conservative trajectory to reduce the pension deficit at a steady, annual pace that is projected to eliminate the deficit entirely in less than 20 years.
20 years may seem like a long time. But the deficit was created over a long period and made worse by the drop in the stock market. It should be reduced slowly, not all at once so that vital services can be preserved as well.
These are the facts. But If you disagree, please stick to the facts and avoid name calling.
On The Battle for Santa Barbara's 2nd District
Posted on April 19 at 10:52 p.m.
I have a better idea. If you are so all fired sure that Aceves shares your ideas for County pension reform, please let us know when and where he has stated his position.
So far he has been silent on this matter. Let's get his position on the record. Because he is running and you are not, though you seem very eager to defend him and tear down Wolf.
As for your solution, there may be some legal impediments to changing the terms of pensions for CURRENT employees. We'd all be glad to hear how you suggest Aceves or Wolf can deal with that, legally.
I hope you will keep your response civil, as I know you can. Thanks.
On Wolf Collects Another $20,000 From Labor Union
Posted on April 18 at 11:26 a.m.
Foo, 2 better questions are:
1. Why do you attribute pension deficits to "union-pandering progressive-majority board of supervisor members" when the last raise given to unions was by a Firestone-led north county conservative majority?
2. Why not give Wolf at least some credit for negotiating give backs from SEIU?
How about a little intellectual honesty, without changing the subject and without the name calling?
Posted on April 17 at 8:08 a.m.
Yes, let's all do what foo says: ignore the donations going to Aceves and the people behind them. But instead, focus only on donations going to Wolf. A monochotomy is SO MUCH BETTER than a dichotomy (or a lobotomy).
Foo prefers we ignore the first rule of politics: follow the money. Because foo knows where it leads.
foo, we can't praise you too highly for your self-serving lesson in politics.
Posted on April 16 at 9:50 a.m.
While I regret the lack of campaign contribution and spending limits, here is the bright side.
My mom used to say that we are known by the company we keep. The list of contributors to this and other campaigns at least are helpful in more clearly defining the differences among candidates.
If you believe that all the problems of this county could be solved by lowering the total compensation of union serving the county, sure vote for Aceves (who is collecting over $80,000 pension secured by his own union.)
But if you believe that oil, developers and "gaming" interests wield too much power, affecting our environment, crowding, traffic and such, then you want to vote for Wolf.
Note that for all the alleged SEIU influence, Wolf was one of 5 who negotiated reducing the raises that unions had been given by the Firestone-led Republican majority.
But in this day of too many "me-too candidates", a benefit of this too sad avalanche of campaign donations is that they bring into focus a clear choice for voters to consider. I think we can agree with even foo-bird on that.