.
.
.
You can say this about Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray, it doesn’t take her long to toot her own horn following a vote of the Council that goes her way. It seems as soon as the City Clerk reads off the usual majority voting bloc split, a new press release is heating up our email servers. How DOES she manage to do it all? Oh yeah, that’s right, she pays Communications Lab owner Arianna Barrios $100 an hour to do it for her, while denying the Mayor the hours HE needs to run HIS department. (See Murray’s grandstanding at the bottom of this piece for the grisly details.)
Murray’s tireless knack for using public office for the gain of her friends and campaign supporters is frankly getting old. Take, for example, this little gem from Anaheim’s last Council meeting on March 3. Yes, Kris is now pushing what she has labeled the “Anaheim Taxpayer Protection Act.” There are no protections for taxpayers in this grandstanding bit of legislative puffery. 
The Act does nothing to slow down the massive spending habits of the Council majority, nor does it rein in the Joint Powers Authorities headed by the SAME five people, three of whom spend like drunken sailors at our expense.
Wait, drunken sailors stop when they run out of money! I retract my slur and apologize to inebriated seamen everywhere. The only change the Murray charter change provides is to make it harder for the Council majority to put a new tax proposal before voters even if more than 2/3 of them support it.
“PROTECT” US FROM WHAT?
During Tuesday night’s Council meeting, I used my paltry 3 minutes of Public Comment time to ask the author of Agenda Item 11 to please explain what she is protecting the taxpayers FROM in this “Act.” And as I recall I never got an answer, not a real one. We did get the usual spin and double-speak wrapped in the batter-dipped coating of Policy Wonk buzzwords that make Murray sound a lot more politically astute than she is.
That’s OK, I answered for her, not expecting anything else. It seems, said I, that Ms. Murray is protecting the taxpayer from the undue burden of having to VOTE on something. Indeed Ms. Murray seems to think voting is such an enormous cross to bear for Anaheim’s citizenry that she has gone out of her way to prevent our being bothered by it in pretty much every opportunity presented to this current administration. Let’s review the times Murray has “rescued” taxpayers from having to vote on anything since taking office:
- $158 Million bed tax kicked back to the developer. TWICE. 15,000 citizens signed petitions demanding the right to vote before TOT could be diverted from the General Fund again. Murray fought against the effort, and frankly led the charge to strip Mayor Pro Tem Galloway of her honorary title for her participation in the completely legal petition effort. (But it is okay for Mayor Pro-Tem Kring to use her title and staff time for a useless grandstanding Resolution outside the authority of the City Council for a Charter School that didn’t gain enough legit signatures to pass. Sure, that seems fair. NOT.)
- Fighting District Elections. Citizens of Latino heritage asked respectfully for Council help in putting this before voters, and were rejected. They sued, and the Council spent MILLIONS preventing that choice from going to a vote. Only when the very uncomfortable deposition and discovery process was about to begin did they finally cave in and permit the citizens of this fine city to vote. What were they afraid of? Supposedly they were convinced public opinion was on their side (hadn’t Curt told them so?) and Matt Cunningham assured them quite regularly that Anaheim residents would soundly reject this obvious attempt by “the extreme left” to hijack the electoral system. Uh…wrong again. Anaheim approved the District Elections changes overwhelmingly, even in those far-right precincts where Kashkari actually led the Governor’s race. So much for the left wing conspiracy, and so much for Cunningham’s finger on the pulse of Anaheim’s electorate. Hey, who is Matt backing for 37th SD again?
- And who can forget the refusal to let the public vote on $200 million in bonds (REPAID AT A TOTAL OF HALF A BILLION DOLLARS) to expand the Convention Center for the benefit of a very small segment of our business community? Rather than put the item on the Council agenda as scheduled, which offered time to get it onto a ballot with the Charter Changes, staff stalled and delayed for months until the Agenda Item came too late for the June ballot. This offered an excuse for the Council majority’s voting bloc (absent the Mayor who opposed and Vanderbilt who was not yet there in 2014) to approve the expense in the name of time constraints, claiming that waiting for voters to approve the bonds will take too long. We’ll discuss all that in a future post.
For now let’s stick to Kris Murray’s repeated actions refusing to allow voting on various issues. It’s no surprise she now wishes to codify an even higher benchmark to meet before future leaders appeal to the taxpaying public to close revenue gaps unanticipated in today’s economy, despite the very real problems that may be facing tomorrow’s citizens. Sadly the problems of future generations lead back to the very actions we are participating in TODAY.
HOW TO SCREW FUTURE GENERATIONS IN ONE EASY STEP
A number of questions were asked Tuesday night, and very few answers were provided. That lack of answers was inexcusable. As recently as the previous City Council meeting, Lucille Kring demonstrated to us that smart phones are perfectly capable of getting a signal in the middle of Council Chambers, (yeah, we caught that) and that the Finance Director, Debbie Moreno, could have resolved some key issues with a simple Google search. Seriously, we pay Debbie a good salary, well into six figures, yet she can’t buy an internet-ready iPad?
Since staff has failed to do their homework. I have taken the liberty of doing it for them.
Questions and answers are summarized, and not based on an exact transcript, although I have it on good authority that the elves kept in the Orange Juice basement for such purposes are scrambling to transcribe the last Council meeting for us. We shall check on the supply of quills, ink, and parchment for the elfin workload. Meanwhile this exchange is my own loose summary – feel free to jump on in if I got anything wrong. (Oh, I know you will….)
- Mayor Tom Tait noted this measure would impact future Councils who might need to raise taxes in desperation to close a funding gap. Finance Director Debbie Moreno was asked about the impact to our bond ratings if it becomes harder to put that kind of revenue remedy on the ballot.
- Councilman James Vanderbilt asked a similar question about refinancing our existing bonds in the future and if this would change our credit rating for that purpose.
- Finance Director Debbie Moreno, the highly paid professional upon whose expert advice the Council is expected to rely for complex issues that affect hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds, GUESSED at a half answer. She could not tell without speaking to the bond agencies, and of course the Council majority had no intention of waiting for another meeting to let her speak with the bond rating agencies…but she GUESSED that the rating agencies would be more concerned with whether voters approved a tax increase to cover funding gaps than concerned with how easily the Council could put something on the ballot. Nobody thought to point out that voters could not approve something if it was impossible to put it on the ballot.
Our City Treasurer, whose JOB is to answer questions related to bonds, has not been seen or heard from in several years (and may even be imprisoned in the broom closet next to Debbie Moreno’s office and fed the occasional scrap slipped under the door.) But if Moreno couldn’t stop and ask the Treasurer for his expertise, and Murray wasn’t about to let us stop and ask the bond experts, here is where a quick Google search on a handheld electronic device would have told Moreno in SECONDS that she was wrong. Indeed, it turns out the very scenario of which both Tait and Vanderbilt had inquired has taken place in Anaheim once before, and offers us an easy answer! Voila:
Prop. 218 Spurs Downgrade of Anaheim’s Credit
Jan. 24, 1997; MARLA DICKERSON – TIMES STAFF WRITER
ANAHEIM — Citing concerns that the recently approved Proposition 218 will hamstring the ability of local government to raise tax revenues, Moody’s Investors Service Thursday downgraded Anaheim’s municipal bond rating.
Anaheim now becomes the fifth California city hit with a lower rating from Moody’s since voters approved the anti-tax measure last November. Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Fresno also have seen their credit ratings decline.
Thursday’s action comes just as Anaheim is preparing to sell approximately $500 million in bonds for street improvements to accommodate the upcoming Disneyland expansion.
Read the rest HERE
Ummmm….
So as it turns out our expert upon whose advice our leaders rely when making decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars does NOT understand the very basic nature of bond rating structures. Our Finance Director also did not know they consider lack of tax raising ability to be a liability AND they DID downgrade our bond ratings when that happened with Prop 218’s passage in 1996. Our crack team of experts also failed to even stop and look it up before answering. Go team!!!
SIDE NOTE: The 1997 Disney expansion bonds that divert 100% of Disney tax funding for property, sales, and tot revenues from Grand Cal Resort, Downtown Disney, and Cal Adventure Park were not in any way dependent upon taxpayers – ON PAPER – because they were to be paid from the increased revenues expected to be generated by the new Disney developments. Just as the Convention Center bonds of 2014 are paid by increased revenues EXPECTED to be generated, but of course the General Fund will be covering the payments whether those revenues materialize or not.
So in theory the taxpayers SHOULD not be on the hook for those bonds (and Disney guaranteed the first $250K on the 97 bonds) and yet… and yet the bond rating agencies downgraded Anaheim’s ratings when Prop 218 made it harder to pass tax increases that might be needed to cover bond payments.
Which means somewhere in the back rooms of the bond rating agencies they understand what the Anaheim City Council really, really, really does not want US to know: If expected revenues do NOT materialize from the Resort, taxpayers of Anaheim ARE on the hook for those bonds, oh I’m sorry – “LEASE PAYMENTS” to cover the bonds – and the rude reality is that someday Anaheim may have to choose between cutting cops to below the already dangerous levels we have today or raising taxes, in an effort to keep pace with bond payments that are ESCALATING over time. Just sayin’.
[We now return to the Murray non-resolution of a non-issue already in progress.]
Finance Director Debbie Moreno also offered a miscalculation on how the bond rating agencies consider our credit worthiness as a municipality. She opined that the bonds were based on current revenues meeting the lease payments which in turn pay the bonds, and that there is no need to pass a tax to cover the payments. This, of course, is based on today’s dollars.
WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW?
The lease payments tied to the bond payments will rise over time. That is a given and we can see the increasing payments in the EMMA MSRB tables tied to the 1997 bonds for the Disney expansion. By 2037 those payments will eat THREE TIMES more than ALL of the TOT collected in total today.
Series A bonds don’t start repayment until 2024, and when they do kick in they are whoppers.
- 2024 $37,465,000
- 2027 $32,900,000
- 2037 $168,850,000
SERIES B still has one more payment due in 2020, $39,970,000
SERIES C has one more payment to cover, in 2016, for $33,595,000
This is only the 1997 bonds for the LAST boatload of goodies that taxpayers covered for Disney. We have not yet addressed the payments on the Convention Center Bonds. That is coming. Go to the EMMA site for MSRB and check how many bonds are outstanding, most of them floated by the Joint Powers Authorities used as an end run to get around the Charter requirement for voter approval.
Those bond payments are also tied to the City’s most volatile and unreliable income stream – TOURISM. We know that when tough times hit, families cancel vacations. Businesses tighten travel budgets. We know it because we have lived through it.
As recently as 2012 Moody’s downgraded our 2008 Bonds because of a long term negative trend in our economy. One of the factors they stated would make it worse would be taking on significantly more debt. This was before we committed to HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in bond payments for the Convention Center expansion.
Anaheim Finance Director (and de facto Treasurer) Debbie Moreno.
Of all people at City Hall, Debbie Moreno should know better. She should know better as a finance professional, and she should know better from her own personal and career experience in Anaheim.
Debbie Moreno was appointed as Finance Director in July 2012. She had been Acting Finance Director since November 2011. She initially had worked for Anaheim beginning 2001, but left in January 2006 to become the City of La Palma’s Director of Finance, and returned August 2007 as Deputy Finance Director for Anaheim.
Moreno of all people should recall the massive financial hit Anaheim took following the 9-11 disasters when air travel ground to a halt and nobody much felt like a vacation was a good thing to be doing. She left Anaheim only to return just in time for the worst of the Great Recession to take down our funding (while then Mayor Pringle kept spending like the end of time, siphoning off the Reserves to backfill a Public Works budget gone wild.)
Debbie Moreno has been with the City in years when revenues did NOT appear to meet the demands of those bond lease payments, and yet she “guesses” at an answer for our leaders. At some point the phrase “fiduciary duty” really needs to come up in conversation with her.
But first we have that talk with the Council majority. There is so much to say on this subject, and they grant us merely 3 minutes at the microphone to say it. But then I remember, I have the keys to a BLOG. To be continued…
Good summation.
There’s a shell game going on with these high price tag deals. ARTIC will be the next great disappearing act as the maintenance costs vanish down the kleptocracy’s rabbit hole.
Cynthia Ward, the No. 2 officer of the Anaheim Republican Assembly OPPOSES a Republican councilmember trying to make it HARDER for the Anaheim City Coincil to INCREASE taxes? This comes on top of supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens, same-sex marriage and opposing protecting unborn children from being aborted.
This is insane. Does the CRA have any standards left if someone who opposes its core principles is allowed to help lead one of its units?
Murray is a Republican? How can you tell? Are Republicans supposed to support cheap legal dodges to avoid obeying our City Charter? Are Republicans supposed to support crony capitalism subsidies? I’d like to get the True CRA view on this before we go any farther with the rest of your comment.
You’re welcome to your opinion about “cheap, legal dodges,” as you call it. I’m talking about Cynthia Ward and her opposition to core principles of the California Republican Assembly, of which she is an officer. Unless you apply one set of standards to your friends and a different one to your enemies.
Well, you started out by describing Murray as a Republican as if that meant something. I was just wondering what you meant by that description and why that should mean anything to the rest of us.
By the way, DOES the CRA support cheap legal dodges by a government entity to avoid the public voting on a general obligation bond? Do you support corporate subsidy? I really am curious.
She is a Republican, for starters. And she and the mayor you worship vote the same almost all the time. Unlike him, she doesn’t support radicals and union activists for city council, and she doesn’t work with lefties to put the City Council in Democratic hands.
I’m curious why you’re so adamant about ignoring Ward’s opposition to core principles of the CRA she’s an officer of, and why you’re trying so hard to change the subject?
You represent the Cunningham/Chamber position on things well, and this blog does cherish its anonymous commenters option, but I’m just saying – how come the folks on one side of the debate are not ashamed to use their names and the other side not so much? Just asking, I mean. What sort of danger, political or professional, could someone spouting your lines be under?
But by all means, carry on.
“Do you support corporate subsidy? I really am curious.”
I searched your name on this blog, and one of the results says you’re part of a “Fullerton Rail District” initiative. So I Googled that. The website says FD projects will be designed to use solar and wind energy, lists you as project director, and says “Fullerton Rail District planners and consultants design, review and advise development within the Fullerton Rail District for compatibility with the broad concepts of the Fullerton Rail District Master Plan.”
So will you be helping these projects apply for wind and solar energy subsidies from the government?
Article on Dave’s Fullerton Rail District is in the pipeline by the way!
True CRAer, you sure are busy, and clearly not a regular visitor if you had to search for Zenger on this blog to know who he is. For your info, Zenger works with a land owner who pays for his own improvements an is an even bigger anti-government subsidy conservative than CRA members. Not everyone looking for sustainable options is looking for a handout.
On Murray as a Republican. She lost the endorsement of Scott Baugh, and was ruled ineligible even for CONSIDERATION for endorsement by GOP for her re-election, which is as bad as it gets for an incumbent. She may be registered to vote with the Republican party but she has zero GOP credential. Meanwhile, she has appointed to Board and Commissions, Democrats who then used those positions to attain higher office. Murray and Eastman both supported DR Haywood who just grabbed a school board seat, and Connor Traut who took out a long time CRA member in the Centralia district, running on a slate with wild-eyed lefty whacka-doodle Art Montez.
Tait’s long time FRIEND, Jose Moreno (who I also consider a friend despite opposite political views) ran for City Council WITHOUT Tait’s endorsement or assistance. Tait backed two Republicans, one who won without taking a nickel from anyone, much less a special interest.
I don’t know who you are (although I can narrow the list to a handful who would have a stake in CRA events while having NO CLUE about Anaheim…) but you are barking up the wrong tree, honey. Educate yourself before you embarrass the entire organization.
“So will you be helping these projects apply for wind and solar energy subsidies from the government?”
That is not my intention. Hoever, let me take the opportunity to draw the sharp distinction between government programs available to everybody and gifts doled out specifically to the clients of a well-known local lobbyist and string-puller.
For your information, O Pringlite, alternative energy sources are comparatively expensive because fossil fuel production and its use to generate electricity have broad social and environmental costs that are presently not really paid by anybody on the production side. It’s rather like when you dump your sewage in the river and let the folks downstream worry about toxic fish. The fish you catch and consume upstream of your pipe are still quite tasty.
If it makes you feel any better, Cynthia, Connor Traut is an almost sure bet to betray Art Montez sooner or later.
P.S. True CRA dude: thanks for the publicity!
Educate yourself before you embarrass the entire organization.
Ms. Ward, it is you who embarrass the CRA by calling it hypocritical and rejecting core CRA principles.
I’m aware that in very recent elections you have supported Democrats and union Republicans for local office, so you have no standing to criticize any other Republican for doing that. Also, it’s disingenuous to say Tait didn’t support Jose Moreno for council. You’re asking us to believe Tait didn’t vote for Moreno? It was obvious their campaigns were cooperating. It’s public knowledge Tait’s brother gave the maximum campaign contribution to Moreno; it’s unlikely he’d have done so without clearing it with his brother beforehand.
And now you and Tait are opposed to making it harder to raise taxes in Anaheim. That’s hardly in keeping with CRA’s mission.
Mr. Zenger:
So you aren’t opposed to corporate subsidies after all. It just depends on how they are structured. Thank you for clarifying.
Mr. True CRAer, please re-read my comment and try to grasp what I said. I think you might be able to do it if you bear down.
But since this post is about Kris Murray, not me, please explain why Kris Murray deserves any sort of respect by your organization. Didn’t your crowd invent the term RINO?
I do understand your comment. You said one kind of government subsidy is better than another. Will you assist FRD projects in applying for government wind and solar subsidies? You can probably answer that question if you bear down.
Alas, Jerb, you appear to be the recipient of a deficient education. Sorry. I can’t help anymore
The Anaheim City Council can’t increase taxes; only the Anaheim electorate can do that, and it requires a 2/3 vote. That would probably only happen in a legitimate emergency, such as when the bills for Kris Murray’s drunken-sailor-like spending come due and the city is seeking an alternative to bankruptcy.
Are you a big fan of civic bankruptcy? I suppose that it is a good chance to get some of the city’s public assets for pennies on the dollar. My feeling though is that if the situation is dire enough for 67% of the public to want a new tax, a minority of city council members, maybe with picking over scraps on their minds, should not automatically be able to obstruct it, and send the city into chaos.
This is especially true if the problem could be solved by a measly $1 gate tax.
Whoa…we will address the rest but when have you EVER heard me not stand for the unborn? Those are fighting words beyond anything I have ever heard here, and I have been insulted by some of the best. Richard and I have always been and will always be the loudest in our crowd when it comes to defending those without a voice, and nowhere is that more critical than to those in the womb. It is an abomination that the one place a child should be safest, is the place they are now the most in danger. I oppose all forms of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, period, end of discussion. You take that one back, and take it back NOW.
Now let’s get to the bottom of an obvious attempt to smear me just before the CRA Convention when you clearly know we have a dispute to settle with the Anaheim unit. Nice try. Stupid, but I admire the effort.
To clarify, I support smaller and less intrusive government, in all forms, and it seems to me that the one place government should NOT be involved is marriage. When two consenting adults wish to join their lives, domiciles, private property, etc, who is the government to dictate conditions on that decision? The arguments that same sex marriage weakens traditional marriage is not only wildly unproven (the only way homosexuality affects my marriage is if my husband runs off with another man, and at that point I have bigger problems than whether or not they can marry each other.) Indeed I believe challenges to same sex marriage have failed in court because those bringing the challenges lack standing in a legal context, they are not affected by homosexuality in any way. So that is a non-argument.
Now you might make the statement that it is against Biblical standards, but government is not to dictate adherence to religious beliefs. This is for our own protection, while the majority may claim to subscribe to a Judeo-Christian belief system (despite a clear failure to live by it based on the divorce rate within the church being identical to that outside the church) what happens when we are no longer in the majority? Can you say “hello Sharia law?” Sorry that is a precedent I don’t want to set for future generations, do you? So while we are free to live our lives as Americans with a choice of religious beliefs we may not impose our religious beliefs on other Americans, and that is what is happening with the bans on marriage equality. It is un-American.
It is also hypocritical. I have read the statement of beliefs for the GOP and CRA, and while they oppose marriage equality with a claim of undermining traditional marriage, they say NOTHING about opposing divorce, or requiring members to be married prior to “shacking up” together, and they most certainly fail to address the prevalence of addiction to pornography which studies have shown afflicts more extreme right leaning Christians than any other demographic. That addiction leaves marriage which appear intact and perfect on the outside, but the husband has escaped to a phony replacement for relationship on a computer screen while the wife is left shattered, humiliated, and unloved by the husband who has turned away from her. When the extreme right that I align myself with in other areas actually addresses the true threats to traditional marriage, which ARE under the control of those engaged in traditional marriages, THEN we might look around at something else to work on. So in this area I hope to either sit down and shut up when it comes to being involved in a larger organization for the greater good, or work to focus the organization on taking aim at the real threats to traditional marriage in order to truly SUPPORT traditional marriage with common sense instead of hysteria and finger pointing.
On Driver’s Licenses for undocumented immigrants. Yes, you have seen my horror documented at how many citizens are killed, injured or suffer property damage in California because we have failed to facilitate a way or those who are ALREADY DRIVING illegally to actually become trained in the laws of the road, register and INSURE the cars they are already driving. Failure to offer licenses does not keep these illegal drivers off the road, it simply keeps them from insuring the cars they then use to hit us because they never learned how to drive them. Unlike our lefty jerk of a Governor, I do not equate Driver’s Licenses with some form of authorization to be here, I thin if you are here for any reason, with or without documentation, if you operate a vehicle in California for anything over a long weekend’s trip to Disneyland you should be checked to ensure you know California’s laws, have your vehicle registered and insured. Stop confusing a license to drive with authority to overstay your visa.
Now did you have input on the bond issues this post was about? Or did you just want to set me up for the CRA Convention next weekend? And next time put your name on accusations.
I was misinformed about your abortion stance, and if you can state here you support making abortion illegal from conception to birth, I’ll take you at your word and offer my apology.
“…while the majority may claim to subscribe to a Judeo-Christian belief system…what happens when we are no longer in the majority?”
An interesting question, and beside the point. Starting off CRA’s “What We Believe” statement is this statement:
Judeo-Christian Foundation: We believe in the guiding force of moral law as expressed by the Judeo- Christian ethic and contained in the Holy Scriptures of these historic faiths.
If you disagree with that, you should re-consider being an officer, let alone a member, of an organization whose first principle is that Judeo-Christianity is the foundation and guiding force of our form of government.
CRA’s belief statement also declares:
Family: We believe that the traditional American family, defined as any persons related by blood, marriage of a man and a woman and/or adoption, is the cornerstone of our American society, and the government is duty bound to protect the integrity of the family unit through legislation and taxation policies.
You say the CRA is being hypocritical on this issue. But aren’t you being a hypocrite by representing, as an officer, the CRA when you disagree with it on such a fundamental issue? Why have you joined and become an officer of a group you consider hypocritical?
You’ve confirmed your support for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. This is a legal document that is used for many purposes other than just operating an automobile, and you want to give it to people who are living in the United States in violation of the law.
Were the other members of the Anaheim Republican Assembly aware that you reject key CRA principles and hold CRA to be hypocritical on traditional marriage? Did you pay them the respect of being honest about your views?
This is not an attempt to smear you, Ms. Ward. But your disregard for several fundamental CRA principles calls into question whether you believe in CRA’s mission, or if your membership is purely political and personality driven.
You’d better clear out all of your political and personality driven members. Then you can hold your meetings in a broom closet.
BTW, when you refer to Holy Scripture are you including the part where slavery and polygamy are tolerated? Just curious.
“It’s OK because other people are doing it.” You are a very principled man, Mr. Zenger.
Just curious: you do understand the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t the same thing as Biblical literalism? I get that you think you are being very clever, Mr. Zenger, but you come across as anything but that.
“You are a very principled man, Mr. Zenger”
Thank you.
You are the one who referred to Scripture, not me. So you are picking and choosing which parts of Holy Writ support your moral and social agenda right? Your “Judaeo-Christian” religio-philosophy is really not much more than a convenient moralistic cafeteria where you have selected your own likes and ignored the dislikes.
Got it.
You missed the sarcasm.
I re-printed a section of the CRA statement of beliefs, which makes no reference to polygamy or slavery. It refers to the moral law expressed in the Bible. We get it: it’s becoming clear you think the Bible in particular and religion in general are mumbo-jumbo. You bring up polygamy/slavery because you think it’s some trump card that exposes how ridiculous Christianity is, as if being a Christian means following Old Testament dietary laws. Come back when you have an educated understanding of Christianity and the Bible. Then we might agree that you’re as smart as you think you are.
And capital punishment for disobedient children! Don’t leave out my favorite!
No Mr. True CRAer I believe that you and your kind are full of mumbo-jumbo. I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about.
Now you are talking about Christianity again, conveniently leaving out the OT. Without the OT, my friend, there is no NT.
By the way, I think you had better take a survey of your members to find out which of the trogs believes your repudiation of “Biblical literalism.”
I will be more than happy to compare my academic understanding of Scared Writ with yours any time you like. I never claimed to be smart or clever, but I am smarter and cleverer than you.
BTW, you write an awful lot like our old friend Wordsmith Cunningham – tedious, turgid and boring. Care to ‘fess up?
And “One Who Knows,” too.
I support the right to life from conception to birth and oppose abortion in all of its forms at all times. The BS argument of “health of the mother” is often twisted to any form convenient for the parties involved. I understand that Reagan greatly regretted signing the bill which he believed would reduce the harm of back room abortions which were a problem in CA in the period he was Governor, only to realize to his horror he had opened the door for more abortions than ever before.
I agree with CRA in support of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and consider Jesus Christ to be my personal Savior, paying for my sins with his own sinless blood, and I have no problem making public statements to that effect, even signing my own name to it, which makes me a stronger witness than our bogus CRA friend.
I don’t know anyone who agrees with everything put into statements by the organizations we support and belong to, and generally when one agrees with the basics but disagrees on the finer details of how to implement the agreed upon beliefs it is pretty safe to join the group and either sit out that issue or see if one can offer a positive alternative. Is there room in CRA for those who want to support traditional marriage by working on No Fault Divorce laws that damage families far beyond marriage equality’s non-effects on marriage? Or is CRA only open to those who think in exacting lock step with you and thus an offer to support a common goal with alternative means would be rejected? Is the only means for supporting marriage limited to denying others the right to enter into a legal agreement I personally find highly satisfying? Or could we perhaps focus on the biblical mandate to remove the log from our own eyes before we go after the splinter in the eyes of our neighbors? May God help us if YOU are the voice of CRA, but then I suspect not, or you would put your name on this little diversionary tactic.
I agree with CRA in support of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but I can find NO biblical mandate for forcing our beliefs upon others under the authority of the law. Indeed Christ told us to do otherwise, to offer the good news of salvation to those willing to listen. But when we encounter those not open to our beliefs or who hold to a different set of beliefs, we are to shake the dust of that town off our sandals. Can you show me where Christ ordered us to force a contested interpretation of the Bible onto others using the force of Caesar?
Fighting abortion is not a religious choice masquerading as law, one need only view the development of a baby (we can call it fetal tissue for the comfort of lefties reading this blog) but nobody is going to tell me the little life of my first grandchild growing inside my daughter is not my grandchild just because a court says it isn’t. Basic science says there is life there and that absent outside interference that life will continue to the point of independence.
In contrast, disputing the case for marriage equality is absolutely a religious issue, and when our friends in the far right fight on this issue they use Scripture, not ultrasound images proving the scientific viability of a claim that what my neighbors do with their marriages somehow affects my own.
I can be a Christian without insisting that all around me follow my religion, are you saying I cannot be a member of the CRA unless I am willing to force CRA’s views on everyone in California? That seems like a pretty scary group to belong to, are you sure you signed up for the right organization? The one with the hoods was meeting down the hall.
I was intrigued by this bit of pretzel logic that Murray used to work in the gate tax: “What do these taxes have in common: Sales and use taxes, utility taxes, gate taxes? They are all taxes that disproportionately affect working families and raise the cost of living for all residents, workers and visitors.”
In an age where going to Disneyland or an Angels game is increasingly a luxury good, one can hardly call a, say, $1 surcharge on a Disneyland or Angel ticket a regressive tax that’s wringing bread away from the bleeding lips of the starving poor.
And her concern for the visitor is touching — what churlish, poor hosts we would be if we didn’t make a visit to our fair city a pleasure to be enjoyed by all, regardless of economic strata! Except that Murray has no problem at all with taxing the hell out of visitors via the TOT — and then turning around and giving that money to favored groups before it ever reaches city coffers.
Perhaps Murray could become a libertarian hero by abolishing the TOT altogether! Then if a developer needs a little extra cashflow to make a hotel deal pencil out, they could, oh, I don’t know, raise their room rates, instead of letting the city be the heavy.
Bingo. That sentence, right there, is going to haunt her political career forever.
To paraphrase Anatole France: Kris Murray, in her majesty, fights for both the well-off and the poor to be equally free of a Disney gate tax.
P.S. Cynthia – drunken sailors keep drinking until they’re out of booze.
That CRA drone sure went away pretty quick. It will be interesting to see who shows up in Sacramento this weekend with a print out of this to read into the record, as proof Cynthia Ward does not stand for CRA’s true principles. But then we would need a show of hands to ask how many in the room agree with EVERYTHING on the statement of beliefs….that would get interesting.
I wonder what part of supporting traditional marriage Steve Sarkis was backing when he signed up Todd Ament and his live in girlfriend? (For the record I don’t care who Todd lives with, but if we are going to play hard line conservative principles here…)
Looking forward to the CRA meeting in Sacramento this week end.
Yep, see ya there. You are flying right? We are driving. And apparently my spawn may be partying. So there is a plan.
Thank you so much for this, Cynthia! You, Greg, and the rest of the OJB crew serve as inspiration for all the rest of us shining light on the corporate welfare giveaways happening behind voters’ backs across the nation. I truly believe this is a critical issue that must be addressed, and one that can unite activists of integrity on the left & the right.
We can debate the purpose and the proper scope of public infrastructure, but clearly very few of us here believe government should be giving taxpayer dollars away to well-heeled interests who just so happen to line these politicians’ pockets. Just because Kris Murray calla herself a “fiscal conservative” doesn’t mean her actions actually are.