News Alert
South Kingstown Man Charged with Child Porn

The Sunday Political Brunch – Dec. 9, 2012

My political analysis!

(San Francisco, California) – I am in the Bay Area helping a good friend and client open a new restaurant in Napa, but as always there is a host of political issues to chat about this week, including big items here in California that could have a ripple effect across the nation:

It All Started Here – The U.S. Supreme Court met Friday to discuss how it would handle legal challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and other gay marriage issues. This will likely be the biggest civil rights-related case the U.S. Supreme Court has had to rule on since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, and it has some parallel considerations. In 2004, then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom shocked everyone by ordering the City Clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. At the time I said it was either political suicide, or the boldest political move I had ever seen, and that ultimately the U.S. Supreme would decide (the issue, and Newsom’s political fate). Well, almost nine years later, here we are. Newsom is now Lt. Gov. of California, but could seek higher office if his side wins in the Supreme Court.

Rice, Part II – For weeks I have been surprised by those Democrats who have criticized Republicans who oppose U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s possible nomination to be Secretary of State. Many have called it racist, saying Republicans oppose Rice simply because she is black. But Republicans point to Rice’s failed handling of the aftermath of the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as their reason. How ironic that people are so quick to play the race card. When you look at another Secretary of State nominee, with the same last name (and the same skin color and gender), no one made such claims. Condoleezza Rice was approved by the U.S. Senate on a vote of 87 to 13. But she was attacked for her competence. U.S. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) led the opposition saying that she wanted "to hold Dr. Rice and the Bush administration accountable for their failures in Iraq and in the war on terrorism." No one called Boxer a racist, so they shouldn’t call Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham racist either. Their votes are questioning Susan Rice’s competence, not her race; just as Sen. Boxer’s vote was on Condoleezza Rice’s competence. The race bating is out of bounds and represents a political double-standard.

A Taxing Question – While here in California I have been studying Proposition 30, which voters approved by a wide margin in November. It raises the state sales tax by .25 percent for the next four years, and it raises income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year (sound familiar), for the next seven years. The money is earmarked solely to fund public education in the state. I wonder if President Obama might look to why Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA), was successful in raising taxes, while Obama has not been successful to this point. My analysis is that Brown’s succeeded because, a) the taxes were temporary, with a specific time limit; and b) the money was specifically earmarked for something – namely education. As I have said before, if President Obama wants enough Republicans to support raising taxes on those making over $250,000 he has to give his opponents something. It’s political horse-trading time as we approach the fiscal cliff.

If I Were a Rich Man – In discussing the fiscal cliff, many reporters and politicians keep referring to people that make $250,000 as rich or wealthy. That’s not necessarily accurate or fair. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the cost of living and real estate prices are staggering, that level of income is hardly rich. For a family of four, trying to save and send kids to college, it’s a good middle-to-upper-middle class income, but it’s far from wealthy. The same is true in other expensive places to live, such as Washington, D.C., and New York City. Reporters, politicians (and others) would be more accurate in saying President Obama wants to raise the tax rates on the top 2 percent of wage-earners, or those who make more than $250,000 per year.

Is That the Same Gov. Jerry Brown? – On the East Coast, I get asked this a lot, because California has a two-term limit for Governor, and Jerry Brown already served two-terms from 1975 to 1983. It’s a great trivia question, but the answer is that term limits were passed after he left office, so he can’t be penalized by what’s known in the Constitution as an “ex post facto” law. He was elected again in 2010, and if he wins a second (technically a fourth) term in 2014, he will then be term limited.

Will He Run Again? – At age 74, Jerry Brown is in good health and is likely to seek his fourth and final term in 2014. Among the Republicans being mentioned as a possible challenger is someone we discussed above, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice is the former Provost of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. If it was a separate country, California would have the fifth largest economy in the world. It relies heavily on foreign trade, and Rice has a lot of international connections. She could give Brown a real challenge if she runs.

Misery Loves Company – Since I have most recently worked and lived in California and Rhode Island, I found a recent study by “24/7 Wall Street” amusing. It said the worst-run states in the U.S. were: 1) California, and 2) Rhode Island! I sure know how to pick where I live!!! In truth, I have loved my time in both states, the state governments notwithstanding.

As always, I welcome your questions, opinions and disagreements! Just click on the comment button at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.




This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Joe Sousa. December 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM
OBAMANOMICS EXPLAINED: Spreading the Wealth - YouTube
Naome Lixes December 18, 2012 at 05:19 PM
It's an embarrassment to have you as a neighbor. At least you'll have a friendly visit from the ATF, Secret Service and State Patrol to look forward too over the holidays. Maybe a nice pat down too, just for grins.
Dan Johnson February 07, 2013 at 05:48 PM
No one has explained how treating others as you would yourself under the law destroys religious values. No church can be required to perform any rite they choose not to. Some churches still refuse to marry inter-racial and inter-faith couples. That is their legal right. Yet some churches already perform same sex wedding ceremonies. Laws that deny equality, deny those churches the right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.
Dan Johnson February 07, 2013 at 05:54 PM
Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the Supreme Court. Equal fundamental rights of a minority should never depend on the popular opinion of a majority. "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (U.S. Supreme Court )
Dan Johnson February 07, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Allowing gay people to participate under the same rules applied to straigh people does not take away any rights from anyone and therefore does not harm anyone. It doesn't require any change in the rules and rights for straight people or their families. Gay people are already forming families, as they have throughout history. Denial of the equal rights won't change that fact. It will only harm those families. Yet allowing gay people the same opportunities you have won't harm you. Discrimination results in needless suffering, while equal treatment under the law harms no one.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »