America's Democrat Mayors Ruining the Country for Decades

"In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous." —Tacitus

Forbes.com's  Kurt Badenhausen detailed America's Most Miserable Cities, 2012 last week.  In formulating his thesis, Badenhausen writes,

 We looked at the 200 largest metropolitan statistical areas and divisions in the U.S. to determine America’s Most Miserable Cities. The minimum population to be eligible was 256,000. We ranked each area on 10 factors, including average unemployment rate between 2009 and 2011; median commute times to work for 2010 based on U.S. Census data; violent crimes per capita from the FBI’s 2010 Uniform Crime Report; and how pro sports teams fared in the area over the past three completed seasons. We included three housing metrics: the change in median home prices between 2008 and 2011; foreclosure rates in 2011, as compiled by RealtyTrac; and property tax rates based on median real estate taxes paid and median home values in 2010 per the U.S. Census. We also considered corruption based on convictions of public officials over the past decade in each region, as tracked by the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. Lastly, we factored in income tax rates and the weather in each metro on factors relating to temperature, precipitation and humidity.

While Badenhausen clearly articulates his methodology, I decided to take this story a step further.  After all, nothing ever happens in a bubble. Because Badenhausen made a factor the corruption of public officials based on conviction, I am curious which cities have had longstanding Democratic/Leftist administrations in the driver seat. 

So here is my supplemental list to Badenhausen's list:

10. Warren Michigan
Democratic, 1995-2007 (12 years) Republican James R. Fouts assumed the helm in 2007 leading the fight end members of Warren's many commissions and boards receiving of gifts from people with interests in decisions the boards have made or will make. To no avail.  The status quo lives on, fought by the Democratic majority that composes its council.

9. Rockford, Illinois
Democratic, for Decades Despite the election of an "Independent" for Mayor, the machinery still in place enables a tax-and-spend mentality and protection of the status quo.

 8. Toledo, Ohio
Democratic, As expected with any municipality run by a corrupt or crazy Democrat, Toledo scores poorly in income and property tax rates.  Democrat Mayor "Crazy-Carty" S. Finkbeiner was at the helm until 2010 when finally ousted by the Independent Michael Bell.

 7. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Democratic, James T. Naugle, a Democrat "Real Estate Developer" was at the helm as Mayor since 1991..and replaced in 2009 with another big-spender Democrat named Jack Seiler.

6. Chicago, Illinois
Democratic since the Kennedy Years. Under the tutelage of Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago politics is the poster child for back room deals, king making and  corruption.

 5. Sacramento, California
Democratic. Home to the Sacramento’s Kings who are threatening a move to Anaheim if  the city does not pony up the dollars a new arena. Democrat Kevin Maurice Johnson who enjoys a first in being Sacramento's first African American mayor, elected in 2008. He replaced Democrat Heather Fargo. And what did Mr. Johnson bring with him to Sacramento? Scandal. When Johnson, a former NBA star was under investigation for financial misdeeds and inappropriate behavior with young female students, he had an support of Michelle Rhee, the nationally known education reformer who heads Washington, D.C., public schools.

 4. West Palm Beach, Florida
Democratic. Democrats have been at the helm in West Palm Beach for a long time, the latest of which is Jeri Muoio who replaced Lois Frankel. Three county commissioners went to Jail in 2009 for selling the favors of their offices.

3. Flint, Michigan
Democratic. Ah yes, the home of the infamous Charlatan of dishonest documentary film, Michael Francis Moore, Flint Mayor Dayne Walling razed 775 abandoned homes in the year ending October 2011, to try and change the city landscape. The state of Michigan appointed an emergency manager last year to take over Flint's budget and operations. Crime remains a severe problem with the violent crime rate the third worst in the U.S.  Thanks Democrats!

2. Detroit, Michigan
Democratic. When I think of Detroit, Kwame Malik Kilpatrick is the first name that come to the fore. At the helm of Detroit for six years. Kilpatrick was alleged to have fulfilled a bad boy's bucket list detailing every conceivable major crime, indiscretion and unethical act while in the Mayoral post.

 1. Miami, Florida
Democratic. Another city that had a liberal democrat in charge for eight years, tops the list as one of the most miserable cities.  Miami is another such place where political dishonesty prevails. Mayor Manny Diaz lists himself as an independent, yet spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, endorsing Barack Obama. Democrats have always been bastions of "all things to all people." 

Based on results, hows' that workin' for ya?

Romney Advocacy For The Welfare State

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” —Willard "Mittens" Romney

That is what Mittens said...and the lefties will tear him to shreds over that very statement.  Especially the class warfare artisans in the political arena. While Romney is correct  about the poor having a social welfare safety net, It is that same "safety net" that creates government dependency and self-perpetuation of a system that its' patrons become dependent on, rather than self-sufficient and self-supporting.

This recent Romney statement is yet further evidence of "Romney the Chameleon" who tries to be all things to all people. The flip-flopper who says he is for something one day and against it the next.  The same Mittens Romney who spent millions of dollars to attack Newt Gingrich in Florida and spent few dollars on clear articulation of what he plans to do to create conditions, the economic environment and the pro-active culture to get the country back on track, self-sufficient and moving forward.

Remember how Mittens attacked Newt Gingrich when Gingrich suggested giving kids opportunities to have jobs, learn the value of hard work and receiving pay for work performed? Even some of the stupidest among us understand the value of creating a cultural work ethic. Newt did and Romney pandered.

Romney is right in his approach to not be concerned about the poor because the welfare state will always be with us creating a dependent class of people who suck on the government that gives them a subsisting lifestyle of perpetual dependence, continually calling for the mighty hand of government to rescue them and take care of them. The "Nanny-State."  That is the status quo. That is why our country is in trouble and If Mittens is the nominee, there will be little definable in comparing Mittens to Barack Obummer.

Romney is a rich guy. It is okay to be a rich guy. Wealth is good. But to ham-handedly advocate for the welfare state, is little more than a willingness to reinforce the notion of a caste system and that is what Romney did, intended or not.  Like the old saying goes, "I got me and mine, F*ck you and yours" 

Wardrobe Malfunction?

"A lot of women are turned off by the physical appearance of some of the first feminists." —Helen Reddy

How well did our esteemed Secretary of State think out her wardrobe, make-up and styling before making a very public U.N. appearance?  I am going to get skewered for this but am I the only one who picked up on it?  "Just sayin'"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sporting a shiek 'Dr. Evil' look for U.N. face time

 

RINO OF THE WEEK REPORT

 

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."—Sen. Barry Goldwater

Representative Marshall E. "Lee" Quandt, Rockingham District 13 is this week's RINO OF THE WEEK.  Representative Quandt tends to be "Clintonista" with his navigation of the New Hampshire political Fabric and based on his New Hampshire House Republican Alliance Scorecard, he enjoys some modicum of success doing that.

But when one actually takes the time to drill down and look at the combination of advocacy, public statements, who Quandt attacks, what he says when he attacks and what he is loyal to, a clear picture emerges. Machiavellian political survival is the modus operandi for this brand of RINO. Such triangulation where so many politicians seek to be all things to all people is frequently sought after, but seldom achieved.  But Rockingham County is unique unto itself. There are many House Representatives in Rockingham who truly believe in liberty principles, less government and fiscal responsibility. A government that is accountable, accessible and willing to engage in a dialog with the very folks who elect them.

Back in July of last year, my fellow Grok writer underscored the differences when he wrote, Rockingham 14 has RINO written all over it.  While he spoke of Quandt's district next door, the thesis of Steve's post underscores why RINO's are a major problem.  A Quandt is in the thick of contributing to the fiscal status quo.

Representative Quandt is a RINO. This is the same Representative who comes to NRA Banquet Dinners, hat in hand, seeking the endorsement of the NRA and then votes against every gun bill in the legislature with only a few exceptions. Representative Quandt has a deep and abiding fealty to Unions who comprise a small minority in the American Labor force, yet seeks to impose their will on rest of us. Quandt voted against the removal of the evergreen clause and voted against right to work. But not only did he vote against right to work, he was right out in front should to shoulder with Union hacks. Representative Quandt wrote a blog on January 14 using descriptors, categorizations and pejoratives only so commonly used by the liberal left. In that blog he stated,

"[I]n the next election and it will be up to you the voters to join the fight and vote them out of office and keep those who are running out."

In that same blog, he grossly mischaracterized an opposite editorial written by the New Hampshire Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Carolyn McKinney. On January 15 I wrote about Quandt's hit piece.  The difference between my article and Quandt's was that I had the courage to include the exact texts (both Quandt's and McKinney's) so that readers could judge for themselves. Moreover, Quandt ducks any accountability. He has no e-mail address either on his house listing or on his blog for Exeter News Service; He leaves no link to interact or comment on the writing;  Nor does he deal directly with verifiable facts when he writes, expecting readers to assume he accurate. Charlatanry is dishonesty by another name.

Because Representative Quandt is so ready and willing to jump into bed with those whose postions are antithetical to liberty, responsible, limited and fiscally restrained government, He garners this week's title of RINO OF THE WEEK.  Do wear this title like a badge of honer, Lee. That is yet another hallmark RINOS seem to share.

Gay Weddings Debated. Why?

There's nothing wrong with being gay. I have plenty of friends who are going to hell. —Stephen Colbert

HB 1264, sponsored by Representatives Jerry Bergevin of Manchester and Frank Sapareto of Derry met with a firestorm of opposition from the Gay Community along with religious and civil rights groups mouthpieces. The Union Leader intriguingly, made this a gay/straight issue through the context of their reporting, despite nothing in the bill making any direct (or even indirect) reference to any group respectively.

 “This will lead to bigotry and discrimination,” said Roberta Barry of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, as reported in a Staff Report of the Wednesday Edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader.  Barry goes on to assert,  “It appears to legislate that you can pick and choose what laws to follow based on your conscience ... Where does it stop? Will we be able to one day say, ‘It’s against my conscience to pay property taxes?’” Other opponents of the legislation likened it to, "Nazi-era laws," and the "Jim Crow South."

Woah! "It's against my conscience to pay property taxes?  Nazi-era laws? Jim Crow South?  Pure demagoguery.

I decided then to actually look at the bill. I looked at the Bill, read it carefully and then read it again. I thought perhaps I had missed something. I thought I had perhaps missed, overlooked or failed to apprehend the section singling out gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals or whomever else is perceived to be included in that mix. The reason is that it simply is not there. The bill says marriage. not gay marriage...same-sex marriage or whatever term is correct and appropriate in the present era of paper-thin sensibilities. HB 1264 states,

"[N]o person, including a business owner or employee thereof, shall be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage and providing such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges would be a violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith."

Let me be clear. Do I think the passage of such a law will likely result in some refusal or denial of services attributable to sexual orientation? more than likely. Do I think it will be systemic and widespread? Absolutely not. In fact, I think for every one business that turns away from the gay community, there are likely three other businesses willing and eager to count the gay community's money to be as green as anybody elses'.

And such "discrimination" under this statute cuts both ways. If a gay couple owns a bed and breakfast, what is to stop that same couple from refusing honeymoon lodging to a hetero couple under a religious pretext? Or a gay baker who makes cakes?

I hold to the view that the State has no business "licensing" marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a civil one. In fact, I think my own state-issued marriage license is a sham. I am married to my wife because of the religious ceremony, not because the state gave me permission. So what is to stop me from denying services to people who obtain state-issued marriage licenses because I conscientiously object to the notion of the state sanctioning marriage?

I do not care what the gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual community thinks about my view point. After all, why should I? Certainly, they do not care about mine to the extent they call me a bigot and a homophobe? The reality here is that only those who fall in lock step with the gay, lesbian and bi-sexual community are truly "tolerant" while those whose views differ are, "intolerant."

There are still many among us who marry, yet do not obtain a state-issued marriage license. The Amish and factions of Menonites are two such groups, for example.  Show me a gay couple willing to sue an Amish community who refuses to provide some goods they hold out for sale because for religious reasons, they object? How many Amish do we have in the Granite State? Probably no more than a few. But the larger point here is those who advocate for Gay rights, seek to do so by force of law, irrespective of religious object and they are the contemporary self-appointed vanguards in deciding who is tolerant and who is not. So where is the human equity in that?

Cross-posted at GraniteGROK