Mountain Views News          Saturday, April 28, 2012

15

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, April 28, 2012 

HOWARD Hays As I See It


ARIZONA STANDS UP TO THE 
FEDERAL POWER GRAB

Arizona’s immigration enforcement law is the subject of another Supreme 
Court case that explores the proper role of the Federal Government vs. the 
states. As with the Obamacare case, the Obama administration’s suit against 
Arizona claims the federal government has powers which aren’t found in 
any logical reading of the Constitution. So the real story here is not about 
immigration, but about the usurpations of power at the expense of the states 
and the people of the United States.

Arizona has been so adversely affected by illegal immigration that its duly 
elected legislature and governor passed a law in 2010 directing state police to 
enforce existing federal immigration laws by informing federal immigration 
officials if someone they’ve arrested can’t prove legal residence in the United States. The law doesn’t 
direct the police to deport the person. The law doesn’t direct the police to stop people because they 
“look like” they might be illegal. There’s not a hint of racial profiling or prejudice. 

The law specifically directs the police to only inquire about someone’s legal status if they already 
have probable cause. It also requires non-citizens to carry proof of their status with them. This 
is something that existing federal law already requires, and it’s something that every other 
industrialized country in the world requires. In fact, if you visit Europe, not only will a police 
officer ask to see your passport if you’re stopped for something, but the hotel front desk clerk will 
ask for it just to give you a room for the night.

The court case is not about immigration. The administration is arguing in court that Arizona has 
violated the constitution’s “supremacy clause”, which state that federal laws pre-empt state laws. 
What’s pretty obvious from the questions asked during oral argument is that the Justices don’t 
seem to see this conflict. Since the Arizona law specifically directs state officials to enforce existing 
federal laws, one of the Justices asked somewhat incredulously whether the administration was in 
fact arguing that the federal government didn’t have an interest in seeing its own laws enforced. 
The administration lawyer did not have a very good come back for that. 

The court case has everything to do with the Obama administration’s apparent belief that 
the constitution has no authority to limit what the Obama administration wants to do. If the 
administration really objects to the enforcement of existing immigration laws, it could easily have 
changed those laws in 2009 or 2010 when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the 
White House. Of course, they would have at least had to go on record that this is what they wanted 
to do. They would’ve had to write the legislation, pass it, send it to the President for signature, and 
then taken whatever political heat might have come from it. Clearly, they didn’t want to do this. 
They couldn’t be bothered with actually following the constitutional process of passing a law and 
facing the voters for the decision they made.

The Obama administration simply rules the way it wants, diminishes the Supreme Court’s right 
to even consider passing judgment, and publicly mocks the court for any decisions with which 
it disagrees. When the Supreme Court declared restrictions on political advertising to be 
unconstitutional, the President used the occasion of his State of The Union address to criticize 
the Justices before the entire nation. As the Supreme Court considered the merits of Obamacare, 
the administration publicly challenged the court’s authority to overturn any law passed by a 
Democratic congress – later having to apologize for that insult. Lastly, before the legal arguments 
in the Arizona case even began, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer threatened to overturn the 
decision if the Justices dared to side with Arizona in this case. 

Whether you support our current immigration laws or not, as Americans, we should all recoil at the 
thought of any administration declaring that it has the sole power to decide whether laws should 
be enforced, or to mock the process of judicial review or to threaten to judges before – or after – 
they’ve passed their judgment. Chalk it all up to one more major issue that will be decided in the 
next election.

Gregory J. Welborn is an independent opinion columnist. He writes and speaks frequently on political, 
economic and social issues. His columns have appeared in publications such as The Los Angeles Daily 
News, The Orange County Register, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today. He can be reached at 
gwelborn@mtnviewsnews.com. 

“If we had run more ads, we 
could have killed Obama.”

- Republican bankroller 
Harold Simmons

 

 In a recent article for 
New York Magazine, Frank 
Rich used financier Harold 
Simmons to exemplify the 
new breed of billionaire “sugar 
daddy” attempting to buy this 
year’s elections. Simmons made his fortune as 
a pioneer of the leveraged buyout, employing 
his “all debt and no equity” philosophy to buy 
companies with other people’s money, reaping 
the rewards while leaving others holding the bag 
if things turned sour – the way Mitt Romney 
made his money at Bain Capital.

 Twenty years ago, Simmons attempted a 
takeover of Lockheed Corp., not because of an 
interest in airplanes, but the opportunity he saw 
to drain the funds of one of the company’s biggest 
investors – the California Public Employees’ 
Retirement System (CALPERS).

 In the above quote, Simmons expressed regret 
in a Wall Street Journal interview in not having 
spent more trying to link candidate Barack 
Obama with 1960’s radical William Ayres. Four 
years before, Simmons poured millions into 
“Swift Vets and POWs for Truth” to attack Sen. 
John Kerry (D-MA), employing the tactic of 
neutralizing a candidate’s strong point – in Kerry’s 
case, his record as a decorated war veteran.

 An early supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as 
of last month Simmons has funneled $18 million 
to Republican PACs, largely at the direction of 
Karl Rove. He describes President Obama as “the 
most dangerous American alive ... because he 
would eliminate free enterprise in this country.” 
He’s also upset with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission under the current administration 
for not allowing him to fill his West Texas 
radioactive waste dump, which Bloomberg News 
describes as “bigger than 1,000 football fields”.

 Frank Rich observes that while corporations 
may be worried about public perception and 
cover their bets by supporting both sides, the 
individuals he mentions are primarily concerned 
with their own fortunes. The “sugar daddies” he 
identifies (those contributing a million or more) 
are largely chemical and mining tycoons, hedge 
fund managers and real estate developers. Their 
concerns are gutting Wall Street regulation and 
environmental protection, and maintaining 
capital gains tax loopholes - not the restoration of 
a thriving middle class.

 For anonymously channeling funds, there’s the 
so-called “social welfare” or “educational” PAC, as 
distinguished from one that’s openly trying to get 
someone elected, that allows donors to hide their 
identities. Karl Rove set up two organizations; 
Crossroads GPS, the “educational” PAC, and 
“American Crossroads”, the political one. A 
donor can give anonymously to Crossroads GPS, 
and then down the line American Crossroads gets 
a large gift identified as being from Crossroads 
GPS.

 As of the end of last year, Crossroads GPS 
took in $76.8 million, with 90% of that coming 
from twenty-four $1 million-plus donors, with 
a couple at $10 million-plus. That’s 62% of the 
$123 million total raised by Rove’s two groups 
(which share the same president and mailing 
address) over the past two years – more than Sen. 
John McCain (R-AZ) spent in his entire general 
election campaign.

 President Obama’s corresponding PAC couldn’t 
reach a tenth of that, reporting $6.7 million (with 
two contributions of a million dollars – from Bill 
Maher and Jeffrey Katzenberg). Rich cites Center 
for Responsive Politics’ figures that only 10% of 
Mitt Romney’s total has come from contributions 
of $200 or less, vs. 45% of Obama’s.

 Among Romney’s major donors, Rich identifies 
John Paulson, who collaborated with Goldman 
Sachs in betting against the housing market and 
reaping a fortune when it collapsed, and Paul 
Singer, who profits from “trafficking in third 
world debt” – seeking multi-billion settlements 
from Argentina to Peru, from Greece to the 
Congo, further impoverishing countries around 
the world to enrich his hedge fund (in which Mitt 
Romney is a million-dollar investor).

 There are more familiar names like Charles and 
David Koch, who inherited hundreds of millions 
in mining and oil interests from their father, a 
founding member of The John Birch Society. 
According to Greenpeace, they’ve spent nearly 
$40 million since 2005 on organizations pushing 
climate-change denial. They’re also heavily 
invested in state governments, bankrolling the 
efforts of those like Wisconsin Republican Gov. 
Scott Walker to gut state regulations and bust 
public sector unions.

 Rich relates the current campaign not so much to 
F.D.R.’s railing against bankers and corporations, 
but to the robber barons of the Gilded Age. To 
protect their power, they bankrolled the election 
of William McKinley, outspending Democrats by 
a ratio of 23-1. Writers of the day such as Mark 
Twain observed they were not interested in a free 
market, but one they controlled. Competition 
was squelched, judges and politicians bought, 
to achieve monopolistic power. Ironically, the 
assassination of McKinley brought to office his 
vice-president, Theodore Roosevelt – and the 
Gilded Age became the Progressive Era.

 The attitude of the modern robber barons 
reflects their forbearers, as described by Rich: 
“Anything and anyone is expendable in pursuit 
of a profit, starting with the powerless, and 
any brushes with the law along the way, not to 
mention civil or criminal financial penalties, 
are simply the price of doing nasty business . . . 
they are lone wolves responsible to no one but 
themselves - not independent shareholders, let 
alone the communities they plunder.”

 As I see it, it’s a perversion of J.F.K.’s “Ask not . 
. .” line: It’s not how they can serve their country, 
but how the country, and the rest of us in the 
99%, can serve them.

 The Pennsylvania primaries last week made 
news by sealing Mitt Romney’s nomination. 
Perhaps more significantly, it also saw the defeat 
of two “Blue Dog” Democratic congressmen by 
progressive challengers. As June 5 approaches, 
it appears Gov. Walker will be recalled and 
the Koch brothers will lose their lease on the 
Wisconsin state capital.

 If the trend continues, come November the 
Sugar Daddies will realize that despite the 
millions they pour into the process, on election 
day their vote will be worth no more than anyone 
else’s.


AMERICA’S MOST DESIRABLE JOBS

By Tom Purcell 

“I’d be happy to have any job on the list, if you want to know the truth.”

“Ah, yes, you speak of the CareerCast.com ‘2012 Jobs Rated Report,’ 
which classifies the most and least desirable jobs in the U.S.”

“That’s right. The worst job of 200 on the list, No. 200, is lumberjack. 
I’d be happy to swing an ax if they pay me.”

“But the report says lumberjacks work on the hottest and coldest 
days of the year -- that their occupation is dangerous and their pay 
is low.”

“A modest earned income is better than none.”

“I feel your pain. The March jobs report was disappointing yet 
again. Unemployment fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent, but only 
because discouraged workers left the labor force. Some argue the 
real unemployment rate is in the mid- to high teens.”

“Yeah, that is why a ‘good’ job these days is almost any job that pays.”

“It’s interesting you say that. It wasn’t long ago in America when a 
‘good’ job was any job that could support a family.”

“So true. My grandfather was a coal miner, who considered himself lucky. My dad poured molten steel 
in a mill. I was the first in my family to go to college. I dreamt of my dream job. I did OK, too, until the 
Great Recession.”

“So a ‘good’ job still is any job that will support your family?”

“Absolutely. I’d take any of the worst jobs. Dairy farmer is No. 199 on the list. They may work hard, but 
at least there is a demand for their product. Enlisted military personnel, No. 198 on the list, may face 
danger, but the pay is steady and the grub is free -- have you seen the price of grub lately?”

“Fair enough, but No. 197 on the list is oil rig worker. That is a hard, dirty job, and don’t those rigs 
blow up now and then?”

“Who cares? The pay is good and the overtime is better. I’d be happy to be a newspaper reporter (No. 196) 
or a waiter (No. 195) or a meter reader (No. 194). Reporters expose bad guys, waiters work with good-
looking waitresses, and if I were a meter reader, I’d inflict fear in people and finally get some respect.”

“You really have given up on your dream job.”

“Maybe I have. I’m no different than anyone else. The best jobs in the report don’t look like dream jobs 
to me.”

“According to the report, the worst jobs are characterized by working in bad weather, danger, low 
pay and poor hiring prospects, whereas the best jobs involve good pay, job security and working in 
climate-controlled buildings.”

“Software engineer is the No. 1 job for the second year in a row. Who wants to be trapped in an office 
cubicle all day, pecking on a keyboard and dealing with IT geeks?

“Fair enough.”

“The No. 2 job is actuary? You get to do math all day for a boring insurance company? How about 
human resources manager (No. 3)? All HR people do nowadays is make sure companies comply with a 
million federal regulations so they don’t get sued.”

“Perhaps.”

“Dental hygienist is the No. 4 job in America? Rooting around in the mouths of people with bad breath? 
How is that better than being a dairy farmer?”

“But what about the No. 5 job -- financial planner?”

“Like Bernie Madoff, who bilked thousands out of millions of dollars and lived the high life until he got 
caught? Now there’s a dream job appropriate for the times in which we live.”

©2012 Tom Purcell. Tom Purcell, a freelance writer is also a humor columnist for the Pittsburgh 
Tribune- Review


INDEPENDENT’S EYE by Joe Gandelman 

HOW TO MAKE MITT ROMNEY MORE LIKEABLE


Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney is 
lagging way behind President Barack Obama on “likeability” 
in several polls. Analysts say it’s not easy to bring those 
numbers up. So here’s a suggestion: Romney should use more 
humor. He should use self-depreciating humor and reworded 
“switched” classic jokes. Romney should do something like this:


“Hi, folks. I’m Mitt Romney and I’m running for President 
against Barack Obama. Obama wants four more years. My 
teeth are brighter than his handling of the economy. Sorry I’m 
late but I was delayed due to a session with my architect. We’re 
designing the car elevator for my La Jolla home. It supports half 
the weight of the elevator custom built to carry Rush Limbaugh. 
Now we need an Election Day elevator to move Barack Obama.


“I visited Obama at the White House for lunch today and his chef gave me a hot dog, using 
a childhood recipe of Obama’s. It was OK, but it was hard to get it in my mouth with the 
dachshund’s legs wiggling out of the bun.


“I got a million of them. Not jokes. Just dollars – and changed political positions.

 “Hey, my advisors told me to use humor, so sit back and enjoy it. ‘Sit back and enjoy it’ – that’s 
the new slogan of the Secret Service. What’s the big deal about this Secret Service scandal, 
anyway? The accused agents were only doing to hookers what Washington does to voters.


“Last night I invited Newt Gingrich over for dinner. I took one look at Newt and said, 
‘Newt, are you wearing a girdle?’ He said yes. I said, ‘How long have you been wearing 
a girdle?’ He said, ‘Ever since Callista found it in the glove compartment of my car.’


“People ask me about my speeches and my need for zingers. I had a great zinger about Obama 
using Teleprompters, but didn’t deliver it yesterday because my staff forgot to put it on my 
Teleprompter. People say I don’t like common people. I do -- if they’re properly cooked.


“Well, THAT joke tanked. That’s the last time I’ll buy switched jokes from Grover Norquist. 


“All the talking heads and other Republicans including Jeb Bush say I have to do better with Hispanic 
voters. Oh, really? Hispanic voters love me. I was in California the other day and after I spoke to 
a Latino audience they gave me a nickname: El Gran Estupido. They told me it’s a name many 
Latinos already call me. I also visited Chinatown. They gave me a name in Chinese: Yu So Dum.


“These are the jokes, folks. Well, actually the real jokes are at the Democratic National Committee. 
My advisors told me a candidate who’s too stiff is as out of place as Ted Nugent at a meditation 
class. My advisors say I have to be more loveable. You know the saying “All the world loves a lover.” 
Except in the Secret Service. Gotta run. I have to pick a Vice President. I was thinking of New 
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, but he’d cause too much damage when I tie him to the roof of my car.”


If Romney did jokes his poll numbers would immediately rise. You can imagine the reaction of cable 
talk show hosts:

Sean Hannity: ”Romney has always been a scream and a wit but the liberal media is biased and 
censored it. George Zimmerman’s brother will be on in a moment to discuss this media bias.”
Rachael Maddow: “Today we saw the emergence of a new Mitt Romney who tells jokes. 
Mitt Romney was telling jokes which was the emergence of a new Romney. Jokes were 
told by Mitt Romney which is new. The emergence today of Mitt Romney telling jokes was 
new. What was new today was Mitt Romney telling jokes – jokes, sentences or paragraphs 
that contain set ups and punch lines. Mitt Romney told them today. It emerged. “


Keith Olbermann: “For his rotten jokes Mitt Romney is today’s worst person in the world. No, wait. 
The worst person in the world is the limo guy who drove me to the studio. He smelled and talked to 
me.”


Joe Gandelman is a veteran journalist who wrote for newspapers overseas and in the United States. 
He has appeared on cable news show political panels and is Editor-in-Chief of The Moderate Voice, an 
Internet hub for independents, centrists and moderates. CNN’s John Avlon named him as one of the top 
25 Centrists Columnists and Commentators. He can be reached at jgandelman@themoderatevoice.com 
and can be booked to speak at your event at www.mavenproductions.com.