We Must Elect SORENSEN, FILLMER and COOLIDGE to City Council

By Harold E.

Have you noticed these big 4 x 5 signs around town about” City salaries being too high (true) and then it endorses a combination of 3 candidates as the answer for Chico fiscal issues?  It’s the wrong combination, one of them (Gruendl) was part of the original problem!   The other two candidates, Sorensen and Coolidge are great.   But with Gruendl, we will create another liberal majority, if he gets back in and we don’t need that.   There’s not the slightest chance Gruendl would deal effectively with the fiscal needs of Chico. This is Pollyannaish thinking. Sorensen, Fillmer and Coolidge are the good candidates, they’re good fiscal managers, and they’re the ones that could really change Chico for the better.

All in all, the suggestion that Gruendl on that sign is just directing voters in the wrong direction with hopeful intentions. Hopeful is not the same as probable! The truth is, Sorensen, Fillmer and Coolidge will be the ticket to a better approach for sound fiscal budget. Re-electing Gruendl will only extend the problems of wasteful spending by keeping council a liberal majority. If this happens it will do nothing to benefit Chico’s taxpayers and all the problems we face, from our heavy city debt to bums on the streets hurting the downtown businesses.

Gruendl was (and still is) part of the problem. He voted with the liberals every chance he got prior and will continue to do so if reelected. So I think the signs complaining about high salaries and using Gruendl’s name may sway you in the wrong direction. SORENSEN, FILLMER, COOLIDGE along with Councilman Sean MORGAN would make a sensible conservative majority that is much needed. It’s the fiscally prudent direction for Chico! The liberals had their chance and they put us millions in debt.

To believe, as that sign suggested, that Gruendl is a solution to Chico’s fiscal woes is to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.

NOTICE:  Harold E. is expressing his personal opinion.  He is not connected in any way to any candidate or committee, he’s just stating his informed opinion and it’s important for you to know that.  -Jack Lee

PS – Do you have an opinion to share about our local elections? During the month of Oct. we will try to post as many reader’s opinions as we can.  And remember, to elect a good city council we MUST get a high voter turnout, otherwise the liberals will edge us out again.   They are organized and they have a solid base of voters who will turnout – we must match that and beat them.   We must get finally remove the liberals from the majority because they certainly do not represent the majority of Chico voters, they only represent their far left supporters.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to We Must Elect SORENSEN, FILLMER and COOLIDGE to City Council

  1. Libby says:

    By all means … refuse to decently pay the help. Then you won’t be able to get help.

    And you’ll be where you deserve to be … without help.

  2. Tina says:

    Bologna, Libby!

    It’s your side that is stingy and won’t “pony up.”

    NRSC.org:

    Nia-Malika Henderson at the Washington Post explains,

    “…this week was set to be the kick-off for Democrats’ midterm messaging, which at its core is all about finding issues that resonate on an emotional and economic level with the so-called Obama coalition, particularly single women. Well, things haven’t turned out so well for the Democrats and the White House, which has in the past been criticized for being a ‘boys club.'”

    Things got real embarrassing yesterday during yesterday’s press briefing.

    Jennifer Palmieri@JPalm44 – “Love all these guys, but note that 6 of 7 news orgs in front row sent men to ask @pressec abt the problem of gender pay inequity.”

    Ed Henry@edhenryTV – “WH sent man to podium right? RT @JPalm44 Love these guys, but 6 of 7 news orgs in front row sent men to ask @pressec abt gender pay inequity”

    The embarrassment didn’t end there.

    “White House press secretary faced a second day of questioning Tuesday afternoon about the White House’s own gender pay gap. According to an American Enterprise Institute study, women in the White House earn 88 percent of what men earn. Here’s where it got tricky and will likely stay tricky for the White House and Democrats trying to make the equal pay argument: If the 77 cents on the dollar figure is evidence of discrimination outside the workforce, isn’t the 88 cents on the dollar figure also evidence of discrimination in the White House?”

    Even if you accept the Democrats’ math, they don’t practice what they preach.

    The NRSC pulled the official payroll records for Democrat Senator offices and calculated the average pay for men and women for the most recent 6 month period available. Here’s what we found:

    · Mark Udall pays women 91 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
    · Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
    · Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
    · Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
    · Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

    On average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 80 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.

    When it comes down to it, Democrats don’t practice what they preach. They’re hypocrites.

    How bad had things backfired on Democrats by the end of the day? The Post summed it up best:

    “Republicans are on the offense on this issue now, conceding that there is gender discrimination, and offering their own ideas about what to do about it, namely banning retaliation against employees who disclose their own salaries. …Democrats don’t have a straight or even a new argument. But the Republicans do, and it starts with what women in the White House make and ends with their own proposals.”

    All Republicans support equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race.

    And it doesn’t end there:

    Larry Elder, Posted at News.Yahoo.com, “Democrats Love Taxes — They Just Don’t Want to Pay Them”

    USbacklash.org, “Criminal Tax Evasion – Democrats, Members of Congress, Federal Workers, Owe $1 Billion in Back Taxes!”

    Investors.com, “36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes”

    Wealthy Democrats also set up trust funds to avoid paying taxes even as they criticize the wealthy on taxes:

    WinteryKnight quoting a Frontpage Magazine article:

    FrontPage: Give us some of the best examples of the gulf between some liberals’ social criticisms and the ingredients of their private lives. Give us some insights, for instance, into the likes of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Cornel West, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Barbra Streisand.

    Schweizer: Looking for liberal hypocrisy is, as they say in the military, a target-rich environment. Noam Chomsky, for example, has attacked wealthy Americans who set up trusts to avoid paying inheritance taxes. But this self-professed “radical socialist” has a tax attorney and did the very same thing. (When I asked him about this hypocrisy he said it was okay because he and has family have been working on behalf of suffering people all these years.)

    Michael Moore’s hypocrisy is pathological. He has said numerous times that he doesn’t own a single share of stock and that capitalism is not acceptable “on any level.” And yet, I found that, according to tax returns filed with the IRS, he has owned shares in Halliburton, numerous oil companies, defense contractors and other multinationals through a tax shelter. When it comes he race he’s also wildly hypocritical. He says that Americans who happen to live in largely white neighbhorhoods do so because they are “racists.” But he lives in Central Lake, Michigan, which according to the U.S. Census has more than 2,500 residents and not a single black person in the entire town.

    Cornel West has numerous times condemned middle class blacks that abandon the “chocolate cities” for the “vanilla suburbs” but guess what, his flavour of choice is vanilla, too.

    Ted Kennedy likes to pose as the Robin Hood of the Senate, forcing wealthy Americans to pay their taxes to help the poor. But I discovered that Kennedys record of actually paying taxes is horrible. Tax the inheritance tax. He says that Americans should pay 49% to the IRS when they die in the name of “social justice.” But according to public records, the Kennedys have almost completely avoided contributing to “social justice” by placing their assets in trusts that are located overseas. The Kennedys, over the past thirty years, have paid less than 1% in inheritance taxes on more than $300 million. Ted Kennedy, like Hillary Clinton and George Soros, loves higher taxes. On other people.

    These Democrats fight tax reform because THEY don;t want to be subject to a flat tax…THEY LOVE LOOP HOLES!

    We all get to suffer the consequence of Democrats like you who vote year after year after decade for the party that won’t pony up and is lousy at economic policy!

  3. bob says:

    The biggest piece of the budget solution is to contract out police to the county and fire to Cal Fire. But none of the candidates will support that.

    In fact, none of them support bringing police and fire salaries and benefits into line with what sheriff’s department and Cal Fire pay.

    Therefore somewhere down the road it is likely the next council will increase taxes and fees and put a sales tax increase on the ballot, especially if the Paradise sales increase taxes in this election. (The Butte County DemoNcrats are of course supporting this.)

  4. bob says:

    The Paradise tax increase measure is measure C and it is for a half cent sales tax increase.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.