Home > Politics & Marriage > What were they thinking? More reactions to the CA GOP

What were they thinking? More reactions to the CA GOP

September 19th, 2011

Based on what I saw and heard at this convention, I would have to conclude that the CA GOP doesn’t want to talk about social issues. Their general session featured report after report on everything but social issues. The workshops and panels: jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Now, my free market credentials are certainly in order: I taught in the George Mason University economics department for 10 years. My admiration for the free market is second to none. But, I certainly recall people accusing us of caring about property rights, not human rights, and accusing us of caring only about money, not people. I always tried to argue that property rights, properly understood, are human rights, and that money matters to real people.  

Well the CA GOP seemed determined to confirm this old stereotype.  Yes, the economy of CA is in bad shape and free market solutions would be a good thing. But there are plenty of other things to talk about, that would be good, unifying issues. For instance:

SB 48, the gay history textbook bill.  This bill is so bad that even the LA Times opposed it as being micromanaging of the school textbooks.  With the state in a budget deficit crisis mode, this is not a good use of time and money. But the most the CA GOP could do was to support the citizen initiative effort to repeal SB 48. The GOP is excited about money, but not about social engineering, I guess.  Do they think minority families want SB 48?

The Baby Sitter bill: This bill AB 889, requires “domestic employees” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers” to have worker compensation benefits, mandatory rest breaks every two hours, and paid vacation time.  So, you go out for the evening and hire a babysitter.  You have to be home within two hours, or provide a second babysitter to cover while the first babysitter takes a break.  What?!?!?  I’ve seen ridicule of this bill. But the only serious opposition I’ve seen has come from Doug LaMalfa, CA state senator in the 4th District, which covers a vast and predominantly rural area that encompassing 12 Northern California counties.  Couldn’t the CA GOP bestir itself to organize some opposition to this outrageous infringement on the personal and economic liberties of families?

AB101, unionizing child-care workers:  Senator La Malfa describes this in his column, Grandma Joins a Union.

AB 101 picks up where AB 889 leaves off.

Both licensed and license-exempt child care providers who receive state subsidies will be required to join an exclusive “provider organization” if 50% or more of those targeted “show interest.” Sign a card, join the union. No secret ballot required. No opting out. Suddenly, whether she likes it or not, Grandma is a dues-paying union member and an employee entitled to collective bargaining, negotiated benefits and union protection.

Under AB 101, dues will be involuntarily extracted from provider subsidy payments to grow the union, which can then be used to support political campaigns. Less money for providers, more for union representation. Your tax dollars at work.

The Service Employees International Union (that’s the SEIU, of purple shirt fame) loves AB101! They describe it as a “bill to keep California working” and to “fix our broken child care system.”  I’m not making this up.

The CA GOP wants to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.  But they can’t figure out a way to talk about AB101?  What are they thinking?

There is a coalition of conservative Californians threatening to bolt the Republican party if they continue to water down their pro-life and pro-marriage principles. And I would add, if they can’t figure out a way to talk about anything other than tax cuts and budget deficits.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Kevin
    September 19th, 2011 at 15:38 | #1

    If they do bolt, I hope they are smart and bolt into the Democratic Party. Third parties are narcissistic.

    The solution to an ineffective milquetoast GOP and a radical Democratic party is to eliminate the radicals from within. Don’t let them have a whole political party to themselves.

    Imagine pro-family delegates from California leading platform changes at the next DNC!

  2. September 20th, 2011 at 09:43 | #2

    I would guess that for most Californians, and most Americans, finding work and paying off bills and whatnot are far more important than preventing their gay neighbors from getting married.

  3. September 21st, 2011 at 08:04 | #3

    you really should read teh post before you comment on it, Emma. This post was not about redefining marriage. Of course, teh CA voters have already told us they approve of our position on that one: 7 million of them voted for Prop 8.

  4. September 21st, 2011 at 08:05 | #4

    Don’t any of our regular FREWI’s have anything to say about the Democratic bill that unionizes child care workers? or requires babysitters to have rest breaks? where are teh libertarians when you need them?

  5. September 21st, 2011 at 09:15 | #5

    Jennifer Roback Morse :
    Don’t any of our regular FREWI’s have anything to say about the Democratic bill that unionizes child care workers? or requires babysitters to have rest breaks? where are teh libertarians when you need them?

    You are referring to full-time nannies who are being entrusted with, for all intents and purpose, the raising of people’s children as “babysitters” and are arguing that they shouldn’t have rest breaks? Or are you saying that the bill is referring to the teenager next door? I don’t think the teenager next door is what they are talking about when they refer to domestic employees, though the bill itself seems unclear on an exact definition “domestic employee.”

  6. September 21st, 2011 at 09:20 | #6

    Just as a follow-up, what the bill actually says is:

    “California’s domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
    nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
    the elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
    safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians’
    lives: their families and homes.”

    This in no way implies that parents would now have to hire a second babysitter to cover the first babysitter’s break while they go out to the movies on a Friday night…

  7. Deb
    September 22nd, 2011 at 09:00 | #7

    Emma :
    Just as a follow-up, what the bill actually says is:
    “California’s domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
    nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
    the elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
    safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians’
    lives: their families and homes.”
    This in no way implies that parents would now have to hire a second babysitter to cover the first babysitter’s break while they go out to the movies on a Friday night…

    I don’t know, Emma. I could see a lawyer reading from the law you quoted that ANY child care worker needs a rest break- even the evening babysitter. “California’s domestic workers, which includes … caregivers for children.” This sounds to me like an evening sitter and I’m sure it would to lawyers too.

    And just how are they going to enforce the law? More government employees? The state is already broke.. but now we need the “California Home Employee Rest Police or CHERP” knocking at every door? Do all homeowners need to install time card machines so that they can hire a babysitter for 5 hours? This is the nanny state run amok.

  8. Rich
    September 24th, 2011 at 13:17 | #8

    @Jennifer Roback Morse
    6.5 million voted against Prop 8

  9. Anne
    September 25th, 2011 at 05:27 | #9

    Rich :@Jennifer Roback Morse 6.5 million voted against Prop 8

    Many voted by mistake Rich. See Leo’s post #10 on the next article:

    http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/21/ruth-institute-commends-california-gop-for-platform-vote-on-marriage/

  10. Sean
    September 25th, 2011 at 08:29 | #10

    Rich, Prop 8 would have been defeated if not for NOM’s dishonest ads about schools. After the vote, many voters were angered to find out the ads were not true, and they said they would have opposed Prop 8 had they known this beforehand. Apparently, the religionists felt so strongly about this issue that they chose to lie, and play into peoples’ homophobia.

  11. September 25th, 2011 at 15:13 | #11

    @Anne

    I would guess some people voted FOR prop 8 by mistake, thinking they were voting FOR marriage rather than FORBIDDING some of their friends, relatives and neighbors from marrying.

  12. Anne
    September 26th, 2011 at 09:10 | #12
  13. Sean
    September 26th, 2011 at 17:17 | #13

    I wasn’t guessing, Anne. I am certain that Prop 8 would have failed had voters not been mislead by NOM’s dishonest ads. In other words, if NOM had run ads that said, “we are a group funded by religious groups and we don’t want gay people to be allowed to marry”, instead of the ads it did run, voters would not have been incited to vote for Prop 8. Post-election interviews revealed that many voters were concerned about schools teaching their kids how to be gay (a falsehood pertuated by NOM’s ads), not whether their gay neighbors could marry.

    NOM knew this. They knew they couldn’t merely run ads stating they opposed same-sex marriage, and why. So they chose a more effective, if dishonest, tactic. Like they did in Maine. It got the result they sought.

  14. Anne
    September 29th, 2011 at 11:42 | #14

    @Sean

    Interesting Sean, that your post doesn’t reference the tactics suggested by the “gay marriage” proponent/author of the article as to how the gay community might counteract the results of the vote.

  15. Sean
    September 29th, 2011 at 17:24 | #15

    I guess I don’t care enough to do so. At least gay people and their supporters are honest and don’t have to lie to achieve their goals.

  16. Anne
    September 30th, 2011 at 04:46 | #16

    @Sean

    “At least gay people and their supporters are honest and don’t have to lie to achieve their goals.”

    The “gay marriage” proponent and author of the article you refuse to quote:

    “Also, in my opinion, we need to counter…………….with our own blur-the-lines ads…………If they can create uncertainty we don’t have to deal in absolutes either.” -indiemcemopants
    Daily Kos member

    That’s a “gay people supporter” ecouraging gay people to lie.

    And it would appear that your post is a lie. Does that mean you’re not a “gay people supporter”? Or would you prefer to suggest that you didn’t lie but simply didn’t know what the article said and are just that misinformed?

Comments are closed.