Governor accused of "immigrant-bashing"

The Sacramento Bee recently published an article on the front page titled, “Governor causes immigration stir”. In the article Governor Schwarzenegger is, of all things, accused of immigrant-bashing. An immigrant himself, he knows first hand what it’s like to have to go through the immigration process — legally.

What about “illegal” don’t the critics understand? They try to paint proponents for stronger control of our borders as racists. Why? Contrary to what the opponents say, the desire to stop or reduce illegal immigration has absolutely nothing at all to do with racism.

The United States of America, like most countries, has laws to control immigration. For obvious reasons — not the least of which is security — we want to know not only who, but how many people are immigrating to America. And for those who don’t know or understand the reasons, their ignorance disqualifies them from making a credible argument. Those who accuse proponents of illegal immigration as racists are lying and misleading the public to advance an political agenda.

The United States of America has welcomed with open arms those who use the legal process of immigrating to America. I have several immigrant friends who live and work here, and they are productive citizens of our society and work force. They are here legally. I have heard first hand what steps they have taken (more like hoops they have to jump through), and continue to take, to get here and remain here legally. It is not fair to Americans — and it is certainly not fair to the immigrants who are here legally — that illegal aliens are allowed to cross our borders pretty much at will. We are not saying, “We don’t want you.” We are saying, “You must follow the established, legal immigration process.” Illegal immigration should be stopped. And it has nothing to do with racism!

Swift Death for Pension Reform

While some feel the current benefit package for state employees should be a protected right, it actually should not be viewed any differently than a benefit package offered by any other employer, and should be subject to change just like any other employer’s benefit package.

Difficult economic conditions or the discovery of a better, more efficient or more economical way of providing the same or similar benefits are sound reasons for implementing changes. The same can be said about many areas of public (or private) employee compensation. When economic conditions warrant change, no part of the compensation package should be considered untouchable, including decreased merit and/or cost of living raises, reduced benefits package or increased co-payments by the insured, reduction in the number of staff/employees (layoffs/pink slips), etc., etc.

Change — a thing most people are as afraid of as speaking in front of an audience — is often difficult to bring about. But pension reform is a perfect candidate for change to help get the state back on a sound economic footing while providing a responsible retirement package for well deserving state employees. It may seem bad for state employees now, but in the long run it could very well provide a better overall package. At the very least, the employee will have greater control over their retirement plan and the tax payers of California won’t be paying an unfair and ever-changing share of the cost. It has been reported that if the pension plan falls short of earning enough to pay the benefits, the taxpayer is left to make up the difference. It stands to reason that any shortfall in earnings will be the result of a downturn in the economy, which will be a time when the state and/or taxpayer can least afford it.

The protectionist attitude propagated by public employee unions, the California Teachers Association, and others needs to be addressed to affect any real and meaningful change. As long as they keep paying millions of dollars for attack ads, which are at best misleading, and at worst outright misrepresentations of the truth (a.k.a. lies), attempts to effect reform will continue to suffer the same ill fate. Hmmm, that brings up another reform topic. We’ll save that one for next time…