Government Salt - We Can Do Better!

   Recently, in practically every facet of the news media, a serious and life threatening issue has been brought to light. You may be thinking that some group has been discriminated against, or performing more abortions or even workplace deaths! Nope. It’s that Americans in general, and New Yorkers specifically, here it comes: eat too much salt! OMG! Too much salt. How did that happen? Who was in charge here? Can we enact a law to limit salt content? C'mon, let's go people. Let's get a microphone and stick it in front of Chuck Schumer to hear what he has to say.

   Okay, hold on just a second. You might not be able to tell, but I'm being facetious here. Not only do I think this salt intake issue has gotten out of hand, the media is covering it like a plane crash of school children going to help aids victims. Not only is this not a big deal, who cares how much salt I eat? Sure, you can argue that salt is not good for you in general and that too much salt is unhealthy. So? Smoking is no good for you but the government doesn't tell you how many cigarettes to smoke. Although, I am more than a little fearful that that might be next. 

   The first issue I have with the government's role is that government is supposed to protect its citizens. That's the primary responsibility of government. I always believed that meant on a federal level to keep America from being attacked from our enemies. To that end, I disagree with the President's nuclear disarmament plan, especially with the ever-growing list of crackpots getting more and more nuclear weaponry. And, I'm not even talking about how the panty-bomber was able to get on an airplane and then failed, thankfully, to blow it up, only burning his groin. While I cringe even thinking about that, how embarrassing will that be for him when he gets to prison?

The second issue then, is how much protection should our government render and to what extent? At the state and local levels I believe government should make sure we are safe and reasonably protected in our neighborhoods and homes. So when government officials, unable to pass new laws because we already have more than enough, begin to harp on superfluous things like my salt intake, I get mad! Instead of worrying about displaying calories on menus for overweight people in fast food restaurants, where they shouldn’t be anyway; instead of worrying if I am wearing a bicycle helmet when cycling (not to be confused with motorcycling helmets); instead of worrying about whether or not a hair-stylist trims my beard (it is actually against the law), how about focusing on some real issues that might not get a TV camera to focus on you.

How about securing our borders? How about eliminating wasteful social programs and reducing my taxes and focusing on performance of basic services and a diminution of the less essential services? How about a tax moratorium on new businesses and businesses moving to NY State? How about simply making NY State more business friendly? How about giving tangible financial breaks and incentives to people who volunteer their time to help others and their communities? How about term limits? How about a ceiling on how much a state employee can make in their position in overtime? How about a use it or lose policy with regards to state employee vacation and sick time?  How about doing away with the unfunded mandates that are crippling our villages, towns and cities? How about a NY State Constitutional amendment to ensure a balanced, on-time budget before taxes can be raised?

If these questions make sense to you, I ask you to vote for me this November for New York State Assembly - 92nd District. The seat is currently held by Richard Brodsky. He's been there so long, I can't even tell you who was there before him! It's time for a change and to clean house. It's time to take back New York from the politicians and special interests and give it back to the people! Help me to make the Empire State great again!

Can "Needless" Lowey Be Beaten?

I believe the answer is finally, yes! I received a mailing from her, probably the groundwork for other, future mailings as we approach the November Elections, where she claims she is lowering taxes for Westchester residents. Wow! It's an amazing piece of (false) advertising. If she keeps saying it enough, eventually even she will be able to believe it. But you shouldn't. She is one of the premier tax-and-spend representatives we have. 

The Republicans should be able to pick up a few political seats this November. Previous elections have been in favor of the Democrats. It's proven counter-productive, removing balance and proportionality from the creation of law and the tax-and-spend part of responsible and responsive government. We see this in many cities, towns and villages. My first hand account of a one-party debacle in high gear is the Town of Greenburgh. To read more, go to: ABetterGreenburgh.blogspot.com.

The Republican field of candidates hoping to defeat "Needless" Lowey has been huge. The order of appearance at the first Forum held for these potential challengers was Alexander Block, Mark Rosen, Patrick Whalen, Jim Russell, Paul Wasserman,  and Patrick Gillespie. During the forum, Patrick Whalen surprised everyone when he announced at the end of his half hour speech that his "advisors" recommended it wasn't the right time for him, so he dropped out. You're killing me Pat - why wait so long and drag this out if you plan to quit?Since then, Mark Rosen also dropped out siting his possible military reserve recall. Of the current batch of candidates, the only two viable candidates seem to be Jim Russell and Paul Wasserman.

I think Rosen may have seen the race as too difficult even though he seemed to have the unofficial backing of the Westchester Republican party. They circled the wagons and dismissed the other candidates. It was evident at the forum held in Hastings. When Rosen spoke, they were all in the room, then half the room disappeared when the others spoke. Even if the deal was done, shouldn't the party faithful have given the courtesy of listening to all the candidates? Certainly.

When Russell and Wasserman spoke, they spoke of issues. And, Russell had more of a tangible command of the issues. The republicans should back Russell. But, they'll probably go with Wasserman, the former democrat-now-turned-republican, because he has money and can raise more. Russell doesn't have that going for him. They never ask what someone brings to the party and what the party can do for them, only how much money they have. That's a sad commentary on our political process, regardless of party.

In the end, between T.E.A. party-goers, frustrated Americans, dishonest politicians, politicians who beat their wives and so much more, it's time for Albany to get some real change, positive role models and a tax system that offers not only to take huge amounts of your money, but to use it wisely.