How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

Read the headline. That’s it. That’s the extent of my advice to parents, divorced or otherwise, based on my nine years of experience as a divorced father. You can stop reading now.

My daughter was 5, my son was almost 4 when their mother and I split. It was, without a doubt, the most difficult and heartbreaking event of my life. I was terrified and had no idea how any of it was going to work. From living arrangements, to childcare, to finances, you name it. The only thing I knew for certain was that my kids were going to be okay. No matter what. I didn’t hope or wish for that. I decided it would be so.

At the time I had a few friends who were children of divorce. Rather than talking to other divorced parents I found that talking to those who survived from the place my kids were now in gave me an amazing amount of insight. One such survivor told me that both her parents remarried after they divorced. On one hand it was great having a big group of people in attendance for every birthday, recital, graduation, etc. Two sets of parents, two sets of grandparents, not to mention aunts, uncles, and cousins. On the other hand, both parents were so focused on not repeating their marital mistakes of the past that for most of her childhood and into her teenage years she often felt in second place on the importance scale.

It seems that the neglect a child feels when a parent remarries can be profound. Seems obvious, but it’s apparently a common mistake parents make when they find themselves single again. They don’t understand that the life they led before they had kids is not the life they now face as a single person. Like it or not, you’re a parent first and “single and available” second. I’m not suggesting divorced parents not try to find that perfect relationship, just that the game is completely different from what it once was.

Over the years I’ve been in and out of relationships. Some casual, others “serious.” Most of the women I’ve been involved with were childless and I noticed myself rationalizing a certain degree of neglect of my kids to accommodate the needs and/or lack of understanding on the part of the childless woman in question. It never felt good and something ends up missing in the equation for everyone. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have managed to solve this dilemma, I’m just not one of them. It occurs to me now, though, that regardless of how well they think they understand, ultimately someone who has no children has no real grasp of how a single parent sees things. For this reason the odds of a new relationship succeeding are probably significantly greater if both people have kids.

For the record, I have the most amazing kids ever. My daughter is almost 14 now and my son is 12. They’re smart, happy, funny, beautiful, and, above all, well-adjusted. I know some mistakes were made along the way by both me and their mom, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at my kids. We’re just entering the teenage years and while I know there are rough roads ahead, the way I see it my ex and I are facing the same issues and conundrums all parents confront when their precious little ones are taken over by height and hormones. It’s a good feeling.

Would my kids be better off had their mom and I not split? Given the high degree of unresolved and unresolvable discontent and animosity present in our home at the time I can say with complete confidence that, no, they would not. Would I have been as good a parent had we stayed under the same roof? Likewise, no, I seriously doubt it.

When I was on my own with my kids I knew I had to up my game. No more tag-team parenting. When it’s just you there’s no one to take up the slack if you’re too busy, too tired, too grumpy, too depressed, etc. to “deal with the kids right now.” If you rise to the occasion you become uber-parent, able to leap Lego towers in a single bound, while feeding the dog, washing the dishes, making the sandwiches, and fielding calls from your boss who can’t understand why you don’t go to the office on Saturday mornings anymore.

This may not work for everyone, but having tried it both ways I find that the ideal is no compromise where the kids are concerned, which in practice really becomes minimize the compromises as much as possible. In a few short years my daughter will be 18 and off to college, my son just a couple of years behind her. I don’t have much time left to make sure everything’s right (as right as possible anyway). Everything else can wait.

Recently during a lively discussion in the comments section of an article on the Huffington Post, one commentator said (paraphrasing) that NPR is perceived to have a liberal bias because “they’re reality based” and reality has a liberal bias. I had one of those moments when something is explained so succinctly that if someone had been looking at me at that moment I think a light would have appeared to have gone on over my head.

True fair-and-balanced (to coin a phrase) journalism presents facts concerning news stories and all opposing angles when the story in question might have more than one side. I believe most legitimate news organizations strive for this, and after being a daily listener of NPR for over 20 years I know for a fact that NPR consistently  accomplishes it (to the degree that sometimes I’m annoyed at frequently having to hear the opposite of my own, liberal opinion).

The reason almost all news outlets other than the most right-wing (you know who you are) can readily be accused of having a liberal bias regardless of how diligently they try to stay in the middle of the road is this simple explanation. Reality has a liberal bias.

So who would be against reality? How does it even make sense that the right-wing/conservative agenda would be against reality? Why would the “most watched” cable news network want to create a different reality?

A few examples (there are dozens more):

Climate change. Long accepted by most people on the left and in the middle and many, many on the right as part of our current reality. The evidence is overwhelming. But someone somewhere doesn’t like that reality and it’s beyond “inconvenient” as Al put it. It’s expensive. For who? Maybe oil companies and  investors in big oil.  Politicians who were put in office by those same companies and investors. Coal companies. The nuclear power industry. Any company that has significant revenues generated by what we now consider the sources of global warming. Just like when doctors and researchers told us that cigarettes cause cancer, the only voice refuting that claim was the tobacco industry. So “going green” becomes “job killing” and lobbyists for those companies that must conform to expensive environmental regulations call for “reigning in” the EPA. (The EPA definitely has a liberal bias.)

Health care reform. Considered such a liberal issue now that anyone who supports it is a socialist according to Michele Bachmann and her kind. The reality is that the most important aspects of the bill will benefit most people at an individual and personal level. But on the right this reality is considered very dangerous, so a new reality must be constructed and sold. That reality gives us Big Brother and [gasp!] Canadian socialized medicine. Who would want to create that reality? Just about every company involved in the health care industry in this country including doctors. Health care reform hits the bottom line for all of them. Hard.

Taxing the wealthy. Do I even need to elaborate?

The reality is that we don’t want to kill our planet, no one wants to see anyone else suffer if it can be avoided, and those who benefit most should give back at least to the same degree that their less-fortunate counterparts do. But as much as the far-right fronts for corporate and wealthy interests would like to create a different one, there is such a thing as reality and it always has and likely always will have a liberal bias.

I don’t know any climate scientists personally, but if I did I’d ask him or her a question I’ve had ever since I first heard about global warming. My question is this: Assuming that something like the Gaia Theory is correct, what are the chances that our planet is already fighting global warming with or without our assistance?

The Gaia Theory, simply put, states that Earth is capable of regulating itself much like our bodies do, to maintain a balanced system, fight off disease, and keep things like body temperature within an acceptable range. If this is so then, like a home automatic heating and air conditioning system, a kind of thermostat would determine what actions were required to maintain the planet’s health and equilibrium.

Scientific study of volcanoes over the last 30 years or so has determined that large eruptions can and do reduce the mean temperature of large areas of the planet, sometimes for many years. If volcanoes are simply random events, each one tuned to its own cycles and rhythms and physical affects, then it’s likely that intermittent volcanic activity will have some small impact, but not lasting long enough to be of any real benefit in the fight against global warming.

What if, though, the volcanoes we’ve been experiencing over the past few decades aren’t random, disconnected incidents? What if our living planet is reacting as an organism rather than a big hunk of rock? It gets too hot, the planet has a physical reaction, and turns down the thermostat. Lower thermostat = more volcanoes = cooler planet. We have no way to know, of course, whether this is happening or not, or if it is whether it will be effective, but I’m watching with great interest as each new volcanic eruption is reported and/or predicted.

It may still be too late for us either way. Since the planet’s second-hand is gauged in millennia, not only is it unlikely to help us undo the mess we’ve caused in time for us, but a severe enough reaction to global warming by the planet could very well put us in a long nuclear winter, the old cure-being-worse-than-the-disease.

Kind of like that Twilight Zone episode where everyone is baking to death because the Earth is moving closer to the sun. [spoiler alert!] Turns out the main character was only dreaming that apocalypse, because, in reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun and everyone is freezing to death.

With the Oscars in the offing it’s become much more of a challenge for those of us who feel we must at least have seen all the Best Picture noms before the big day now that there are ten instead of just five. Many of us make sure we see at least the films that have a chance of winning and/or have significant possible wins in other categories. This means that some films get cut from the list of “must see before Oscar” when the deadline is near because of a complete lack of any possible wins. Winter’s Bone is one such film. Even though it has earned 4 Academy Award nominations, Winter’s Bone is unlikely to win any of them, so last minute Oscarheads will likely make the mistake to skip it.

Winter’s Bone is of those films a movie buff knows is a “must see” for many reasons, but often doesn’t want to because you everything you know about it says it’s not going to be “fun” to watch. It’s not. It’s painful. A painfully wonderful film, fully deserving of all the accolades it has received so far and more. Winter’s Bone redefines “gritty reality” by taking you to an unfamiliar place of chilling harshness that is impossible to escape.

Set in a crank-cooking community in the Ozarks, Winter’s Bone is the story of a young woman who must find her father in time for a court hearing or face losing her family home and only means of survival. When she boldly bursts into the unknown world her father has inhabited most of his life, she is confronted and hindered by people one might think would do all they could to help her cause.

On one hand there’s the family (almost everyone is related), on the other there’s the code. Don’t break the code and all is well, step outside the line, even a little, and a world of pain can descend so fast the was never time to even think about running. This reality is one 17-year-old Ree (the amazing Jennifer Lawrence), is just learning, and her uncle, Teardrop (brilliantly under-played by John Hawkes), knows all too well. In this tribe, blood my be thicker than water, but the code trumps all.

In the population of the cast one can see the innocence of the very young still fully intact in Ree’s baby sister, but already being stripped away from her 9-year-old little brother. You can see in the faces of every age in-between the harsh lessons life has taught and continues to teach, and the scars those lessons have left. Fear is the dominant emotion on the faces of many of the characters Ree asks for help as they refuse. When she persists, fear is replaced by distrust, anger, and finally vicious self-preservation. Winter’s Bone is about stark survival and it’s not a pretty picture. Everyone does what they feel they must to survive and make no apologies even when the results are tragic.

Last year The Hurt Locker took the best picture prize and so it doesn’t seem as unlikely as it once did that a “smaller film” can get the attention of The Academy in a meaningful way. Like a few others this year, though, Winter’s Bone seems lost in the shuffle amid all the hype surrounding the front-runners, but it’s one of the very best on the list.

When I wrote about child support recently I knew I was touching on a hot topic, but I was still surprised at the high emotional level of conversation in the comments that followed. To be clear, I wasn’t advocating the implementation of some kind of draconian accountability system for how child support payments are utilized. While I don’t think it’s a bad idea on paper, the reality is that it would require another level of bureaucracy in an already dysfunctional system (in most states) , and would be nearly impossible to enforce. I was, however, suggesting, that the parent receiving excess support payments (”excess” definable by the conscience of that parent) put the extra money away for the child. In a college fund, for the down payment on their first car or apartment, etc.

A few people berated me for being vague in terms of my exact situation. Obviously that was intentional. I didn’t want the post to be about me, but I was willing to use my personal experience and that of various friends to question the status quo. In doing so I learned something from the ensuing conversation. According to the comments posted, a great many people paying and receiving child support feel they’re being abused. With much passion from both sides. It’s hard to tell from such an informal survey whether in equal numbers on both sides, but certainly both have their share of horror stories. Both sides. From people getting pathetically little compared to their cost of living to take care of their child full-time to joint-custodial parents paying thousands of dollars a month to a self-sufficient ex-spouse.

My main takeaway from the conversation was that the system most states use to determine and enforce spousal and child support doesn’t work very well. That’s not to say that if a divorced couple has the wherewithal to pay court and legal fees and a willingness and ability to repeatedly show up in court or mediation together they can’t find that perfect formula, but that’s not the case for everyone. Even if it were free, filing court petitions and attending hearings are time consuming. Taking care of kids is a full-time job even if you only have them 50% of the time, and hearings usually occur during the day when most people are working. Just thinking about it makes me tired. So, yes, if someone is getting the shaft in the post-divorce support situation there is legal recourse, it’s often just not very realistic to pursue.

What I read over and over again in the comments was that many people have been badly impacted by the system, are now struggling because of it, and are at a loss as to any remedy. This is one of those situations where one can see a problem very clearly and from every angle, but not even a hint of where the solution lies in terms of the system itself. Is anyone even working on it? Probably not. Then what’s the solution? Don’t get married? Don’t have kids? Don’t get divorced? If you do get married and have kids make sure you have a giant legal fund put away in case you get divorced? None of the above, obviously. People don’t think about divorce when they’re getting married and having kids and never will.

I was talking with a friend over the weekend about divorce and settlements and such. We’ve both been divorced for many years and have very accommodating attitudes in terms of scheduling with the exes. As 50-50 parents it often benefits everyone to allow for those unexpected business trips or nearly missed soccer practice drop-offs (especially the kids, of course). She pointed out that she wasn’t always that way. In the beginning, the schedule was the schedule. As if it were written in stone. It’s like that in the aftermath of divorce. It’s never, “We’re sticking to the schedule because the court says so.” It’s, “We’re sticking to the schedule because I hate you!”

What’s often missing is something even the most perfect state family law system can’t fix. Cooperation and empathy. From everyone, for everyone. I know, this is often impossible given the baggage that led up to the divorce, but for most parents the bottom-line is the welfare of the child, which hopefully goes beyond the monetary and way beyond hurt and anger.

I’ve heard good advice that parents put themselves in each other’s shoes to see if there might be a different perspective from that side of the fence, but I find that it’s even more important to put myself in my children’s place to see from their perspective what I’m teaching them.

Many blame solely the large numbers of black voters who came out to support the first black presidential candidate for passage of Proposition 8, but according to a poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, only 30% of black voters supported the proposition. The PPIC poll also shows, however, that 57% of black, Latino, and Asian voters combined voted yes, as did 85% of Evangelical and born-again Christians, 77% of Republicans, 85% of McCain supporters, and 62% of those without a college degree.

So, contrary to the anecdotal evidence that black voters for Obama passed Proposition 8, it seems more likely that Christian and/or conservative voters for McCain did the most damage. McCain didn’t win in California and no one expected him to, but his Palin-charged ticket may have been enough to turn the tide on Proposition 8.

Aside from the normal decline in voter turnout in a midterm election, but possibly because of the general lack of anything or anyone to bring out the religious and fearful, rabidly conservative, and/or undereducated in large numbers, it’s unlikely that Proposition 8 would pass were it on the 2010 ballot instead of 2008.

There is a block of California voters, however, that this ballot is “energizing” who often get the date wrong or simply forget it’s election day: The potheads.

Proposition 19 will effectively legalize marijuana in California and it’s expected that the pot-smoking public will take advantage of this opportunity to make legal something they’ve been doing most of their adult lives regardless of the criminal risks.

In the same way that Obama’s presence on the 2008 ballot turned out all those Yes on 8 voters, turning out the herb-tokers will pass Proposition 19 and benefit Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman. Why? Because Jerry’s one of them. His nickname while in the Governor’s mansion last time was “Governor Moonbeam.”

To quote one cannabis connoisseur I know, “You can just look at the dude and tell he gets high. Jerry’s alright. Did you see where I put my lighter?”

So all you Californians who support Jerry Brown and want to see his Camry parked in the driveway of the Governor’s Mansion in 2011, make sure you pin a note to the shirt of your favorite stoner that election day is this Tuesday. Wait… what?

On Saturday night I attended A Beatles Celebration at the Hollywood Bowl, and while this isn’t a review of the performance but rather of the attendees, I would be remiss not to say a word or two about the show itself.

Todd Rundgren was the big name associated with these three nights at the Bowl, but by far the night belonged to Betty LaVette and Rob Laufer. Not to belittle he who was once referred to as “Todd is God,” but even God would have to rehearse a significant amount were he to spend three nights at the Bowl with the LA Philharmonic for close to 70,000 people. Todd was very enthusiastic and when he sang softly that sweet old voice was still there, but overall his performance was sloppy. He can shred on the guitar with the best of them, and he did, I just wish he’d taken more time to work out some licks.

On the other extreme, Rob Laufer’s vocals and masterful guitar work was the first time in the show that the Beatles’ presence was truly felt on stage. In his loving performances of “Something” and “Across the Universe,” it was as if he were channeling all four lads at the same time. Todd brought Rob back during his set and the two guitar virtuosos laid “Let it Be” out for the brilliance that it is. There wasn’t a dry seat in the house.

The amazing blues singer Betty LaVette gave us awe-inspiring interpretations of “Blackbird” and “Here, There, & Everywhere” to the point where, except for the lyrics, the songs were literally unrecognizable as Beatles tunes. LaVette was the only performer without a strong Beatles influence in her life and career (in her intro to “Here, There, & Everywhere” she said the first time she’d heard the song, Frank Sinatra was singing it!) Even so, on her lips “Come Together” should become a blues standard. There’s no doubt that her astonishingly visceral rendition of that enigmatic song could have brought John and Paul to tears.

The entire show was backed wonderfully by the LA Phil and conductor Thomas Wilkins who was also an appropriate emcee. So it would have been a perfect evening of music and memories had it not been for the unbelievably rude and unconscious people in my immediate area.

I’ve attended over one hundred concerts at the Hollywood Bowl in all musical genres, and I’ve come to understand that there are generally three types of shows and three types of audiences at this one-of-a kind Los Angeles landmark.

The first concert/audience type is the classical. The music is Mozart, Vivaldi, Chopin, etc. and the patrons bring their wine and bread and cheese and sip and munch before the concert starts. Once the conductor strides out onto the stage, they put their picnics at their feet and, if they continue to partake, they do so quietly out of respect for both the music and their fellow concert-goers. I love these people.

Second are the rock/pop shows. Just like any concert at any venue, this audience drinks too much, makes incessant noise, sings with all the songs, and generally are out to have a good time. The music is usually very loud so you barely notice them. Everyone behaves as they’re expected to. I love the freedom of these shows so unless someone is literally throwing up in the row behind me, it’s anything goes.

Third are the in-betweens. “In-between” both in the nature of the concert and the people who attend them. The concerts are always “special” shows like A Beatles Celebration, where you get quiet ballads and heartfelt jazz in addition to loud rock, while in the audience you get the classical and the rock/pop audiences who know how to behave based on the particular song being performed. But there’s a third element. This third element is the people who probably have never been to the Bowl before and, maybe because of the bench seats or the beer, behave as if they’re at Dodger Stadium.

So during the first half of the show Saturday night, which was mostly quiet jazz and heartfelt ballads by Patti Austin, Rob Laufer, and Brian Stokes Mitchell, I had the couple to my immediate left across the aisle who just had to finish off an entire large bag of Tostitos before intermission and did so during every song, crunching and rustling the bag with every note.

Then I had the two young women behind me who couldn’t shut themselves up long enough to listen to one song all the way through. I always wonder about these sorts. What they could possibly have to say to each other that’s so important that they miss the reason they’re there in the first place?

But those who took the cake that night were the drunken family who not only talked and took pictures of each other during every song, but insisted on loudly mis-singing the lyrics completely off-key when no one else was. They were across the aisle and two rows up from me, and that’s what really got me about this particular group. They were surrounded by people who weren’t with them and as far as I could tell, not one person in close proximity to these idiots told them to STFU, behave themselves, and watch the show. An usher spoke to the group at one point, but it did no good. As soon as she went back to her post they started up again. What’s necessary in these situations is for the people sitting with the disturbers to teach them how to behave. But that never seems to happen. Not in LA, anyway.

The Hollywood Bowl is a fantastic venue. I have wonderfully fond memories there and will treasure them forever, but from now on it’s loud rock or strictly classical. No more in-betweens for me.

An article in the New York Times yesterday revealed that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is up in arms at the prospect that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission might approve the creation of a futures market that would deal in movie box office receipts.

I say, let ‘em try!

Futures markets have traditionally been reserved for raw goods. In futures trading sugar is a commodity that is traded through futures contracts, but not salt water taffy. Sugar is the raw ingredient, candy is the resultant product after manufacture. Same with oil. Crude oil futures are traded, not gasoline. Why is that? Mainly because there is an inherent standardization to a raw commodity, but also a question mark as to how much that commodity will bring once it’s brought to market. It’s that question mark that becomes the gain or loss for the futures trader. Once the raw commodity becomes its final product, price fluctuation is severely limited so there’s not much to bet on.

Perhaps this is what fooled the Einsteins at Cantor Fitzgerald and Veriana Networks (the two groups proposing the exchanges) to think that trading box office futures could work. The complete unpredictability of a film’s performance. But it’s an entirely different manner of unpredictability, and I wonder if they understand that.

To further disconnect this idea from true futures trading: while it’s true that the value of futures contracts fluctuates according to many factors depending on the commodity, there’s a best/worse case scenario that can be estimated as a basis, barring unforeseen events like a natural disaster, unexpected blight, economic crisis, etc. In any given contract period the trader calculates the risk involved going in and may gamble that a certain crop’s yield will do well or poorly based on what’s known about that commodity, interest rates, weather patterns, even political climate for less stable countries. The “gamble” is a calculated one.

Being a gambler and investor and having worked in entertainment finance for over 15 years, the last thing I would ever advise anyone to bet on or invest in is film box office grosses. Why? Oh, I don’t know, let’s ask renowned screenwriter/playwright/author William Goldman:

“Nobody knows anything.”

You said it, Bill.

Mr. Goldman’s statement, which has been quoted ad nauseum (including by me with great frequency) and attributed to all manner of people about pretty much anything that’s unpredictable in life, was in fact a statement about show business, Hollywood in particular, and the unlimited surprises (both good and bad) awaiting any individual or company venturing into the entertainment industry. Yes the rewards can be great, but they’re so sporadic and impossible to predict that even big movie studios often lose their nerve in the face of an expensive, potential flop.

Entertainment finance people spend untold hours and sleepless nights trying to figure out the monetary potential of any given film and the closest anyone in this business ever comes is to approximate a best-guess based on a virtual house-of-cards of assumptions. When something hits a mark we set or, thank the heavens, exceeds it, you never hear the words, “I told you so.” No, the wise man or woman who made that prediction is too busy worrying that the other 10-15 films in that year’s slate will miss the target. Like good ol’ Charlie Brown, one minute you’re the hero, the next you’re the goat.

Here’s the thing, people with a lot of money and/or people with access to a lot of money almost never have the slightest understanding of how the movie business works, especially from a finance point of view. But they almost always find out.

The hard way.

But go for it, boys, and don’t worry. As long as you hit that wire with the connecting hook at precisely 88mph the instant the lightning strikes the tower… everything will be fine.

One of my closest friends, a brilliant, gifted, dedicated teacher at California State University, Los Angeles, was recently informed that because of budget cuts she is to be laid-off. In my conversations with her over the past few months (she knew this might be coming) something became very clear to me.  It would appear that “we the people” of California would rather take money out of the pockets of the most important and egregiously underpaid professionals in our society than pay a little more in taxes.

Teachers in California are being forced either off the payroll entirely or are being given so few classes to teach that they will need to find other work to supplement their already abysmal salaries. With unemployment in the Los Angeles area topping 10%, this is a sorry prospect for them indeed.

So rather than hit up the wealthiest Californians and most successful California businesses (like the oil companies) for a little extra dough they’d never miss, our representatives in Sacramento along with the Govenator are hacking furiously away at the public school system and other vital social services as if every well-off Californian has made it clear that they are unwilling to have their taxes increase by even the smallest amount.

I‘ve lived in California my entire life. I do well and don’t pay much state income tax (never have), yet I watch year-after-year as a supposedly liberal state congress led by a usually centrist governor fight and wrangle as they allow education and social services to suffer at the effect of budgetary deficiencies. Does anyone making more that a teacher’s salary in this state really think it’s fair for those worse-off than they are to carry the burden of our current economic downturn?  Obviously our lawmakers do, but they’re not representing me in this, that’s for certain.

This isn’t just about dollars and cents or teachers’ salaries, either. Along with cuts to education come  higher fees and fewer classes offered to students who can barely afford their current curriculum. It will cost them far more now and take a great deal more time to graduate. These people are the future wage-earners of the state. It doesn’t take an economist to tell you that the higher one’s level of education, the higher one’s earnings tend to be. It’s a no-brainer. People who earn more pay more in taxes and spend more in the economy. This is good for Caaleefoarneea, Arnold!

But for those who are in charge, raising taxes on the oil companies or the wealthiest businesses and  individuals in the state (and there are a great many of them) is entirely out of the question. Even though young teachers who have recently entered the teaching profession are losing their jobs. Even though Education graduates have no prospects whatsoever as they exit even the best universities with high honors. Even though everyone is in agreement that a well-educated populace has a positive effect on absolutely every aspect of the quality of life of a community.

Every state in the country is suffering along these lines. Many are much worse-off than California because they don’t have a ridiculously wealthy mother-lode of residents and companies to even consider tapping.   Schwarzenegger has the magic wand in his thick fingers that could readily alleviate all the financial woes the state currently faces.

The California Legislature needs to stop catering to the greedy, ivory tower residents that would put the likes of Meg Whitman in the governor’s mansion. They need to stop punishing the people at the bottom and in the middle with regressive tax schemes and unconscionable budget cuts by representing everyone in this state, not just their peers.