Frank's Rants

Econ 101…

Volume 1, Number 15

I got a “breaking news” email alert from the Sacramento Bee on Monday with the shocking news that gasoline had hit $4 a gallon in the bay area, and $3.90 in Sacramento. I found this particularly interesting since I had paid $4.07 in Sacramento two weeks previously. (OK, I buy premium gas and the Bee was talking about regular gas. Minor detail.)

The papers are also full of stories about the rapidly increasing cost of food, and how hard families are struggling to make ends meet with the twin challenges of rising food and gasoline prices.

The two issues are inextricably linked. As the politicians in Washington and Sacramento scramble to offer solutions to their constituents, perhaps they might consider taking an Economics 101 class before introducing what will surely be a slew of legislative proposals to crack down on companies in the energy and agricultural industries.

Here’s all you need to know about what is driving rising fuel and food prices: Mr. Supply, meet Mr. Demand.

The worldwide demand for gasoline and other petroleum products is vastly outstripping available supplies. Not only is demand rising rapidly in nations that are typically heavy users of petroleum products, such as the United States and Europe, but emerging economies in China and elsewhere are gobbling up available supplies as well.  The countries that make up OPEC aren’t stupid—they find themselves in a seller’s market and are doing what anyone else in their position would do, which is to control supply so as to maximize profit. Who can blame them, really? It’s not as if countries like Iraq, Quatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have a lot to offer the world other than a ready supply of oil. It they deplete their oil supply to keep prices low, my guess is that their domestic entertainment or tourism industries will not make up the difference in their respective national GDPs.

To make gasoline, one needs oil. The price of oil, which is largely determined by OPEC production policies closed at $111.66 a barrel on Tuesday. That’s up over $48 a barrel (75.7%) in the past year.

To grow food, one needs oil, not only for diesel and gasoline to operate farm equipment, but for fertilizers and other products that help crops grow. See above regarding the rise in the per barrel price of oil.

California and the nation have made the foolish public policy decision that we are not going to focus on expanding the supply of oil, but rather bet our economic future on curbing demand. We have gone to great lengths to mandate more efficient uses of diesel and gasoline engines, and we’ve invested billions (trillions?) in developing alternative sources of energy. 

That’s all well and good, but it’s a short-sighted approach to the problem. First, so much of the demand equation is out of our hands. We are not an island, and we exist within a global economy. Emerging economies in China, Mexico and Asia will continue to push worldwide demand for oil.

Think about it this way: China’s population is in excess of 1.3 billion people. Their economy is in its infancy, but growing rapidly. Its demand for energy will explode exponentially. California’s population is about 34 million people with a mature economy and steadily growing energy demands. China is almost 40 times the size of California. At best, our efforts at improving efficiency and conserving the use of gasoline and diesel are but a drop in the bucket compared to the impact that China has on the world market for oil.  It would be as if the use of gasoline in Los Angeles would be impacted if the City of Antioch mandated that all residents of their fine city drive hybrids. It just really doesn’t matter much what Antioch does.

Interestingly, our zeal for finding alternatives to oil has contributed significantly to the rising price of food. We now have a shortage of corn and other grain products in large part because those crops are being diverted to ethanol production. This is because of US government mandates to increase the use of ethanol in gasoline. While this policy apparently has done little to control the cost of gasoline (see $3.90 per gallon breaking news alert above), it is a major factor in corn and grain shortages and resulting higher prices for food.

If we want to have any control over the price of gasoline (and all the other elements of the economy this impacts) we must focus on both expanding the supply of oil and improving the efficiency of which we use this fuel. It would matter if California decided to invest in expanding the supply of oil available to residents of our state and nation, and allowed the strategic exploration for oil off the coast. (I can just hear the gasps now—“drill off our coast? Never!”)

Federal authorities estimate there are 10 billion barrels of oil under California’s coastal waters. That’s enough oil to keep California’s economy humming for the next 15 years. I remember when we did have limited oil production off the coast. Then in 1969 Union Oil Company’s Platform A, located six miles off the Santa Barbara coast, suffered a catastrophic explosion, freeing hundreds of thousand of gallons of crude oil from the ocean floor to seep onto miles of the coast.

Drilling technology has improved considerably since 1969. There is little doubt that oil off the California coast could be produced these days with little environmental risk. However, proposing to do this would be political suicide. It will be interesting to see if economic pressure builds over the next few years, trumping political sensitivities such that we can at least have an intelligent discussion about the subject.

When might that be? Maybe never. But maybe when gas hits $8-10 per gallon. Unless we do something about supply, that’s where gas prices are headed.

* * *

Speaking of economics, I am reminded of a memorable lecture an economics professor at American River College once delivered to my freshman class. He was speaking about the effects of hyper inflation in World War II Germany. Prices were rising so fast that there was an urgency to buy things the day one got paid to avoid having to pay higher prices the following day. He told of German wives running from the bank to the bread store with bags of cash in hand. This, he said, proved the economic value of marrying long legged women.

# # #

Pet Peeves and Random Observations

Volume 1, Number 14

Some people have pet peeves. I have a veritable zoo.

As some of you know, I have struggled with smoking much of my life. My mother used to smoke. I started when I was a teenager, sneaking her cigarettes in a fort on the vacant lot in the neighborhood. I quit for many years, then started it up again. Periodically I will quit for a few months, then slowly sneak some, then smoke more openly, and then quit again—until the cycle repeats itself. It’s a lifelong struggle.  I like to smoke. Throw me in jail. I am not an unintelligent person. I know that smoking is bad for me. I do not need other people to point out the obvious, particularly total strangers. But so many people do.

I am convinced that attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there. While on a recent business trip, I flew through Chicago. Most every airport is nonsmoking. I get that. On a layover at O’Hare on my way to the east coast, I stopped at the United Red Carpet Club, to whom I pay $400 a year for the privilege of being insulted and inconvenienced, and asked the woman at the desk whether there were any smoking areas at the airport, fairly certain of the answer. She stares at me with a most disapproving look and says, “Why don’t you not smoke and add a minute to your life.”

This is a woman who is at least 50 pounds overweight. How is it that this fat woman feels that it is okay to lecture me about smoking when her rear end is spilling over the sides of her chair? I could have told her that I was concerned that her weight would result in heart disease, diabetes and any number of other medical ailments. I could have lectured her about how much American taxpayers spend each year to provide medical care to obnoxious fat women. I could have adopted a sanctimonious attitude and advised her about the obvious benefits of a Stairmaster, letting her know that it might turn her rear end into an attractive human body part instead of the planet she was lugging around her solar system. Instead, I laughed and said, “Gee, thanks for the tip. I wasn’t aware that smoking was bad.” Then I walked off.

I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.

Smoking cigarettes is legal for adults. It may not be the most healthy lifestyle choice out there, but neither is parachuting, cliff diving, motorcycling riding, speeding down the interstate, or any number of other things that millions of people love to do every day. Smoking is also one of the most heavily taxed activities in the world. California smokers are forced to pay for things like health care for the uninsured, child care, self-esteem programs and all manner of other social programs. But that is not enough for the liberal elitists.

There are serious proposals in the California Legislature to prohibit people from smoking in their own homes. This is based on the argument that apartments have a common ventilation system, so there is some chance that someone smoking in Apartment 100 might kill someone in Apartment 500. (The fact that, if it were true (which it isn’t) the death would take 12,000 years to be effected is of no apparent relevance to the issue of attacking smokers, yet again.) So the public policy of California is apparently that it’s okay for someone to pass gas in an elevator with me in it, but it isn’t okay for me to smoke in my own home.

There are also proposals to prohibit parents from smoking in their own car if children are present. These same parents are free to decide how to educate their children, teach them a value system, decide what type of food to ingest into their bodies, determine their leisure pursuits, decide what kind of clothes they’ll wear, determine if they should see a doctor when they are sick, and otherwise make decisions covering every aspect of their young lives. But, by God, these parents should be prohibited from engaging in a legal pursuit (smoking) while in the presence of their kids.

If a lawmaker authored a bill to prohibit blacks from renting an apartment, they would be recalled from office. If there was a proposal enacted to ban women or gays from driving a car, a lawsuit would immediately be filed challenging the measure. But when a proposal is offered to discriminate against smokers, it is met with applause.

If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers.

* * *

I was amused, and embarrassed, about the spectacle of the Olympic torch being paraded through the City of San Francisco. What kind of wimpy city is Gavin Newsom running? (Rhetorical question.) So San Francisco lobbies to have the torch come to The City, but then has to hide it in a warehouse and eventually sneak it out the back door so nobody can see it? Their police force is apparently so incompetent that they cannot protect torch runners from Tibetian Monks?  Wow. Yeah, Gavin, you should consider running for Governor. Suggest you consider Minnie Mouse as your running mate.

* * *

My wife and I recently saw the movie Smart People with Sarah Jessica Parker and Dennis Quaid. It was a fairly enjoyable flick, even if a bit overwritten and predictable. But one scene really caught my attention and I wondered if Parker had somehow angered a camera man. She was leaning in to kiss Quaid. The scene was shot from below as her puckered lips rose to meet Quaid’s mouth. Suddenly, her chin covered three fourths of the frame, her jaw line reminding me of a catfish about to devour a tire. Wow, that thing could be a weapon. (Sorry, so catty. I remind myself that even people with huge chins have constitutional rights.)

# # #

Caution Assembly Republicans: Following Governor Schwarzenegger Could Be Fatal To Your Career

Volume 1, Number 13

Governor Schwarzenegger is barnstorming the state telling anyone who will listen that he’s apparently ready to sign off on a budget deal that includes higher revenues combined with budget cuts. Now Schwarzenegger stops ever so short of outright advocating for a tax increase. Instead, he talks openly about “everything being on the table,” a “balanced budget solution,”  “closing loopholes,” enacting new user “fees,” a “creative approach” to balancing the budget, and similar euphemisms.

All of that is code for raising taxes.

The danger in this talk is that some Republicans could end up following his lead. If Governor
Schwarzenegger can convince enough Republicans to go along, and he certainly has tools at his disposal, it might produce a short-term budget deal, but it would be fatal to legislative Republicans, especially the Assembly GOP Caucus.

Legislative Republicans have one thing—and one thing only—that makes them relevant to policymaking and that is the 2/3rds vote requirement to pass a budget, increase taxes, enact urgency statues and put measures on the ballot. If they lose that leverage for a lousy budget deal, they will have killed themselves politically.

There are 32 Republicans in the Assembly, and 15 in the Senate. That means the GOP has to hold 27 of 32 votes in the Assembly and 14 of 15 in the Senate. The Senate GOP Caucus is already in an extremely tenuous position. One Republican member is a loyal Schwarzenegger vote, and another is facing a recall. If the recall were to be successful, then the only game in town is the Assembly Republican Caucus.

Some of my sources in the Assembly GOP Caucus are concerned about being able to hold the line against higher revenues in the budget. Of the current crop of Assembly Republicans, 12 are termed out of office at the end of this session, and another nine are termed out in two years. Many of these members are already running for another office, but others have no immediate prospects. And that’s a key vulnerability Republicans have to Schwarzenegger pressure.

This would not be the first time that a legislative Republican cast an unpopular vote for a Republican Governor and subsequently found himself/herself with a plum appointment to head a state agency or department, serve on an important board or commission, or be appointed to the bench. Nor would it be the first time that a Republican cast an unpopular vote in exchange for a commitment from a Republican Governor to go all-out to help that legislator in a future run for office.

The importance of holding the Caucus together to ensure that the 2/3rds vote threshold is not breached simply cannot be overstated. It really is the only thing they have going for themselves. As it is, most every other bill can be passed without regard to Republican opposition, forcing interest groups to negotiate pretty much exclusively with the Democrats and the Administration. Sadly, with majority vote bills, the Republicans serve no more important purpose than that of a back bencher in England’s House of Commons, throwing rhetorical grenades from committee rooms and the floor.

Once a breach of the 2/3rds vote threshold occurs, the GOP will lose any credibility they have with the business community that they can be counted on to defeat pending tax increase proposals. If the Caucus can no longer be trusted to defeat without exception tax increase proposals, they will have few friends remaining. Their allies in the business community will have little choice but to ignore them and fend for themselves. That loss of trust would be cataclysmic to future Republican hopes of improving their numbers in the Legislature.

Because the consequences of failing to hold a 2/3rds vote against tax increases are so grave to the Caucus as a whole, I believe that it is incumbent on the Assembly Republican leadership to make it crystal clear to members what penalty they will pay should they side with the governor and vote for a budget that increases taxes. In my view, that penalty should be to face an immediate recall in their district. One that is launched and funded by the leadership and those Republicans who stayed loyal to the cause.

Extreme? Perhaps. But also appropriate. It’s an eye for an eye – you help kill the Caucus and the Caucus will help kill your career. It wouldn’t be the first time.

When Republicans won a majority of the State Assembly in the 1994 elections, it should have been cause for great celebration. Instead, two of their members—first Paul Horcher and then Doris Allen—turned against the caucus for their own personal gain to keep Willie Brown as Speaker. Both were eventually recalled from office, and Republican Curt Pringle was ultimately elected as Speaker. But the machinations took over a year to play out, and Republicans were denied that critical time to organize the Assembly, pursue a pro-business policy agenda and establish a strong political operation. They lost control in 1996, and haven’t regained it since.

Let Governor Schwarzenegger tour the state trying to set the stage for a tax-increasing state budget. But legislative Republicans should use that same time to let members know exactly what the consequences will be if they get sucked into following the Terminator. Namely, termination of their political career.

# # #

What They Didn’t Tell You…

Volume 1, Number 12

On Saturday night I sat down at my computer to begin work on this week’s Rant. As I visited some of my favorite news spots and blogs, up came the news on my computer screen: Charlton Heston had passed away. It stopped me cold.

Heston was one of the most prominent conservatives of his generation. Like his friend Ronald Reagan, Heston was larger than life—charismatic, well spoken, well liked, and possessed of principle and rugged good looks. Heston had an incredible ability to captivate an audience when giving a speech. With a strong baritone voice, he could spell bind a crowd and by the force of his presence have them listen and consider the subject of his talk. Some of those speeches were given in meeting halls. Some were given at political fundraisers. Some were delivered in Congressional hearing rooms. Others at universities. And some were made at major conventions and nationally televised. All of those talks involving politics had a single, powerful, irrefutable principle at its core: freedom.

Many in Hollywood hated Chuck Heston. The Hollywood liberals could dismiss Ronald Reagan as a “b-list” performer who never really made it as a serious, accomplished actor. But Heston? He won an Academy Award for Best Actor, and starred in some of the epic films in history—The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, Touch of Evil, and Planet of the Apes among them. Heston was not only the equal of any person in Hollywood, he was actually their superior. And this posed some problems when he started talking politics.

At first, Hollywood elitists tried to dismiss Heston’s conservatism as somewhat of an oddity. Begrudgingly, they realized that Heston’s personal popularity and professional accomplishment made it impossible to attack him head on. So they generally trivialized and dismissed him as being a great actor and nice man, but someone who was unfortunately wrong about politics.  That all changed in 1998 when Charlton Heston became President of the National Rifle Association. Boy did it change.

The liberals went after Chuck Heston with a vengeance. This was the “proof” they had been lacking that Heston (like all conservatives) was not simply misguided, but a genuinely evil man. Heston, they implied, stood for drive by shootings, random gun violence and the wanton killing of innocents (often people of color). He stood, they suggested, with assault rifle manufacturers, cop killing ammunition manufacturers and semi-automatic rifle makers who preyed on the safety of Americans, particularly in urban areas. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions were raised and spent by liberal groups demonizing Charlton Heston and, by implication, anyone who agreed with him.

Chuck Heston never shrunk from the battle – in fact, he relished it. The fury the liberals created with their condemnation gave him a new stage to discuss his beliefs. A life long gun owner, Heston took on all comers in defending the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He took his defense of the constitution to some unlikely places: Yale, Harvard, Georgetown, Penn, the National Press Club. And through them, he took the battle to living rooms across America. And he made converts, millions of them. Why? Because he spoke the truth—plainly, simply and powerfully.

Here is an example of the power of his words, from a speech he delivered to students at Yale University: “I believe that in your heart, you already know something is profoundly wrong when bartenders are responsible for drunk drivers’ acts, and gun makers are responsible for criminals’ acts and nobody is responsible for OJ Simpson’s acts. Something is wrong.”

The subject of this particular talk was the total disconnect that afflicts the nation (then and now) from understanding the consequences of actions and policies. Heston believed that it is every American’s constitutional right to own a gun, but it is nobody’s right to use a gun to commit a crime. It was and remains against the law for people to use a gun in the commission of a crime. But rather than enforce existing laws like this, the Clinton Administration preferred to hold press conferences in favor of more anti-gun laws because those proposed laws drove presidential poll numbers. But it did so with consequences. The consequence of Clinton’s preening for the press, incessantly demanding more anti-gun laws, was that criminals who had used a gun in committing their crimes were being let off with plea bargains. And the consequence of that, Heston told these suddenly stilled students transfixed in their chairs, was that, “people died.”

I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve always been afraid that I’d do something stupid while handling or cleaning it—like shoot off a big toe. But I do believe in the Second Amendment. And this is the thing that I’d like for you to think about. The Bill of Rights wasn’t created for popular causes. You don’t need the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee if your objective is to talk about how important clean air is for the country. But you do need it if you plan to talk about the corruption of government. You don’t need the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms so that the military can have weapons in fending off a foreign attack. You do need it so you can fend off someone who’s breaking into your house, intent on killing your wife and raping your daughter.

In our history, we’ve seen women, minorities, students and taxpayers all win important freedoms through application of the Bill of Rights. Sadly, today we increasingly see demands that unpopular people lose certain freedoms—the freedom to smoke in one’s own car or house, and the freedom to own a gas-guzzling car or truck are but two of countless behaviors under constant attack. That’s the thing about the Bill of Rights. It applies to all, and must be defended if it is to be meaningful.

If I were a liberal who opposed the Second Amendment, I’d be a little worried right now. Chuck Heston is now gone from earth and no doubt enjoying a special place in the heavenly realm. Hey, even God has got to be impressed with someone who can part the Red Sea. Meanwhile, a critical case on the Second Amendment is pending before the United States Supreme Court. District of Columbia vs. Heller involves a challenge to a 1976 law that contained a total ban on possession of handguns in the District. It is brought by a security guard who is entitled to possess a handgun to protect federal property and personnel during the day, but is not entitled to possess a handgun to protect his family when home at night. This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity, for the first time in seventy years, to unequivocally affirm the right of Americans to bear arms. You can be certain that if Heston can find any way to impart some words of wisdom from above to the justices of the Court, he will.

The title of this column comes from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association. (I am privileged to serve with Wayne on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Political Consultants.) I lifted it from his post on www.nra.org. I used it because of how the Sacramento Bee covered Heston’s death in the morning paper. The long article noted in one small paragraph that, “late in life his stature as a political firebrand overshadowed his acting,” and went on to mention that he was demonized by liberal Hollywood when he became president of the NRA. In other words, they dismissed his conservative activism in death just as they attempted to do in life. They still don’t get it. It wasn’t that Charlton Heston was a wonderful actor that made him special. It’s that he was a great patriot who happened to be an actor.

May God bless Charlton Heston. RIP.

* * *

If you’ve never seen a speech given by Charlton Heston, do yourself a favor and go to the NRA website and click on the Archive section, and then Speeches. You’ll be able to watch several great speeches that Heston delivered. If you do this, you’ll understand a little more about what a special man he was.

# # #

The Truth About Tom...

Volume 1, Number 11

Tom McClintock is running for Congress in California’s 4th Congressional District. That happens to be where I live. It’s one of the most conservative, Republican districts in the state. Republicans have a 17 point registration edge over Democrats. This is the seat currently held by Congressman John Doolittle, who while embroiled in an FBI corruption probe nearly lost the seat in 2006 to some guy named Charlie Brown (good grief!).  Still under a cloud of the FBI investigation, Rep. Doolittle decided not to press his luck with a 2008 rematch and announced plans to retire.

Enter Tom McClintock. I first met him in 1982 when we were both twenty six years old, two young men in a hurry. I was helping to run the Assembly Republican Political Action Committee and Tom had just won his race in a contested GOP Assembly primary in southern California. I worked for the Assembly Republican Leader, and part of my job was to make sure he kept his job. So I worked closely with Tom during the 1982 and ’84 election cycles to make sure he raised plenty of money and cruised to victory. He did.

I personally like Tom McClinctock. I found Tom to be a smart, articulate, hard-working but largely ineffective member of the Legislature. I think of him as a kind of “Lecturer-in-Chief” – the well-spoken, finger-wagging guy striving to be the “conservative conscience” but never one to actually attempt to govern the state. Still, I’ve admired his steadfast articulation of conservative principles and watched as he became a conservative icon over the years. I contributed $1,500 to his 2006 campaign for Lt. Governor. But I am not going to support Tom McClintock for Congress in my home district. I am endorsing Doug Ose.

Tom was largely an ineffective legislator, but that’s not why I refuse to endorse him.   Much has been written about his carpet-bagging move from his home in Ventura County to the foothills of Placer County, but that’s not why I refuse to endorse him either. No, the reason that I refuse to endorse Tom for Congress in this contested primary is because he is not nearly the conservative leader he’d like us to think he is.

Leaders attempt to gather followers and go about the hard work of attempting to change the course of government. That means finding like-minded people (i.e. recruiting candidates), helping them win election, (i.e. giving them money and raising more for them), and joining together to move government in the right direction (i.e. agree to reasonable compromises). That’s what Ronald Reagan did. That’s what Tom McClintock has never done.

Let’s look at the record of Tom McClintock in supporting other Republican candidates and groups working to elect Republicans to legislative office. That is a critical measure of a legislator’s leadership ability. Leaders recruit like-minded candidates, they give them financial support, and they encourage others to do the same. According to records online and on file at the Secretary of State’s office, in the past ten years Tom McClintock has contributed to only six candidates for partisan office, and gave those candidates a total of less than $42,000 in support. That’s over an entire decade. He didn’t give a nickel to the state GOP or other Republican groups working to elect good conservative candidates.

Tom McClintock’s record of contributing to Republican candidates is the worst of the entire 15 member Senate GOP caucus, except for Senator Abel Maldonado – and Maldonado is perennially the Democrats favorite election target so you wouldn’t expect him to be able to contribute funds to others. Among the rest of the Senate Republicans, Tom McClintock is dead last in contributions to other Republican candidates and organizations.

Contrast McClintock’s failure of political leadership to the record of State Senator Dave Cox, whom I have also supported over the years and who represents part of Placer County in the Senate. Cox has contributed over $1 million to Republican groups and candidates over the past ten years. Current GOP Leader Dick Ackerman has given almost $900,000. Senator George Runner, nearly $650,000. Senator Sam Aanestad, another northern Californian, gave over $164,000 to other Republican candidates and groups. Jim Battin has contributed over $700,000 to others.

When it comes to giving money, Tom McClintock has not been a conservative leader who has helped others; he’s been a conservative who has focused on himself. On this critical measurement of conservative leadership, Tom McClintock has been an abject failure.

To be fair, Tom has given generously of his time as a featured speaker at countless Republican fundraising events, and that counts for something. But in addition to giving of his time, he could have given of his campaign funds, and he hasn’t. Plus, being a featured speaker also serves to help Tom build his own network of supporters, which he’s tapped for his numerous races for statewide office.

Contested Republican primaries put people like me in the difficult position of having to make a choice, often between two good people. Tom McClintock is a good person and a good conservative. But he has not been anywhere near the kind of effective conservative leader he could have been, and wants us to believe he has been.

And that’s my problem with Tom McClintock. He’s too self-centered and not enough of a leader. His candidacy in the 4th Congressional District isn’t about furthering the conservative cause, it’s about furthering Tom McClintock’s career. If he’s elected to the House, he’ll become a media darling in Washington, a regular talking head on the various cable news shows. But he won’t be a player in the GOP winning back control of the House. He won’t be out recruiting and supporting candidates. And he won’t be able to get a single piece of important legislation enacted.

When I was 26, I could afford to support a well-spoken, conservative firebrand even if he didn’t get a lot of things accomplished. But I’m 52 now, and I need someone to get things done. The country is headed in the wrong direction, the federal budget is awash in red ink, and every time I turn around, someone in Washington wants more of my money. Like Dave Cox has been in the State Senate, Doug Ose will be an accomplished leader in Congress.

* * *

Please visit http://www.schubertflintpa.com/SenateGOPContributions.pdf to see the research I compiled on contributions from every member of the Senate Republican caucus to other Republican candidates and groups.

# # #