What Would More Democrats Mean?

In a column that dismissively refers to Rep. Knight as “Steve” (Sept. 12) Gary Horton argues that because California has a strong economy we need to replace Knight with a Democrat. He acknowledges Knight is a fine person and has represented the district well, but on principals California needs more Democrats in Congress, so “Steve” must be replaced.

If you want to envision what more Democrats would mean, consider the Kavanaugh hearings, and the conduct during the hearings and the Democrats on the committee. Or consider Maxine Waters as a finance committee chairwoman.

Let’s consider what Democrat rule has meant for California:

1. We have one of the highest rates of taxation, if not the highest, of any state.

2. We have the highest level of poverty, when adjusted for the cost of living, of any state.

3. We have one of the highest pension funding shortfalls. For example, the L.A. Unified School District’s ability to educate the children of L.A. County is being negatively impacted by the need to provide current education funds to cover legacy pension and retiree benefits.

4. We have one of the highest, if not the highest, income disparities in the nation.

5. Our school funding, despite our level of taxation, rates at 49th or 50th.

6. We have hollowed out our mid-class, who are moving to other states.

7. Approximately 15 percent of our population can afford the average priced home.

8. We have one of the highest, if not the highest level of homelessness in the nation.

And, 9. We are doing our utmost as a state to insulate our criminal illegal aliens from deportation.

In order to deal with these serious structural issues our Democratic Legislature is focused like a laser on banning plastic grocery bags (those singleuse bags we all use at least twice if not three times) and straws, to “limit” the plastic trash in the oceans, when the U.S. contribution to that issue represents 0.9 percent of the floating plastic trash.

Stephen Maseda

Valencia

I agree that the two parties are staunchly committed to either confirming or blocking Kavanaugh’s nomination, but they both believe it is for the good of the nation — not the good of the party. Your language in the editorial makes my case. You suggest that the Republicans have done what they have to ensure a “more conservative” nominee and that President Obama nominated Merrick Garland who was described by an NPR analyst as “moderate.” Of course, anyone described as “moderate” by NPR is actually progressive.

You do not describe the Republican or Democratic preferences in party terms, but ideological terms — and rightly so. Republicans want conservative judges — who will adhere to the Constitution as written — and Democrats want progressive judges who will interpret the Constitution (in their view, a “living Constitution”) in a manner that promotes progressive policy preferences.

Each believes their approach is for the good of the nation. Progressives have employed the courts to enact most of their preferred policies, relying on the courts, executive actions and bureaucrats to make laws they have been unable to pass through legislative majorities. As they see it, their progressive program will be delayed for decades if they lose control of the Supreme Court. That is why they are fighting tooth and nail with the “stall tactics” you describe.

Conservatives, by definition, believe in pursuing policy goals through the proper established legislative channels and they rely on the courts to uphold the laws that are passed as written. As they see it, they are fighting a battle to restrain judicial, executive, and bureaucratic lawmaking and they need the Supreme Court to hold the line against unconstitutional lawmaking outside of the legislative branch. That is why they have supported constitutionalists Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and are fighting hard to get a rule-of-law majority on the Supreme Court.

It is not primarily a party “win” matter — it is a fight for the direction of the country for the next generation or two between two sides who each think they have a better plan. Winning is not the only thing. Both parties want to win, but the good of the country, as partisans see it, is the main thing.

Gregg Frazer

Castaic