Want to disturb a Council meeting? Think again

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

New rules on deck for how you behave at Council meetings, though, if you’re a polite SCVer you won’t have any problems. If you’re rude and disruptive however….

Pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code 2.04.030, any member or other person using profane, vulgar, loud or boisterous language at any meeting or otherwise interrupting the proceedings, who refuses to be seated or keep quiet when ordered to do so by the Mayor or other presiding officer of the Council, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9, the Mayor has legal power and responsibility to preserve order and decorum; prevent demonstrations; order removed from Council Chambers any person whose conduct he/she deems objectionable; and order the Board Room cleared whenever he/she shall deem it necessary.

I think this is appropriate and is probably on next week’s Council Agenda because certain Councilmembers have complained lately how maligned and victimized they feel during Council meetings.

They have a point. If you can’t criticize a decision without criticizing the decision maker, you’ve already lost the debate. On the other hand, if you’re an elected official, you have to expect that some part of your job will be dealing with the crazies, the hangers-on, the chronic complainers and busybody bloggers like me. So they should develop a tougher skin and not feel so hurt.

You can’t legislate against people like that, so the staff presents something like this, that authorizes actions for disturbances. But, for as many as Council meetings as I’ve attended in person or watched online, I don’t remember that many loud and boisterous disturbances or demonstrations. Sure there were some during the Mayo debate, during the library debate, and in other instances, but overall, people at the Council meetings are generally reserved and/or lulled to sleep by the time public comments rolls around.

I do however remember some epic TimBen/Frank Ferry show downs that involved shouting. But I don’t consider that a disturbance; that’s entertainment!

AGENDA

Comments (37)

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 11:01 am

This is so stupid! It is black letter constitutional law that people cannot be prosecuted for peppering their political speech with vulgarity and just being loud. During that three minutes one can do anything they want short of threatening someone physically or hoaxing a fire alarm (Fire in a crowded theatre!) I agree with Jeff. If you don’t like Cam Noltemeyer’s withering glances then don’t run for the elected office. Why are elected officials turning into such whiny babies whose feelings are always hurt?

ToddJuly 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm

Unless our new city attorney is stupid, this is already well tested. And, while I agree, the restrictions on “vulgar” and “profane” are vague at best, and likely to be overturned as such, the rest I’m on board with. If you want entertainment, I highly recommend turning into Burbank’s City Council meetings on a Tuesday night. You’ll see the most inane chatter that is completely uncontrolled, dragging the council meetings on until Midnight nearly every week. Oh, and they aren’t afraid to pound the gavel and have the disruptors removed (google “Edward Guerrero Burbank” for some fun reading). There must be some rules for decorum and civility in our governmental proceedings. Restricting the words used, well I don’t support that… but the manner in which they’re conveyed, I fully support. (and I highly doubt that glances can be construed as distruptive….. But they can be quite distracting!)

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm

“Unless our new city attorney is stupid, this is already well tested.” Let us refer back to “I’m sure we can collect the County library special assessment tax.”

ToddJuly 7, 2011 at 8:05 pm

Well, OK, fair point. However, both the Brown Act, as well as numerous rulings by SCOTUS have enabled bodies such as the council to regulate the comments made, so long as they’re content neutral. So dropping an f-bomb to say “I effing love the libraries” must be as equally prohibited as saying “I effing hate the libraries.” No more, no less. Perfectly legal under the Brown Act and First Amendment. Here’s a great article in the UCLA Law Review that delves into the issue: http://uclalawreview.org/?p=1151

forrest gumpJuly 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Stupid is as stupid does.

NFICJuly 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm

I think this is way over the top and will be very subjective. For example, I’ve seen where supporters of an issue the council supports and will approve come in with a sign and\or buttons supporting that issue (which are not allowed), and the council will usually look the other way or compliment them. But if the opposition to an issue does that, they get called out. This is just another way for the current Council to stifle dissent – much like moving the public comments to the end of the meeting. Perhaps they ought to do the same with the recognition items! I agree with Timothy and Jeff. This country was founded to support free speech. The Council should not be trying to impede that! But my guess is there will be a 4-1 vote approving this issue.

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm

NFIC: Historically, the public comments were at the end, but they were moved to the beginning to actually shorten the meetings. Here is how it worked: The Council had the same 6-12 people who were showing up to every meeting with their usual complaints. The idea was that give them their three minutes; One half hour would pass, and they would be on their way home sated. This contrasted to holding public comment to the end when these individuals, with the staying power to stay up late, would get involved with EVERY SINGLE agenda item putting in their three minutes worth of comment, and thus extending the meeting by perhaps two to two and one half hours. Bring on the law of unintended consequences! (I call it the “Benz Road Effect.”) With general comment at the beginning 100 people could show up to dispute the placement of a landfill, etc. and really send the meeting over schedule. Its like wack a mole!

CCJuly 7, 2011 at 12:24 pm

This should definitely be applicable to Frank Ferry

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm

Isn’t Frank more settled since his gut blew up!

CCJuly 7, 2011 at 8:45 pm

You might be right Tim. I do have to say that the Ferry/Klajack (sp) days were entertaining to say the least.

spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 1:16 pm

“the Mayor has legal power and responsibility to … order removed from Council Chambers any person whose conduct he/she deems objectionable” This is so over-reaching that it is laughable! So one person’s opinion of “objectionable” now make free speech a CRIME? Not in the USA! I welcome the first legal test. And more tax moeny gets wasted by a whiny, blowhard, bought-off City council!

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm

SP2: You remember the precedent. Jan Heidt had John Steffen removed from the lectern before the three minutes elapsed when he stated that Jo Anne Darcy had run a “dirty campaign”in 1998. The City had to sign some kind of letter acknowledging that the three minutes is sacrosanct.

forrest gumpJuly 7, 2011 at 2:09 pm

I think this will invite bad behavior. Not wise. This will allow and encourage anyone to make a loud comment into an event for national news or even a court case.

Alan FerdmanJuly 7, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Make a tie vote a win and make free speech a misdemeanor . What next, make disagreeing with the City Council a felony? Whenever I think that our council has reached the height of arrogance, they never disappoint me by taking it one step further. But to make sure they can slide it through without any discussion, it is placed on the Consent Calendar. If the City Manager or City Council members think there will not be speakers on this item, or that it will not be an election issue, you can add delusional to their resume.

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Alan: NOTHING is going to be an election issue because I don’t see anyone running against the incumbents in 2012. Do you know differently?

Alan FerdmanJuly 7, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Tim Not yet. Remember there is more than one election.

spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm

What else do you expect from those who brought “EnderMath” to you? If you show up and are “objectionable” you get arrested. If you don’t show up you are counted as supporting Ender’s view. So all you can do is show up and not be objectionable. So much for bringing government closer to the people.

PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm

We must acknowledge that the problem comes from idealogical Leftist activists who have no sense of social decorum. Noltmeyer, Lutnesses, and Plambeck make the meetings monotonous and bring nothing of value to the meetings.

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm

Petz: The Center Right activists throw out their share of insults too. Alan Ferdman throws out accusations and then they all cry and whine about being insulted.

PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Alan is a staunch defender of the Canyon Country community. He researches his facts and he does not engage in character assassination or disseminate leftist propaganda and junk science. That being said, CC is still the best location for the recycling center. Council buckled on that one.

PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm

TJMSR, why were you sitting on your hands for American Values?

spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm

Not your call to make, Pedz, it’s public comment. So you disagree? Go use our very own three minutes. Sounds more like the Rightist’s view to quash dissent you disagree with.

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm

Here is a question for the ordinance: If someone walked up to the podium and used their three minutes to make fart noises with their hand and opposing underarm, would that be a misdemeanor?

spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm

See, we don’t know, because the proposed law says it’s totally up to the subjective feelings of the mayor. And that lack of an objective standard is why it will fail Constitutionally. The only question is whether the exalted City attorney will know this or not.

PetzJuly 8, 2011 at 3:49 am

Perhaps Tim could volunteer to translate should this occur. As Petz said “no sense of social decorum”.

MikeJuly 7, 2011 at 6:00 pm

I find nearly all of the regular CC speakers – left, right and Berta, to be some combination of tiresome, obsessive, delusional, misguided, selfish, uninteresting, arrogant, bigoted, precious or nasally (yes, nasally). Still, there’s never been a moment where I though they ought not have the right to speak, or to speak in the manner of their choosing. The city council is a stated foe of the 14th Amendment, so just add the 1st to the list. Of course, one of our council members is an ardent foe of the 18th amendment, but lucky for him/her, it’s been repealed.

Mr PerezJuly 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Does this mean they wanted to get lit during the actual meetings? lol

Timothy Myers SR.July 8, 2011 at 7:59 am

I agree Mike, but of course the solution is to not run for the office if you are not prepared to see if a person can ACTUALLY die from boredom.

IHeartSCVJuly 8, 2011 at 9:29 am

Aww, c’mon Mike, they’re not all bad. Valerie Thomas is fantastic, Alan Ferdman does staff the courtesy of reading the agenda before commenting (the same cannot be said of all CC members), and without Lynne and Cam, meetings would just be an orgy of self congratulation and saccharine speeches about the next great project.

SplashGuardJuly 8, 2011 at 10:24 am

I agree. Without this handful, there would be few who actually had read many of these resolutions. Cut and paste being such an effective production tool, it is not even necessary that the “authors” of these things know what they say, or have thoroughly thought through the costs, benefits, impacts, and the public’s support for or against. But thanks to the regular usual suspects, Council only has to bear a few minutes of their questioning, ignore most questions or hand them back to Ken Pulskamp. Then the City can claim that the opposition was given an opportunity to present their position even though their decision was already made, oddly enough almost always agreeing to what Pulskamp et al put together.

PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Against the 14th, ?Petz was there the night Ender defended birth right citizenship. Sure miss Roger Gitlin t the meetings

Damage Inc.July 8, 2011 at 9:43 am

Yes, racists always make things more interesting.

TaTonkaJuly 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm

How come there is no discussion of today’s economic numbers

PetzJuly 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm

The numbers speak for themselves and only confirm what the vast majority of people already know. Obama is clueless and lacks the leadership skills to be POTUS. He is an Alinsky style idealogue, without the capacity to shift his sail with the changing economic winds. He is a ship without a rudder, loved and adored by the lemmings who crave security over liberty. Obama is a poser. Words do not exist to fully express the contempt we have for him as a president. Great husband , good father, get the Hell out of the White House and quit wrecking my country !

yourwebguruJuly 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Petz has it all figured out. So let’s vote for Cain; an unproven, untested head of a pizza chain with no executive experience. OR perhaps we can bring in Ms. Bachmann, the right-wing ideologue who has never even introduced a bill into Congress. I say bring it on. Elect someone else who has no other ideas to change the direction we’re in. Leave out the ideological morality crap, and get to work solving the issues. By the way, my own professional economic numbers have never been better, so I have no complaints either way. Business is booming, I’m contributing to the economy and growing exponentially. On that note, when things were really bad economically for me (Under the tail end of the last presidency) I didn’t blame him for my woes. I put myself in that predicament by ignoring the warning signs just like a lot of people. Simultaneously, I don’t credit Obama for my positive direction. I did that myself as well. I didn’t wait for an elected official or their numbers to give me confidence, I adapted, changed my outlook, reorganized and moved forward. It’s easy to blame others for our own failures, and our elected leaders are usually the ones we blame first. Sure, we want that free market opportunity until it doesn’t go our way, then it’s the president’s fault, no matter who is in charge, and we DEMAND he find us jobs. Obama doesn’t have some magic economy lever in the Oval Office that instantly makes things better. What he does have is a divided house that makes decisions to perpetually jockey themselves to become the majority in the next election. I blame both sides for this. There is nothing but partisan arguments and ideology from all sides. One side won’t raise taxes, the other side won’t capitulate one bit on entitlements. The difference is, however, that one side has decided to make their focus a negative one by trying to destroy a presidency at all costs, rather than to devote their positive energy to serving the people. We’ll have to see how that pays off in the long run.

TaTonkaJuly 9, 2011 at 7:20 am

What Obama economic idea have the republicans been able to stop? Yourweb, were you in favor of the stimulus? Cash 4 Clunkers? Obamacare? Other than raise taxes what is Obama/democrats plan to help the economy? They do have a plan, right?

TaTonkaJuly 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm

The worst thing you could have on a resume right now is…. Obama Economic Adviser

Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 11:01 am
This is so stupid! It is black letter constitutional law that people cannot be prosecuted for peppering their political speech with vulgarity and just being loud. During that three minutes one can do anything they want short of threatening someone physically or hoaxing a fire alarm (Fire in a crowded theatre!) I agree with Jeff. If you don’t like Cam Noltemeyer’s withering glances then don’t run for the elected office. Why are elected officials turning into such whiny babies whose feelings are always hurt?
ToddJuly 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Unless our new city attorney is stupid, this is already well tested. And, while I agree, the restrictions on “vulgar” and “profane” are vague at best, and likely to be overturned as such, the rest I’m on board with. If you want entertainment, I highly recommend turning into Burbank’s City Council meetings on a Tuesday night. You’ll see the most inane chatter that is completely uncontrolled, dragging the council meetings on until Midnight nearly every week. Oh, and they aren’t afraid to pound the gavel and have the disruptors removed (google “Edward Guerrero Burbank” for some fun reading). There must be some rules for decorum and civility in our governmental proceedings. Restricting the words used, well I don’t support that… but the manner in which they’re conveyed, I fully support. (and I highly doubt that glances can be construed as distruptive….. But they can be quite distracting!)
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“Unless our new city attorney is stupid, this is already well tested.” Let us refer back to “I’m sure we can collect the County library special assessment tax.”
ToddJuly 7, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Well, OK, fair point. However, both the Brown Act, as well as numerous rulings by SCOTUS have enabled bodies such as the council to regulate the comments made, so long as they’re content neutral. So dropping an f-bomb to say “I effing love the libraries” must be as equally prohibited as saying “I effing hate the libraries.” No more, no less. Perfectly legal under the Brown Act and First Amendment. Here’s a great article in the UCLA Law Review that delves into the issue: http://uclalawreview.org/?p=1151
forrest gumpJuly 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Stupid is as stupid does.
NFICJuly 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I think this is way over the top and will be very subjective. For example, I’ve seen where supporters of an issue the council supports and will approve come in with a sign and\or buttons supporting that issue (which are not allowed), and the council will usually look the other way or compliment them. But if the opposition to an issue does that, they get called out. This is just another way for the current Council to stifle dissent – much like moving the public comments to the end of the meeting. Perhaps they ought to do the same with the recognition items! I agree with Timothy and Jeff. This country was founded to support free speech. The Council should not be trying to impede that! But my guess is there will be a 4-1 vote approving this issue.
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm
NFIC: Historically, the public comments were at the end, but they were moved to the beginning to actually shorten the meetings. Here is how it worked: The Council had the same 6-12 people who were showing up to every meeting with their usual complaints. The idea was that give them their three minutes; One half hour would pass, and they would be on their way home sated. This contrasted to holding public comment to the end when these individuals, with the staying power to stay up late, would get involved with EVERY SINGLE agenda item putting in their three minutes worth of comment, and thus extending the meeting by perhaps two to two and one half hours. Bring on the law of unintended consequences! (I call it the “Benz Road Effect.”) With general comment at the beginning 100 people could show up to dispute the placement of a landfill, etc. and really send the meeting over schedule. Its like wack a mole!
CCJuly 7, 2011 at 12:24 pm
This should definitely be applicable to Frank Ferry
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Isn’t Frank more settled since his gut blew up!
CCJuly 7, 2011 at 8:45 pm
You might be right Tim. I do have to say that the Ferry/Klajack (sp) days were entertaining to say the least.
spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“the Mayor has legal power and responsibility to … order removed from Council Chambers any person whose conduct he/she deems objectionable” This is so over-reaching that it is laughable! So one person’s opinion of “objectionable” now make free speech a CRIME? Not in the USA! I welcome the first legal test. And more tax moeny gets wasted by a whiny, blowhard, bought-off City council!
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm
SP2: You remember the precedent. Jan Heidt had John Steffen removed from the lectern before the three minutes elapsed when he stated that Jo Anne Darcy had run a “dirty campaign”in 1998. The City had to sign some kind of letter acknowledging that the three minutes is sacrosanct.
forrest gumpJuly 7, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I think this will invite bad behavior. Not wise. This will allow and encourage anyone to make a loud comment into an event for national news or even a court case.
Alan FerdmanJuly 7, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Make a tie vote a win and make free speech a misdemeanor . What next, make disagreeing with the City Council a felony? Whenever I think that our council has reached the height of arrogance, they never disappoint me by taking it one step further. But to make sure they can slide it through without any discussion, it is placed on the Consent Calendar. If the City Manager or City Council members think there will not be speakers on this item, or that it will not be an election issue, you can add delusional to their resume.
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Alan: NOTHING is going to be an election issue because I don’t see anyone running against the incumbents in 2012. Do you know differently?
Alan FerdmanJuly 7, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Tim Not yet. Remember there is more than one election.
spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm
What else do you expect from those who brought “EnderMath” to you? If you show up and are “objectionable” you get arrested. If you don’t show up you are counted as supporting Ender’s view. So all you can do is show up and not be objectionable. So much for bringing government closer to the people.
PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm
We must acknowledge that the problem comes from idealogical Leftist activists who have no sense of social decorum. Noltmeyer, Lutnesses, and Plambeck make the meetings monotonous and bring nothing of value to the meetings.
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Petz: The Center Right activists throw out their share of insults too. Alan Ferdman throws out accusations and then they all cry and whine about being insulted.
PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Alan is a staunch defender of the Canyon Country community. He researches his facts and he does not engage in character assassination or disseminate leftist propaganda and junk science. That being said, CC is still the best location for the recycling center. Council buckled on that one.
PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm
TJMSR, why were you sitting on your hands for American Values?
spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Not your call to make, Pedz, it’s public comment. So you disagree? Go use our very own three minutes. Sounds more like the Rightist’s view to quash dissent you disagree with.
Timothy Myers SR.July 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Here is a question for the ordinance: If someone walked up to the podium and used their three minutes to make fart noises with their hand and opposing underarm, would that be a misdemeanor?
spineflower2July 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm
See, we don’t know, because the proposed law says it’s totally up to the subjective feelings of the mayor. And that lack of an objective standard is why it will fail Constitutionally. The only question is whether the exalted City attorney will know this or not.
PetzJuly 8, 2011 at 3:49 am
Perhaps Tim could volunteer to translate should this occur. As Petz said “no sense of social decorum”.
MikeJuly 7, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I find nearly all of the regular CC speakers – left, right and Berta, to be some combination of tiresome, obsessive, delusional, misguided, selfish, uninteresting, arrogant, bigoted, precious or nasally (yes, nasally). Still, there’s never been a moment where I though they ought not have the right to speak, or to speak in the manner of their choosing. The city council is a stated foe of the 14th Amendment, so just add the 1st to the list. Of course, one of our council members is an ardent foe of the 18th amendment, but lucky for him/her, it’s been repealed.
Mr PerezJuly 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Does this mean they wanted to get lit during the actual meetings? lol
Timothy Myers SR.July 8, 2011 at 7:59 am
I agree Mike, but of course the solution is to not run for the office if you are not prepared to see if a person can ACTUALLY die from boredom.
IHeartSCVJuly 8, 2011 at 9:29 am
Aww, c’mon Mike, they’re not all bad. Valerie Thomas is fantastic, Alan Ferdman does staff the courtesy of reading the agenda before commenting (the same cannot be said of all CC members), and without Lynne and Cam, meetings would just be an orgy of self congratulation and saccharine speeches about the next great project.
SplashGuardJuly 8, 2011 at 10:24 am
I agree. Without this handful, there would be few who actually had read many of these resolutions. Cut and paste being such an effective production tool, it is not even necessary that the “authors” of these things know what they say, or have thoroughly thought through the costs, benefits, impacts, and the public’s support for or against. But thanks to the regular usual suspects, Council only has to bear a few minutes of their questioning, ignore most questions or hand them back to Ken Pulskamp. Then the City can claim that the opposition was given an opportunity to present their position even though their decision was already made, oddly enough almost always agreeing to what Pulskamp et al put together.
PetzJuly 7, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Against the 14th, ?Petz was there the night Ender defended birth right citizenship. Sure miss Roger Gitlin t the meetings
Damage Inc.July 8, 2011 at 9:43 am
Yes, racists always make things more interesting.
TaTonkaJuly 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm
How come there is no discussion of today’s economic numbers
PetzJuly 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm
The numbers speak for themselves and only confirm what the vast majority of people already know. Obama is clueless and lacks the leadership skills to be POTUS. He is an Alinsky style idealogue, without the capacity to shift his sail with the changing economic winds. He is a ship without a rudder, loved and adored by the lemmings who crave security over liberty. Obama is a poser. Words do not exist to fully express the contempt we have for him as a president. Great husband , good father, get the Hell out of the White House and quit wrecking my country !
yourwebguruJuly 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Petz has it all figured out. So let’s vote for Cain; an unproven, untested head of a pizza chain with no executive experience. OR perhaps we can bring in Ms. Bachmann, the right-wing ideologue who has never even introduced a bill into Congress. I say bring it on. Elect someone else who has no other ideas to change the direction we’re in. Leave out the ideological morality crap, and get to work solving the issues. By the way, my own professional economic numbers have never been better, so I have no complaints either way. Business is booming, I’m contributing to the economy and growing exponentially. On that note, when things were really bad economically for me (Under the tail end of the last presidency) I didn’t blame him for my woes. I put myself in that predicament by ignoring the warning signs just like a lot of people. Simultaneously, I don’t credit Obama for my positive direction. I did that myself as well. I didn’t wait for an elected official or their numbers to give me confidence, I adapted, changed my outlook, reorganized and moved forward. It’s easy to blame others for our own failures, and our elected leaders are usually the ones we blame first. Sure, we want that free market opportunity until it doesn’t go our way, then it’s the president’s fault, no matter who is in charge, and we DEMAND he find us jobs. Obama doesn’t have some magic economy lever in the Oval Office that instantly makes things better. What he does have is a divided house that makes decisions to perpetually jockey themselves to become the majority in the next election. I blame both sides for this. There is nothing but partisan arguments and ideology from all sides. One side won’t raise taxes, the other side won’t capitulate one bit on entitlements. The difference is, however, that one side has decided to make their focus a negative one by trying to destroy a presidency at all costs, rather than to devote their positive energy to serving the people. We’ll have to see how that pays off in the long run.
TaTonkaJuly 9, 2011 at 7:20 am
What Obama economic idea have the republicans been able to stop? Yourweb, were you in favor of the stimulus? Cash 4 Clunkers? Obamacare? Other than raise taxes what is Obama/democrats plan to help the economy? They do have a plan, right?
TaTonkaJuly 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm
The worst thing you could have on a resume right now is…. Obama Economic Adviser