Something to consider over the holidays.

150 warm, dry, and furnished apartments still sitting empty at the brand new Redding Veterans Home, almost one year after being completed in January 2012 at a cost of $88 million.

$119,000 each month to staff and maintain this unused facility, including salaries, benefits and utilities, totaling roughly $1.43 million dollars a year.

3 to 4 more months of cold, wet, windy winter weather ahead for North State residents.

2,213 total individuals, representing 1,581 households, were homeless at some point in 2011 and 983 total individuals, representing 423 households, were imminently at-risk of becoming homeless. 315 children were homeless and 458 children were imminently at-risk of becoming homeless. 99 veterans were homeless (Source: City of Redding Shasta County Homeless Continuum of Care Council 2011 year-long homeless survey, www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/housing_index/coc_index.aspx).

If you feel the Veterans Home should be offered as a place of respite for the homeless, at least until such time as it is utilized for its intended purpose, please consider sharing your thoughts with Peter J. Gravett, Secretary, California Department of Veterans Affairs, at Peter.Gravett@cdva.ca.gov or 1227 O Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.

I did.

Dare I Say, Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

At the risk of sounding like the groom left standing at the altar, I couldn’t resist the urge to challenge the Paradise Post’s recent congressional endorsement editorial.

Frankly, I’m surprised, disappointed and disheartened by the Post’s apparent casual dismissal of many of those running for congress as not being ‘serious’ candidates, myself included. Simply making the statement, without any explanation, doesn’t make it true.

In their own words, they say:

“Congressman Wally Herger, who will conclude 26 years in Washington in December, announced late last year that he would not seek re-election. His decision sparked a flood of candidates to enter the race, though not all of them were serious candidates. We whittled the field down from the nine that are on the ballot to four candidates that we feel are serious:”

The Post’s flippant, unsubstantiated labeling of some of the congressional candidates as not being ‘serious’ candidates is incredibly insulting, irresponsible and ignorant…to say the least.

Dare I say, anyone who decides to run for public office, voluntarily subjecting themselves to the public scrutiny and grueling rigors of a campaign, deserves to be taken seriously. Preserving and protecting this very basic American right is, in large measure, the reason I served this great Nation for 26 years in the US military.

Unlike the Paradise Post, I would never think to belittle, demean or so casually discard any citizen who chooses to participate in America’s political process. To the contrary, we should be encouraging all citizens to become more actively engaged in determining the future direction of our country, leaving the ultimate choice up to the voters.

So, tell me.  In the Paradise Post’s opinion, what makes one a ‘serious’ candidate? I can find no such explanation in their recent editorial.

Do you mean to imply only establishment politicians are ‘serious’ candidates? Or, perhaps, only those who agree with you on the issues? Or, is a ‘serious’ candidate defined as one with serious name recognition, or one of the good ‘ole boys, or, perhaps, someone with a tidy sum of cash in their campaign coffers? Who can know for sure?

Heck, I’ve attended 80+ campaign events and traveled some 7,000 miles; spent weeks writing my position on the issues; self-funded a large portion of my campaign; worn down shoe leather walking the cities and towns in the congressional district; walked in lots of parades; fielded tough questions at candidate forums; and, run my campaign without the aid of high priced consultants, managers and speech writers. Does any of this make me a ‘serious’ candidate?

Just as it would be inappropriate for me to suggest the Paradise Post is not a ‘serious’ newspaper without the necessary substantiation to back it up, it is inappropriate of the Post to make a similar proclamation about those running for political office.

Come on Paradise Post, you’re better than this….at least I thought so. And, same goes for all the other North State media outlets intent on making political endorsements. Your readers, viewers, and listeners deserve a more detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all the congressional candidates.

Until then, your endorsement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

A link to the referenced Paradise Post editorial, along with a full text version, is provided below:

http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_20716102/editorial-crowded-field-narrowed-aanestad?source=rss_viewed

By Donna Caldwell

Letter to the Editor

Say It Ain’t So

Doug LaMalfa and Sam Aanestad, both congressional
candidates, took California taxpayers for a free ride . . . literally.

Dave Palmer, Watchdog at noethics.net, investigated a perk
giving legislators a state-subsidized vehicle upon request. Taxpayers pick up
90 percent of the monthly bill and legislators cover the rest.

According to Palmer,

“Shortly after
assuming office in Dec. 2002, Doug LaMalfa was of the opinion that he was
entitled to hose the public by ordering a 2003 Mustang Mach 1 at a cost to the
public of $28,957. … From 2003 through 2008, it cost the taxpayers of
California $65,584 to provide Doug LaMalfa with a “muscle car” to allegedly
serve the best interests of his constituents. … Doug LaMalfa personally
authorized the expenditure of $16,258.64 for maintenance on the Mach 1 for the
years 2006 and 2007.”

Aanestad has a similar horror story.  Sam purchased a 2003 Ford Expedition for
$45,393.91 and Chrysler 300M in 2007 for $43,780.70.  Palmer says,

“From 2003 through
2008 the taxpayers were hosed to the tune of $165,286 to provide ol’ Sam with
luxury rides of his choosing. This comes out to a yearly average of $27,048 a
year.”

Please, gentlemen, say it ain’t so.

Donna Caldwell

Cottonwood, CA

Say It Ain’t So

Doug LaMalfa and Sam Aanestad, both congressional candidates, took California taxpayers for a free ride . . . literally.

Dave Palmer, Watchdog at noethics.net, investigated a perk giving legislators a state-subsidized vehicle upon request. Taxpayers pick up 90 percent of the monthly bill and legislators cover the rest.

According to Palmer,

“Shortly after assuming office in Dec. 2002, Doug LaMalfa was of the opinion that he was entitled to hose the public by ordering a 2003 Mustang Mach 1 at a cost to the public of $28,957. … From 2003 through 2008, it cost the taxpayers of California $65,584 to provide Doug LaMalfa with a “muscle car” to allegedly serve the best interests of his constituents. … Doug LaMalfa personally authorized the expenditure of $16,258.64 for maintenance on the Mach 1 for the years 2006 and 2007.”

Aanestad has a similar horror story.  Sam purchased a 2003 Ford Expedition for $45,393.91 and Chrysler 300M in 2007 for $43,780.70.  Palmer says,

“From 2003 through 2008 the taxpayers were hosed to the tune of $165,286 to provide ol’ Sam with luxury rides of his choosing. This comes out to a yearly average of $27,048 a year.”

Please, gentlemen, say it ain’t so.

Donna Caldwell
Cottonwood, CA