The Bauer Report

2010-05-10T19:52:00.001-08:00

Who is Governor Parnell surrounding him with?

House Rules Chair Nancy Dahlstrom held back HB3 from a floor vote this past session that would prevent illegal aliens from getting an Alaskan ID/drivers license.

Dahlstrom terminated the staffer of the sponsor of HB3 when she requested information from him and did not like his passion on the Bill. Dahlstrom was challenged by her Republican colleagues to put HB3 on the floor for a vote and on her harsh action in firing a staffer.

HB3 failed on the floor 23-17 with 6 Republicans: Dahlstrom, Fairclough; Austerman; Seaton; Peggy and Tammie Wilson voting to kill the Bill.

Alaskans for Legal Presence (ALP) made it public of its discontent with these Republicans; and includes that Dahlstrom was a key player working with convicted legislator Pete Kott to overthrow the more conservative House Chair in 2004.

Did the Parnell Administration have a vetting process with Dahlstrom? Why is the Parnell Administration hiring Dahlstrom for $96,000 a year to represent Military and Veterans Affairs? The Staffer she fired was a former U.S. Marine; and Dahlstrom has no military service experience.

2010-05-03T20:05:00.000-08:00

Alaska Contributes to a National Problem in its Own State

May 1, 2010 at the Los Angeles Times Building in Los Angeles, CA right across from city hall. Demonstrators sign says it all!

Unbeknownst to many Americans, May 1 is known as International Workers' Day . It is a day of celebration of the social and economic achievements of the international labor movement and left-wing movements. All communist countries honor this day as a holiday. Communism throughout the world has murdered 150 million people since 1918. It is also the same day that there were massive marches in support of illegal aliens becoming United States citizens in this country.

As most know, Arizona recently passed a law requiring its various state police agencies to enforce federal immigration law as a matter of state law. This law is a reaction to the federal government's refusal to effectively enforce immigration law. Much of the law is taken word for word from current federal immigration code and simply directs its state agents to enforce these existing laws as a matter of state law.

Then why is there a massive reaction against this reasonable law?

Certain factions (e.g. ethnic lobbies & cheap labor businesses) are well aware the federal government is not enforcing the law and like it that way. The Arizona law represents a government actually interested in enforcing its own law. This is a direct threat to them for if the feds ever got serious, they could effect their ability to mint new constituents for their ethnic lobbies or cheap workers for their businesses (in the context of double digit unemployment by the way).

Many don't know it but Alaska had a brief flirtation with local enforcement of federal immigration law this legislative session albeit much more modestly than Arizona. House Bill 3 (HB3) was to require Alaska driver's licenses to expire on the date a foreign visitor's US visa expires. You see, most illegal aliens don't sneak over the border, they overstay legal visas. According to a 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study, nearly half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that a “substantial” percentage of America’s illegal population is made up of visa overstays — their estimates range from 27 to 57 percent.

When Alaska issues a driver's license it lasts for five years. So an alien with a six month tourist visa can come here, get a license and then willfully overstay their visa and operate almost with impunity for five years. License renewal does not require citizenship verification; therefore the driver’s license becomes indefinite for the illegal alien. Even the State cannot know who or how many licenses are maintained by illegal aliens who overstayed their visa. The bill (HB3) was an attempt to close this glaring loophole.

Unfortunately this bill died in the House in the close vote of 23-17. Unfortunately six Republicans; Reps. Alan Austerman of Kodiak, Nancy Dahlstrom of Anchorage, Anna Fairclough of Eagle River, Paul Seaton of Homer, Peggy Wilson of Wrangell and Tammie Wilson of North Pole crossed the aisle with the Democrat block in lockstep support for illegal immigration. One Democrat Mike Doogan of Anchorage kept his word in support of the Bill.

Paul Bauer and Ryan Kennedy
Alaskans for Legal Presence (ALP)

2010-03-14T15:34:00.004-08:00

Ear’s Faulty Analogies

Anchorage Daily News Julia O'Mally gets hugs from Shelia Toomey

I am dumbfounded to how I got the attention of Anchorage’s LGBT community with the recent personal attack on my candidate statement for Assembly when I never mentioned anything of the sort. I always stay away from mixing sex with politics, yet there are those who want to politicize those things.

I want to thank Shelia Toomey’s for her chitchat column on me in this Sundays (March 14) Alaska’s Ear. With the incapability to write balanced, in-depth, and well-researched articles, the only alternative Ear gossipers have left is resorting to assaulting gossip. At any rate, I did notice a touch of "Attention Deficit" coming from her short-story telling. Her inductive analogy by reciting my very first sentence in my comprehensive statement only leads me to believe that Ms, Toomey has a special place for me in her heart, whether it’s elitist rant, or having a need to generate sales.

However, after giving some thought to her inability to come to other conclusions, I am forgiving her and her liberal diatribe which only validates my presumption of our local gossiper. Nevertheless I was so delighted that my candidate statement invoked a response from the proletarian part of our local paper.

I will try to stay above the fray and refrain in making anymore comments such as these, and be a good representative for my community. Can Ms. Toomey do the same?

2010-01-11T11:04:00.006-09:00

Bad Message

I was astonished when I heard things like, we need YOUNG candidates on the Assembly and the Legislature; and we need to turn the liberal Assembly to a conservative Assembly to support Mayor Sullivan to get things done.

Statements made recently by Republican Rebecca Logan on the Dan Fagan Radio show last week, promoting candidates in East Anchorage races validated to some extent of what’s wrong with Republicans and the Party message. Is there not a place for OLD candidates? Better judgment might be prudent in using the strategy on promoting less experienced candidates vs. more experienced candidates might be wise. I am sure this was a slip of-the-lip promotion.

During his two terms in office, Democrat and extremely liberal Mayor Mark Begich happen to get more things done; spent more of taxpayer's money; and passed more legislation than any other Mayor to date with the help of the” conservative" majority Assembly. Will that mean conservative Mayor Sullivan cannot do the job effectively without that conservative Assembly? What made Begich popular among his Democratic constituents was that he confronted new issues using his agenda, with help from the less confrontational moderates who failed to challenge him.

In my humble judgment, I would vote for someone with some years in age who would use their experiences when confronting issues, and challenge the executive office.
After all, among a host of many qualification indicators, I would measure life and worldly experiences as important qualities for those who will be making decisions affecting people’s lives. Those experiences might include travel and work; and equally with time and type of community and national service a candidate has.

Too many times we elect candidates solely based on their looks, and the short time we get to know them during the brief campaign; but with a good resume behind the candidate, one that includes a lifelong number of successes can make a world of difference than just being YOUNG.

2010-01-09T14:10:00.005-09:00

I will remember…

Wrong, wrong, wrong…afternoon talk‐show host and ADN opinion columnist says “Big spender Begich left money mess for Sullivan.” Let us be honest, fair, and up front with the facts.

Besides this liberal Assembly in 2009 allowing the sweet‐heart deals to go through before Begich left office for higher spending at the national level, the previously labeled “conservative” Assembly from 2005‐2008 is by preponderance responsible for the more than six years of the $150 million increase in the city’s budget.

Don’t you remember...the mediocre budget challenges coming from lookalike conservatives on the Assembly that were satisfied with lowering the budget by a mere $1 million in one 2‐year budget cycle? Don’t you remember the “conservative” Assembly Budget Chair Starr, along with another “so-called” Jennifer Johnston influenced and run by former Democrat and moderate attorney Assembly Chair Dan Coffey apologizing to Begich for his abrupt challenges to Begich’s budget increase request? Don’t you remember the Assembly in early 2007 ignoring the information finally given to us by Begich after numerous requests on city employee salaries, compensation and vacancy rates? How about the millions of dollars that were taxpayer donations and contributions to non‐profits throughout the city approved by Begich Administration department heads; don’t you remember nothing being done about anything?

Do you remember challenges from a couple of real conservatives (Bauer and Sullivan) to the Begich’s budget, followed by voting NO? Do you remember city road renovations in front of Begich’s family business costing taxpayers in 2006 about $4 million, now reaching to over $30 million, all this for less than one mile of pedestrian, snow‐free sidewalks and road improvements? How about the potential conflict of interests that goes along with it. Now the Begich’s moved out of Anchorage and the road in front of the business is complete, what about the rest of E Street?

Do you remember time after time, members of the Assembly caving in every time the Begich Administration fought us back on all issues? And, do you remember when local conservative talk‐show radio hosts like Rydell and Fagan were so accommodating when Begich and his side-kick Hasquet would come on the radio; allow them to spin their position, followed by the host’s mediocre challenges? Where was the anger and resolve to hold “them” accountable at that time?

Where were the sleepy Republicans?

I do remember the Chair of the Alaskan Republican Party, Randy Ruedrich inviting former Democrat and independent Dan Coffey to do the welcoming speech for the Party convention in 2008, until I stepped in; then Dan Sullivan did it. Remember?

I am simply amazed that after Mark Begich leaves the city for higher spending opportunities in our nation’s capital, that the so‐called “conservatives” come out of hiding to now throw little stones behind his back. The only real conservatives that should have that honor of throwing rocks are the ones true to themselves as a conservative, who consistently challenged and voted against Begich on the Assembly, and those voters in the voting booth that also tried to vote him out. Not many of those I’d say.

Begich won his second term with a wide margin of 56%. In Begich’s first term election, 53% voted for a conservative candidate. That says to me, many Republicans voted for Begich in his second term election.

I do remember I was there. So write down…I will remember…I will remember!

2010-01-09T13:31:00.003-09:00

Is the cart before the horse…where’s the analysis Mr. Mayor?

I hope this New Year brings much joy and happiness to everyone in Anchorage. I promised myself that I was not going to be so cynical this New Year, than on the first business day of the year; I read the proposal on a purchase of a downtown motel as an alcoholic shelter. Then I thought this is a 2009 issue; how about, I give one more for the road...What are you crazy; are you out of your mind?

Back in September 2009, the Mayor made the homeless issue an important project the required the necessity for good decision making and using solid problem solving methods. He selected the top experienced community leaders in Anchorage to address the problem and find solutions. So we thought. Immediately the highly selected team toured, then torn down homeless camp sites all over the city. They then figured out that finding shelter is the number one priority in solving the problem.

Wait…problem solving methods require that you first gather extensive data for the goals who want to achieve; identify the problem. Do the team and the citizens of Anchorage know how many homeless people there are? Where they are mostly located? What is there sex, gender, age, ethnicity, and work backgrounds? What are the causes of their homeliness are they due to economic factors, mental illness, or by choice? Who and how many are the hard-core alcoholics? Then there is; what are the potential solutions based on the survey? Are there charitable resources city wide to help with the problem? What would be the financial costs, and a plan that would be needed? The minimum I would expect to get to the heart of this problem, and importantly to the hearts and minds of the people; is to get the numbers and identify the extent of the problem.

The citizens of Anchorage surely expect more from their highly selected team of community leaders with an in-depth survey of the problem before jumping in with this instant solution. Then publish the findings and list solutions before we endorse the turnover of prime property to a non-profit. Did the Mayor provide any leadership, set time tables and guild lines to the project team leaders? Is there a budget to conduct information and data gathering? We may have missed an opportunity before the legislative session to get State assistance in funding the survey that is most and first needed.

Still, the enormity of housing fifty “drunks” in fifty rooms would be quite expensive, not without a whole range of other problems that would come with it if not planned out well with no community support. Even with non-governmental agencies overseeing the housing project, there would be grant requests from the agencies that are really taxpayer’s dollars; and other city costs from the secondary effects of violence, drugs, resident and public safety, medical services and public lewdness in the downtown area.

The Mayor has to figure out how serious he is about this issue; or is it politics and “feel good” publicity as usual?

It cost Seattle’s program $11.2 million for a 4-story project to house just 75 of Seattle’s worst-case hard-core alcoholics, and they have treatment, on-site health care services, meals and case management services. King County funded their project with an initial investment of $2 million, followed by $240,000 a year in operational support. What are the costs for 50 in Anchorage, and what are the measurable standards of success? It begs the question; do we really have that many hard-core alcoholics in our city?

I should add, that the housing need is far greater for misguided and homeless adolescents and adults who are willing, able, and lack family support to improve them as productive members of society over the complexity of dealing with inebriates. I suggest we concentrate our efforts on those people in need; but at least with this issue start by identifying the numbers and backgrounds of those you are seeking to help.