Don’t Reward Illegal Aliens
Letter to the editor

I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose any form of amnesty for illegal aliens.

I came to this country more than 40 years ago. I went through all the paperwork and entered the country legally, ultimately becoming a citizen of the United States of America. I have paid taxes ever since I arrived. I am horrified that those taxes are going to provide health care and education to illegal aliens. There are many citizens in this country who are suffering without health insurance and necessities, but they do not qualify for assistance under the current laws and guidelines. How can we justify providing health care and education to those who have never made any contribution to the funding of these programs? We have young men and women fighting and dying overseas. Are the illegal aliens required to go to war? No. We have people with health problems who cannot afford health care, and they are suffering because they do not qualify for assistance. We have people who forego their vital medications in order to put a meager amount of food on the table. We have those who struggle every month to decide where their small Social Security check should go – heat, food or medication. Yet, we willingly provide free health care and education to those who have never contributed one penny. 

My ex-husband died a couple of years ago. He was on MediCare and MediCal. Immediately, the state demanded repayment for his medical bills from my son who inherited a very rundown house in the desert. My son was out of work at the time, but he lost an appeal because they said he did not prove that he would qualify for welfare or food stamps. He would easily have qualified, but he chose not to apply, as he still had a small amount of money in the bank. Fortunately, he is now working as an independent contractor. His earnings work out as close to or below the minimum wage. He is filing and paying taxes, and he has a $12000 bill hanging over his head. Oh, by the way, did I mention my son is autistic?

What if the decision-makers grant the illegal aliens amnesty? Is the government going to set the same standard for those who have broken the law? Are the illegal aliens going to be required to repay the costs for their health care, medication and education that they have already received? I doubt it. People talk about discrimination, but it is the citizens of this country who are being discriminated against. We are required to pay taxes, and we are required to pay for our own health care. If we don’t, there are serious consequences. If I stop paying my taxes, which I can ill afford to pay, will I receive amnesty in the future? No way, Jose!

I have always considered myself as fairly liberal-minded, but my views are very firm on this. I voted in the last election, but I promise that, come the next election, I will not continue to vote for anyone who supports amnesty for illegal aliens. We first need to right all those things that are wrong amongst our own. Charity begins at home, not across the border.

Anne Welty
Aliso Viejo

Who’s Your Daddy?
Editorial staff

Who controls the Mission Viejo City Council? One would hope council members’ first obligation would be to their constituents. After all, council members get a whopping $6,000 a year for “public service.” Although council members are supposed to work for the residents, campaign finance reports help to explain why they don’t.

Financial reports for the 2006 city campaign have been filed with the city clerk, and the data can be viewed online at the city’s Web site. Not counting contributions or loans the candidates made to their own campaigns, one should look at the largest donors. Vast amounts of money going into the incumbents’ treasuries came from out of town. After incumbents shook down city vendors, their campaigns benefited from consultants, developers and others wanting a piece of city pie. The campaigns of three challengers – Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker – also took large sums from out-of-town donors, particularly those tied to a county lobbyist.

Incumbent Council Members Trish Kelley, John Paul Ledesma and Lance MacLean relied heavily on those doing business with the city to fund their reelection campaigns. Particularly disappointing to their constituents, all three took large donations from Steadfast, the developer of high-density housing at Los Alisos and Jeronimo. Despite pleas from residents, especially those living near the project, all five council members voted to rezone a portion of the parcel from commercial to high-density residential. All five council members either accepted money directly for their campaigns or their campaigns benefited from Steadfast’s contributions.

Frank Ury’s shrinking fan club should note the object of their affection accepted campaign donations in 2005 and 2006 from Steadfast, Saunders (owner of the adjacent property on Jeronimo), consultant Roger Faubel and the P.R. firm Waters & Faubel. While Ury’s fanatics hammer other council members for pay-to-play politics, the same scrutiny and criticism should apply to him.

Residents are still complaining about candidates who littered every street corner with campaign signs. Clearly, the No. 1 litterbug was Trish Kelley. This is reflected in her financial report showing she spent an incredible $5,328 on signs, with additional money for stakes and assembly. Most other candidates spent less than half that amount on signs, and Kelley’s paper-based signs were probably cheaper than the plastic-based ones used by most other candidates. If anyone wants to complain about the city’s expense of collecting and disposing of signs, comments should first be directed at Kelley. Despite seeing her signs on every corner, thoroughfare, slope, etc., campaign workers who retrieved confiscated signs at City Hall noted that Kelley’s signs were less likely to be taken by city employees or the special contractor hired to sweep the streets of all signs.

As another item among the financial data, challengers Greenwood, Barker and McCusker each reported receiving a service valued at $1,480 for a poll paid for by Frank Ury’s campaign treasury. Perhaps this is the poll that gave Bill Barker the confidence to brag, “After the election, I’m going to be one of the most powerful people in Mission Viejo.” He said he would also become the city’s next vice mayor. Another poll taken at about the same time by an incumbent’s consultant found Greenwood, Barker and McCusker losing, with Barker not even close and McCusker near the bottom.

Figures from Barker’s campaign report include a $10,000 donation from an out-of-town businessman and $6,741 from South County Leadership PAC. Greenwood’s campaign accepted donations from Steadfast, South County Leadership PAC and a pro-abortion group, National Women’s Political Caucus

Additional disclosures include a report submitted by former Councilman Bill Craycraft, showing a campaign debt of twenty-some thousand dollars. It does shed light on why he didn’t try to run again in 2004 or 2006.

Anyone who wants more information can access the campaign finance link on the city clerk’s page, http://cityofmissionviejo.org/depts/cclerk/index.html.

The Buzz column, Feb. 2

Mission Viejo residents watching recent council meetings have noticed a change at the beginning of the open session. Gone are former Mayor Lance MacClown’s happy hour performances. One observer said, “After a few months, they ran out of voluntary participants. The same performers were returning to sing 10 and 20 verses of the national anthem.” The Buzz suggests as the entertainment feature council members bringing “Deal, No Deal” attach‚ cases of campaign cash to open at the beginning of the meetings.

***

The council’s televised January 29 budget workshop showed a lot of empty seats in council chambers. When blog staffers asked various activists about the disinterest in attending, the primary response was laughter. Councilman Frank Ury made a statement following the meeting, saying the November 2006 election indicated voters want these five council members to work together. The Buzz disagrees. Election results posted by the Registrar of Voters clearly show voters tried to remove the three incumbents, with the majority of votes being split among challengers. However, several newcomers couldn’t get traction, and three widely known challengers were rejected by voters.

***

Did a council member actually suggest a team-building workshop at the budget meeting on Jan. 29? After trashing each other and refusing to work together, council members should come up with another way to burn the city’s money. Here’s a concept for them: team is not spelled “I-I-I.”

***

Residents continue to ask how the approved addition to the community center could have reached such an astronomical cost during its unending design phase. As one of the laughable topics during the Jan. 29 meeting, the proposed design of the addition has a different color roof than the original building. Councilwoman Trish Kelley emphasized repeatedly that she wants credit for noticing. Residents should be amused that the council geniuses agreed the current building should be re-roofed to match the new color instead of matching the new to the existing roof.

***

As disappointing news, former Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo won’t get to spill the beans about Mike Carona and other political officials in a long, drawn-out trial. Even Register columnist Frank Mickadeit lamented the missed opportunity for a countywide circus performance after Jaramillo plea bargained to avoid a possible prison sentence.

***

How will Frank Ury’s parting of ways with his corporate employer affect his council obligations? Ury is now a “consultant.” Who are his clients, and will he recuse himself from voting when he has a conflict of interest?

***

Disclosed in campaign finance (Form 460) reports on file at City Hall, council challenger Neil Lonsinger didn’t give cumulative numbers, but he appears to have spent more than $50,000 of his own cash, including payment of $5,000 for political advice during his failed 2006 council campaign. By contrast, Justin McCusker relied almost entirely on money from out of town. Residents who think any member of the council is above selling votes should take a look at the list of donors.