Rep. Hunter staffer Harrison announces for Assembly in 2016

Barry Jantz Barry Jantz, Guest Column 19 Comments

Share

Today may be the qualification deadline for the June primary this year, but Mike Harrison is getting the jump on a deadline still two years away. The longtime staffer to both Congressmen Duncan Hunters (father and son) tells me he is running in 2016 to succeed Brian Jones in the State Assembly. I requested Harrison provide a comment, but he did one better, sending me the following:

Achieving a Better California
by Mike Harrison

A better California is something we not only deserve, it’s a goal I want to help us achieve in our great state. After much prayer and discussion with my family, I have made the decision to run for California State Legislature’s 71st Assembly District in 2016.

I believe it’s important that we continue to have leaders in Sacramento fighting for the ideals and values that allow us to reach our full potential. For the past 20 years, I have been blessed with the opportunity to serve the San Diego community by working for Congressman Duncan D. Hunter and his father, former Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, both in Washington and here at home. During this time, I have learned many valuable lessons, one of the most important being if we are to change our future for the better, it is imperative we have strong voices in government advocating toward a better path. We are fortunate to have these types of leaders in San Diego already representing us in Washington and Sacramento. Congressman Hunter, State Senator Joel Anderson and State Assemblyman Brian Jones have done an excellent job working for us and I am continually appreciative of their commitment to conservative ideals and principles. I intend to carry on this important role by utilizing three basic approaches we can take to change Sacramento; fixing what’s broken, protecting what works, and encouraging innovation for a stronger future.

The reason for our difficulties in California is not a mystery. Over-reaching regulations, high taxes and an unfavorable business climate create economic uncertainty and are driving good people and good businesses away. It’s that simple. We can definitely do better; our challenges can be overcome with a combination of common sense, accountability and an honest commitment to free-market ingenuity.

Despite our challenges, I strongly believe California is the greatest state in the nation. The problem is not our citizens, it’s the direction in Sacramento. If elected, my priorities will include protecting Prop 13, strengthening our education system, improving California’s infrastructure and better promoting our state’s business opportunities.

Prop 13 provides homeowners greater assurance in their property and encourages new investment opportunities; it must be protected. California’s education system can be improved to ensure that our young people possess the critical thinking skills they will need to survive in the real world and in the global market. Our vast infrastructure, which set the standard nationwide on how to efficiently move people and goods, is aging and requires improvement upgrades and new construction that must be carried out in a way that truly meets our changing demands, not serving a partisan political agenda.

Finally, the innovation opportunities in California are limitless. Promoting a pro-business environment, where new ideas and technology can be encouraged and thrive rather than discounted and hampered, is the best way to protect against losing families, jobs, and businesses to states like Texas and South Dakota. Imagine the potential if our local assets, such as our coastline and ocean, were more fully utilized to encourage business development and create new jobs responsibly. Imagine the growth that would occur in our regional economy if our state were to actually provide incentives for companies to start up or move their business to California rather than casting a blind eye of indifference when they leave.

Reaching these goals will not just happen by chance. They must be introduced and championed by political leadership willing to remain steadfast in an environment where the first reaction to any problem historically has been to tax and spend or to implement unrealistic government-based solutions.

California is worth fighting for. I can provide the leadership needed to help reach our full potential. I look forward to discussing these issues, new ideas and my candidacy for the 71st Assembly District in 2016 with San Diego residents. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas with me.

Sincerely,

Mike Harrison
Candidate, 71st Assembly District – 2016
Email: harrison4ca@yahoo.com
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Harrison/100005395533875

Share

Comments 19

  1. Who is this guy? So he works for Hunter but what has he done in our community? Come on Barry throw your hat in the ring. I have met Mike but he is just another staffer with no real world experience. What private sector work has he done? How many times has he signed the front of a pay check? Well it will be interesting in the next years to follow. I wish him all the luck!

  2. Sounds like the District has been getting short changed for years. No wonder constituents cant get problems solved, when staffers are on perpetual campaign mode.

  3. Mike Harrison is part of the party controlled system and didn’t want to ruffle any political Republican feathers by taking on the campaign this year. We have problems in this state that need to get fixed now, not 2 years from now. That is why I, Tony Teora, decided to run against incumbent Brian Jones this year. Mike is expecting the party to just pass the torch to him in 2016 when Brian hits term limits. I on the other hand, intent to fight for the people of this state and my district now. I am not controlled by the big money interests that control the parties. I believe my message of good paying jobs, lower taxes, and support of education will become popular and that I will beat Brian Jones in November 2014. Then, in two years, Mike Harrison can look forward to running against incumbent Tony Teora. Real leadership is not waiting two years to get into the fight. Vote for: Tony Teora for State Assembly 2014

  4. Mr. Teora,

    1- Did you run as a Republican or a Democrat for NJ Legislature in 1994?

    2- Would you support an expansion or repeal of AB 32?

    3- Why do you support raising the minimum wage?

    I appreciate that you want to rely on science but the policy prescriptions you offer ignore human action.

  5. Mr. Brady,

    I ran as neither a Republican nor Democrat in 1994. I supported and was a friend of Tom Blomquist, the founder of the NJ Conservative Party who ran for Governor of NJ. Neither Tom nor I believed that the two parties were serving the interests of people since they are mostly party/special interest controlled machines. I ran as a NJ Conservative in 1993 for the ’94 term.

    As for AB 32, a bill that a California Republican Governor signed into law, it’s not perfect. I don’t like the government over regulating our lives, but if it’s true that industrial production of greenhouse gasses are destroying the planet (a planet our children and grandchildren may someday need), then we need to do something. The whole world needs to do something. There are special interests on both sides and big business is involved on both sides. As Assemblyman, I would review the bill in detail with impartial and intelligent advisors, review the science, and see what makes sense and is working and what is not. We can always change the law if necessary, but overall I support AB 32 as have other environmentally conscious Republicans & Democrats. It’s also good for the economy. California has some of the top companies and engineers in the world. Energy efficiency helps business cut costs and increase profits besides benefiting California and the planet ecologically.

    The minimum wage hike was a hard one for me. I believe in the free market and don’t think government does a great job at anything. If this was a perfect society, I would oppose the minimum wage system period. Leave it open to the free market. But the market is not free and the middle-class is being destroyed through hidden inflation hikes. The Federal Reserve is printing tons of money for bailouts of big business, causing inflation in the process. Congress should take responsibility for this in allowing it to happen. Anyone who really studies and understands the economic theory behind this knows we have a problem with inflation. The minimum wage in 1969 was something like $1.60. Adjusted for inflation it would be around $10.86 or more now. Also, people are taxed more than in 1968, so when you take all that into account, it’s clear why many adults living on minimum wage are getting food stamps. Why should the tax payers support profitable companies like Walmart by paying for their staff’s wages thru taxes for things like food stamps? The majority of people on minimum wage are adult women who are struggling to make ends meet. On a related note, I would push for deep tax cuts to small businesses so they can afford the minimum wage hikes. I do realize that some small business will have issues with the minimum wage hike, but I would propose we tie it with small business tax cuts. It won’t be perfect but I think overall it will benefit the state. There are other conservative Republicans like Ron Unz of Silicon Valley who also believes in raising the minimum wage. It would be easier for me to oppose the minimum wage as a fiscal conservative, but true leaders should do and say what they believe is right regardless of the political winds at the time.

    Tony Teora for State Assembly 71st
    http://www.tonyteora.org

  6. Mr Teora,

    You’re singing my song when you describe the mischief in which the Federal Reserve Banking System engages but your solution doesn’t help poor or middle-class people. Moreover, you’re fighting theft with more theft when you support a minimum wage hike (that’s not your money to redistribute). That’s immoral.

    I”m guessing you believe that anthropogenic global warming is destroying the planet and fell compelled to centrally plan the economy for your lessers. Since a growing number of scientists are refuting earlier alarmist claims, isn’t it best for a Legislator to pursue restraint rather than poke his/her nose into things which they don’t own?

  7. Mr. Brady,

    It would be logical to conclude from your argument on minimum wages that we rescind the minimum wage laws. I would agree if the system wasn’t already rigged against the middle class. Without a strong middle class this country will crumble. That is also immoral. As Seattle has raised their minimum wage to $15, we can review the effects and see if this is wise or not. We’ll soon know in California too. I’ve chosen my ground on this for now, and I admit it is ground that sometime shakes under my feet. If I am proved wrong on the consequences I will gladly rejoin your side in the near future. Your side is the high ground in a true free market system which we do not have, one I believe is currently rigged against the middle class. Please note that I strongly support tax cuts for businesses, especially small businesses to reduce the pain of the minimum wage increases coming to California.

    And yes you are correct, I personally believe from the data I’ve read, that we have anthropogenic (human caused) global warming beside a possible natural cycle. I despise having the government getting in the way of our freedoms, as they rarely do anything right and can’t be trusted. The Social Security ‘trust’ fund is perfect example. It’s been raided and is broke. But I do think that if the planet is being destroyed by greenhouse gasses, for better or worse, governments are the only place where mankind can make some big changes. Yes, some of alarmist claims on climate change is being refuted, but I advise caution. There is big money interest on both sides and it is very difficult to get the truth. Both sides are putting out propaganda. There are people who I believe are climate change charlatans like ‘Lord’ Monckton. Talk show host Alex Jones and Assemblyman Brian Jones have both brought in ‘Lord’ Monckton as an ‘expert’. On paper ‘Lord’ Monckton looks valid so I can see why people use him. But when you do the research (not easy) you will see he’s not a qualified climate scientist and his data is skewed and refuted. Years ago there was a big argument on whether cigarettes caused cancer. Doctors used to promote cigarettes, but in actuality they were getting paid to be charlatans or useful idiots (maybe both). In any case, if I am wrong and you are right, and we enact climate change laws we get lower greenhouse emissions, better, more efficient technologies, green technologies, and albeit, taxed a bit more for the clean air we all breath. If you are wrong, and I am right, and we do nothing, we might be taxed a bit less, but we might lose our children’s planet in the process.

    Which bet would you like to take?

    I plan to have an event on climate changed called: ‘Climate Change- Fact or Fiction’, I will send you a personal invitation. I am also planning to have an event on: ‘Smart Solutions for California’s Water Problem’. I think the result of the draught is tied to anthropogenic and/or natural causes, either way, we need to fix the water problem, and fix it soon for our agriculture and growth. I will post these events on my homepage and would look forward to having someone as spirited as you to attend these events to keep us honest.

    I do sincerely appreciate you pressing these points to me. We should do that to all would be or current legislators. We need the conversation to ensure we don’t lose our freedoms, figure out the truth, and fix this broken state. I suspect we will not see eye to eye on all issues but I have to admit, you’ve made me think hard about my positions.

    Sincerely,
    Tony Teora
    Candidate for State Assembly 71
    http://www.tonyteora.org

  8. “Which bet would you like to take”

    The one which has solved most problems efficiently, quickly, and for the lowest cost– the freedom bet. Enacting laws on, what you stipulate are premature conclusions, is anti-life, ant-science, & classist.. I don’t want to go bac to the Dark Ages so let’s think of ways to get off innovators’ backs before we consider Soviet-style rationing.

    I’d love an invitation to your conference. I’m game to learn just about anything.

  9. Seat belts, air bags, catalytic converters, cigarettes, red dye #2, acid rain…

    Sometimes, the only way to protect the public (government’s most important function) is through regulations and mandates.

  10. “Sometimes, the only way to protect the public (government’s most important function)”

    Oh gosh, that’s not government’s most important. function. If it were, most anything could be justified at the expense of what IS government’s most important function.

  11. Brian,

    Why do you need a government to do that? If there were no government, every individual would have complete liberty.

  12. “… laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Still seems to me that you can have liberty without any government. Safety, probably not so much.

  13. “Still seems to me that you can have liberty without any government”

    You can have ice cream without a Baskin Robbins too but Baskin Robbins was formed to sell ice cream. Yours is a fallacy of composition.

    You asked a question and I answered with the American tradition. I’m sure there are other answers for other traditions

  14. An individual without government protecting his rights would not have complete liberty. Two others would surround him, form a Democracy, and outvote him on whether or not he gets to keeps his dwelling, wife, kids, private property, etc.

    If safety were the most important job of government, North Korea would be considered the most successful government on the planet. And if an individual could have complete liberty without government’s role of protecting liberty, Somalia would be a paradise.

  15. Maybe we are just having a disagreement over semantics. When you write about having a group take away my possession, I call that a safety issue. Maybe you call it a liberty issue. Likewise, I don’t think the lack of government in Somalia has led to a lack of liberty. I think it has led to a lack of safety.

    Getting back to the original topic, I do think it is the government’s role to protect us from others (foreign and domestic) who would take away our health, lives or property. I also think that protection also applies to protection from lead paint, faulty brakes, unsafe food and climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.