Featured BlogsRss Latest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three March 20, 2010
CA Political News
"President Barack Obama said Wednesday that heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar has informed him it will rehire some of the thousands of workers it has laid off in recent weeks if Congress passes an economic stimulus bill. Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off, Obama said today in The problem for President Obama is that Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens didn’t say that: But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we’re probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again. The "Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the companys health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone. In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of The Democrat/Obama health care bill is a massive job killer--wait till you see the unemployment and deficits rates due to Baracks totalitarian instincts. Years ago there was a famous song,"The Day The Music Died". It was a story about the murder of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King,Jr. March 21, 2010 could be the day FREEDOM was murdered. Thanks to Barack Obama March 21, 2010 will be a day that will live in infamy. California Conservative, 3/19/10 President Obama has taken a beating over the last year. His job approval ratings have dropped because people increasingly dont trust his promises. Nothing illustrates that better than when President Obama told the nation that Caterpillar would start rehiring laid off workers during his visit to Caterpillar headquarters in Peoria, IL: President Barack Obama said Wednesday that heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar has informed him it will rehire some of the thousands of workers it has laid off in recent weeks if Congress passes an economic stimulus bill. Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off, Obama said today in The problem for President Obama is that Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens didnt say that: But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is were probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again. Thats why this article is so interesting: Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the companys health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone. In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Caterpillar, the worlds largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said its particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines. The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program. We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors, said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns weve raised throughout the year. Getting this information published will cause It isnt a stretch to think that passing this bill might cause a new round of layoffs at companies like Caterpillar. Rather than just accepting the additional expense of health care, why wouldnt companies like Caterpillar just lay people off? As this letter says, the Democrats health care legislation would put Caterpillar at a competitive disadvantage internationally. This is why health care will do long-term damage on President Obama and the Democratic Party. President Obama and Pelosis Democrats have promised that their legislation will lower health care costs. The minute the people see health care and health insurance costs rising, the American people will be more disgusted with President Obama and Pelosis Democrats than they are already. Megyn Kelly interviewed Juan Williams and Scott Rasmussen about health care and how it would impact the midterm elections. Juan Williams tried minimizing the effect health care would have on the elections, saying that the economy would have a bigger impact on the elections. After reading this article, Im thinking that people will start mixing the two things together. I think that because having the Democrats health care legislation cause a massive increase in insurance premiums will dramatically affect peoples pocketbooks. At a time when theyre already struggling, people wont forget what caused the additional financial hardship. Rest assured that theyll be reminded morning, noon and nighttime where that additional pain came from in TV and radio ads. Wiccanwolf, Karin Hauenstein, The California Redneck
3
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
She spent 23 years in prison for her crime. Under the law, an illegal alien convicted of a felony MUST be deported. She is being deported. The ACLU prefers to keep this arsonist in the Because she claims she is innocent. In fact, ALL illegal aliens have committed crimes and felonies--stolen or phony ID's, stealing government benefits, driving without license or insurance-- Does LA woman paroled in deadly fire may be deported
Fresno Bee, 3/18/10 LOS ANGELES -- A clothing store owner who spent 23 years behind bars for a deadly arson fire after proclaiming her innocence was paroled from state prison on Thursday but immediately taken into immigration custody and faces deportation by the end of the week, officials said. Maria Rosa "Rosie" Sanchez, 49, was taken to an immigration office in San Bernardino following her release from the state California Institution for Women in Chino, said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We're proceeding immediately with steps to remove her" to her native Mexico, Kice said. Kice did not specify a timeline, but said it could as early as the end of the week. "Given the fact that she has no lawful status in the United States and she's a convicted felon, we're proceeding with her removal," Kice said. "She was made aware of her rights and the process was explained to her," Kice said. She declined to describe Sanchez's response. Calls to Sanchez's legal representatives seeking comment were not immediately returned. Sanchez, who owned a small clothing store, said she was at home when another store in the same building went up in flames in Dec. 8, 1985 and killed a man. Prosecutors argued that Sanchez had a financial motivation to burn out a rival and she was convicted of first-degree murder and arson. In 1987, she was sentenced to 25 years to life. Sanchez always maintained her innocence. With the help of a law clinic for women at the University of Southern California Law School, she got the state parole board to recommend her release. Last week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not block that recommendation and prison officials told Sanchez she would be released to her daughter, also named Rosie Sanchez, who lives in Anaheim. Jennifer Farrell, the USC law student who represented Sanchez before the parole board, said the prosecution relied on an 18-year-old witness, Adan Ramos, who said he saw Sanchez and another woman while he was trapped in the burning building. Ramos' father, Epiphanio, was sleeping in the store and died in the blaze. Attempts by The Associated Press to find telephone numbers to reach the Ramos family were not successful Thursday. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office had no family contact information for the 25-year-old case and Sanchez's defense attorney during the trial has died. Sanchez's legal representatives had said they would ask Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a pardon that might allow the mother of four grown children to stay in the United States if she was a legal resident. Schwarzenegger had not received such a request as of Thursday, governor's spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola said. Sanchez had hoped to live with one of her grown children in Southern California, but word that she faced deportation crushed the family's joy at her parole, her son said. "My sister is taking it really bad because she really expected that after all this time she'd be coming home," said Gustavo Sanchez, 31. "She fixed a room, bought furniture. She's been crying a lot." Sanchez planned to live with a sister in Mexicali if she is deported, her son said. "She'll be alone out there," he said. "When she was talking to my sister, she was crying so much it was hard to understand her." "It was the best strategy before the parole board, but partly I think that after 23 years of wrongful incarceration, she was just fed up with the American dream," Farrell said. "The fact that she's getting out of prison and regaining her freedom is huge for her." Wiccanwolf, childrescuer, Otis R. Needleman
3
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
"The lowest performing schools in Time for real change. “Which is to say, low expectations and a school poisonous culture that can seep into a school like mold. Breaking from the past may require, in those cases, closing down a school, transferring ineffective teachers, inviting in a charter school, and in all cases, more resources than the nations 46th lowest funded state has been willing to spend." Charter schools, close down bad schools, fire bad teachers, and end the union control of government education. Anything less is a waste of your money. The Educated Guess, 3/18/10 The lowest performing schools in California in 1989 were still the lowest performing schools 20 years later, despite a slew of school reforms, a battery of new standardized tests, punishments for bad schools, incentives for them to become better and experiments in curriculums and programs. That was the finding (part II of the three-part study) of the Brookings Institutions Brown Center on Education Policy, which compared state test scores of 1,156 California schools with an eighth grade two decades ago and still operating today. Five out of eight schools (63 percent) in the bottom quartile of schools then were bouncing around the bottom in 2009, while 27 percent about one in four moved up to the second quartile. Only 1.4 percent one in 70 bounded up to the top quartile. The opposite was true too. The top-scoring schools stayed at the top. This static state wouldnt matter so much if lowest performing schools as a group were moving ahead and closing the achievement gap. But that hasnt happened, for the most part. Although API scores have shifted upward for all schools over the past decade, Brookings researcher Tom Loveless sees the depressing lack of movement among schools as a sober warning to the Obamas administration, with its big thrust to turn around the worst-performing schools. Stating that California tried just about everything, he runs through a list of programs and experiments in curriculums, charter schools, new and old math, phonics and whole reading, that failed to nudge the needle overall. But, in fact, the opposite is true. Theres certainly been a lot of motion but little commitment in So the Brookings study indirectly ends up making the case, at least for the 5 or 10 percent of the worst-performing schools, for some of the drastic options that Obama is proposing. Speculating on the question, What causes, or at least reinforces, the persistence of school test scores over the decades? Loveless answers, Achievement seems to be part of the institutional DNA of schools, handed down from decade to decade, the past influencing the future. Which is to say, low expectations and a school poisonous culture that can seep into a school like mold. Breaking from the past may require, in those cases, closing down a school, transferring ineffective teachers, inviting in a charter school, and in all cases, more resources than the nations 46th lowest funded state has been willing to spend. Loveless observes that over the same 20 years, the worst performing professional sports teams have done far better in turning themselves around than the worst schools, with a few exceptions, like the NBAs Sacramento Kings. Most professional sports have draft lotteries and salary caps to help teams at the bottom. But, Loveless says, schools also have compensatory strategies, too. They just dont seem to work as well. But, at the risk of stretching the analogy, The As can pick up and leave (The study of By John Fensterwald on March 18th, 2010 -
0
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
Now, the delta smelt may not be as important as the theft of your health care and money by President Obama. "The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior announced it was increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations for local agriculture and jobs. The timing adds to our suspicions." Sounds like organized crime, the Buying Votes With Water
Investors Business Daily, 3/18/10 Politics: The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform. One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding California's water supply a tad too coincidental. On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior announced it was increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations for local agriculture and jobs. The timing adds to our suspicions. According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza." Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter. The rule subverts the Constitution by allowing the bill to pass without members actually having to vote on it. Interior's announcement gives Costa and Cardoza something to assuage the wrath of angry constituents just in time for any vote. They chose what was behind door number one. This isn't the first time. To get them out of the "undecided" column in last December's House vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership promised $500 million for a new University of California-Merced Medical School. Costa and Cardoza then voted "aye." During the 109th Congress, Cardoza was co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who allegedly had the Constitution, limited government and their constituents' best interests at heart. Lately, many have just rolled over and played dead. Cardoza and Costa were among 28 Blue Dog Democrats who voted for the first House bill. The 2-inch-long delta smelt, a fish destined for the Endangered Species list, plugs the drains releasing water to the farmlands. So to protect it, environmentalists filed lawsuits and the decision was made to restrict the water flow and safeguard the smelt, even if that meant turning some of America's best farmland into the functional equivalent of Death Valley. MIKE FINCH
1
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
You are a volunteer for a political candidate. You write something nice about your candidate on Facebook---under ideas being discussed by the FPPC, you could be fined for NOT reporting your Facebook comments as an in-kind contribution to the campaign.
Government would love to control our free speech--even on the Internet. Do you trust government to determine your political speech? Watch this one--your political freedoms are at stake. Chase Davis, California Watch, 3/18/10 Clarifying the line between free speech and political advertising on the Internet is proving to be a thorny issue for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which held the first of two planned hearings on the subject yesterday morning. The commission's subcommittee overseeing Internet political activity didn't take a stance on how, or even if, the commission would regulate political advocacy via e-mail, social networking sites and blogs essentially online analogs of conventional political tools like direct mail and newspaper opinion pieces. "I think the devil is in the details on how you draw that line," said Derek Cressman, regional director for Common Cause, which often advocates on behalf of campaign reform issues. Cressman was among nine experts and stakeholders invited to speak at the hearing. But even in the few years since the FEC's regulations, Internet politics has changed dramatically. The 2008 presidential campaign showed in many ways how far online campaigns have evolved, and these days, anyone following the race for governor or U.S. Senate in Several people who attended the hearings called for more clear guidelines on what types of online political communication should be regulated and what currently must be disclosed. For example, does a Tweet written by a representative of a political committee need to include the committee's name, as is the case for print and television advertising? How could you fit the name into 140 characters? "Its important that whatever happens with the Internet and politics in the future, creativity is not stifled," Kim Alexander, founder of the California Voter Foundation, said in her prepared testimony. "You dont want to create a situation where every time anyone opens his mouth he has to form a political committee and attach an ID number." "What we want to avoid on the Internet is anonymous paid political speech," Alexander said. "Anyone can open a Twitter account, and mouth off all day long about someone who is running for office. And they should be free to do that, unless the person doing it is being paid by someone then the Twittering moves from 'free speech' to paid speech'." Commissioners will continue to discuss the issue at a hearing next week in Catherine West
1
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
On June30, 2010, the state will add $3 billion to the deficit that is already $38 billion as of today.
On that date, by NOT selling assets listed at $3 billion, the money turns into a deficit. After taking bids of the OC Fairgrounds, the State refused all of them. This is why government should never own anything--it can not be trusted with your money. Time for a voter revolt, don't you think? LA Times, 3/18/10 The state has rejected all seven bids it received for the Orange County Fairgrounds because they were too low. In a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday, State Department of General Services Acting Director Ronald Diedrich said he was rejecting all the bids because the offers were not in the best interest of the citizens of In January, the state auctioned off the 150-acre piece of prime property in The high bid of $56.5 million came from an outlet mall developer, Newport Beach-based Craig Realty and partner Dwight Manley, a former sports agent. Even the winner, however, came in woefully short of the state's expected $96-million to $180-million price tag. Eric Lamoureux, a spokesman for the general services department, which is charged with selling the fairgrounds and other state assets, said officials are looking at other options, but did not specify if another auction would be held. Obviously, what we're seeking here is maximum revenue possible to try to shore up the state's budget, he said. -
0
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
That is called theft. The State will take $20,000 from poor and middle class families so you can buy an over priced truck. Plus, "In addition to state incentives, he said, "There's some federal tax credits that are available right now, which would give $30,000 worth of tax credits, and we're in the midst of being ... approved for that right now." Like other alternate-energy vehicles, EVI trucks cost somewhat more than petroleum-fueled equivalents. The trucks are priced from $130,000 to more than $200,000, depending on size and equipment options, Riley said." This is why productive folks are leaving This is why Electric trucks eligible for rebates
By Reed Fujii, Stockton Record, 3/18/10 STOCKTON - California clean-air officials Wednesday announced $3.7 million in rebate incentives for buyers of clean vehicles, including up to $20,000 each for commercial trucks being produced by Electric Vehicles International in Stockton. Just last week, the California Air Resources Board formally accepted EVI's fully electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks as zero-emission vehicles. That makes the trucks eligible for all sorts of special incentives, said Steve Riley, the company's sales and marketing vice president, including the new rebate program. In addition to state incentives, he said, "There's some federal tax credits that are available right now, which would give $30,000 worth of tax credits, and we're in the midst of being ... approved for that right now." Like other alternate-energy vehicles, EVI trucks cost somewhat more than petroleum-fueled equivalents. The trucks are priced from $130,000 to more than $200,000, depending on size and equipment options, Riley said. Having opened its assembly facility in Stockton last fall, the company is working to secure sales and begin commercial production. "We're in the midst of doing three demos right now," Riley said. "Hopefully, we'll get some orders out of that." In all, there are about a dozen potential customers interested in giving EVI trucks serious consideration. "We feel we will be in full production by June, July," Riley said. The air board rebates also include up to $5,000 for the purchase of zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty and passenger vehicles. They will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis. While the incentives lower initial costs, EVI said its electric trucks give customers further benefits from ongoing fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs compared with conventional diesel vehicles. -
0
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
Under the law, if you drive without a license your car is impounded. I have a better idea--let the illegal aliens keep their cars--if they drive back to their native country. Otherwise, impound the car, and then deport the criminal. Maybe if enough of these actions happen, the illegal aliens will leave our nation on their own. "During the session, many spoke in small groups about their experiences. Elias Amador, a The woman who hit him admitted guilt, but the police impounded his car. "Because I didn't have a driver's license, my car was impounded," he said through an interpreter." No remorse or taking of responsibility for violating our laws! Time for more check points. In San Rafael, unlicensed immigrants decry car impounds
Jennifer Upshaw Swartz, Marin Independent Journal, 3/18/10 Hundreds of people from congregations throughout Marin packed the gymnasium at Saint Raphael Church in San Rafael Wednesday to tell stories about the economic and social cost of losing their cars because they cannot get a valid driver's license in California. Hosted by the Marin Organizing Committee, a coalition of religious congregations and nonprofit groups in Marin that works on public-policy issues, the session was spawned from years of stories in San Rafael and beyond about immigrants who have lost their cars to impound because they are barred by state law from getting a license because of their immigration status. The committee has formed a team to learn more about the policies and practices of impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers, and plans more meetings to educate the community about civil rights and actions to help get the law changed. During the session, many spoke in small groups about their experiences. Elias Amador, a San Rafael resident who works as a painter, said he was driving from Tiburon to San Rafael when he got into an accident. The woman who hit him admitted guilt, but the police impounded his car. "Because I didn't have a driver's license, my car was impounded," he said through an interpreter. Abel Vasquez of San Rafael, who works in construction, said he was on his way to a job in the Walnut Creek area when a small bus made a wrong turn and hit him. "Instead of chasing the one that made the wrong turn the police chased me," he said in Spanish, explaining that it took nearly $3,000 to get his car back. The impounding of vehicles in traffic stops, accidents, during street-sweeping days and as part of drunken driving and driver's license checkpoints has been a lightening rod in the city for years. The issue hit fever pitch in 2008, when critics made regular appearances at public meetings to urge the San Rafael City Council to abandon the checkpoints, which they said unfairly targeted illegal immigrants who could not legally earn drivers licenses. Critics have contended the checkpoints violate guidelines set forth by the California Supreme Court and question whether screening for driver's licenses is even necessary. Others have supported the program, saying the laws should apply to everyone equally. The council has repeatedly thrown its support behind the checkpoints, which are funded through the state Office of Traffic Safety, and police have said the checkpoints are legal, appropriate and a necessary tool to combat drunken driving in Marin. Council members Greg Brockbank and Barbara Heller attended the session Wednesday. "I listened intently to your stories and I was quite touched," Heller said. "I'm going to make sure that our state senator, Mark Leno, and Jared Huffman, our assemblyman, are aware of this meeting." "The law is very bad," Brockbank said. "Everyone should have driver's licenses. Thank you for coming and telling your story. Hopefully we can solve this problem." Wiccanwolf, Otis R. Needleman, Ray
3
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
"The report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California was released last week. Titled "California's After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids On Track and Out of Trouble," it shows that California invests over three times more in after-school programs than the remaining 49 states combined. But given unprecedented cuts to education ($96.4 million in education reductions from the 2009-2011 budgets over the last two years in Solano County alone), some educators wonder if the money would be better spent on core programs." Summer school cancelled, but tax paid for baby sitting continues. "Roger Halberg, superintendent of What is the purpose of education? Baby sitting or learning. This is why government schools are failures--they make the wrong decisions. After-school program report for state draws mixed views
By Ryan Chalk, The Reporter, 3/18/10 A report touting California as the leader in after-school programs has law enforcement officials singing praises, while education officials wonder if it's the best investment, given the current state of education funding. The report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California was released last week. Titled "California's After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids On Track and Out of Trouble," it shows that California invests over three times more in after-school programs than the remaining 49 states combined. But given unprecedented cuts to education ($96.4 million in education reductions from the 2009-2011 budgets over the last two years in Solano County alone), some educators wonder if the money would be better spent on core programs. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California is a bipartisan, nonprofit and anti-crime organization led by 400 sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys and victims of violence. "We in law enforcement know the window for kids to get in trouble or become a victim of crime is between 2 and 6 p.m. Furthermore, the window for a juvenile to commit a violent crime such as homicide, rape or assault is between 3 and 4 p.m.," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca on a conference call with San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus and journalists from across the state. "After-school programs help reduce crime in the long term by keeping kids in school and reducing drop-outs," Gascon said. "They also help kids build relationships with peers and adult role models." Vacaville Police Chief Rich Word agrees and said that after-school programs contribute to the public safety. He referred to the 2 to 6 p.m. window as the "high time for juvenile crime." "People say that it's not public safety, but it is. It may look like recreation, but it contributes to the safety of the community," Word said. The majority of funding for California's after-school programs comes from a 2002 voter-approved measure called Proposition 49, championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prior to his election. Also referred to as the After-School Education and Safety Act, it provides $550 million each year to programs aimed at students from low-income families. Vacaville receives about $400,000 a year in Proposition 49 funds for after-school programs. Dixon's two Title I elementary schools receive just over $200,000. The recent report states that there are 33 low-income schools in Solano County that receive state and/or federal funds for after-school programs, while 21 low-income schools are not funded. The report includes fee-based after-school programs, as well as free ones run by the schools. In the Vacaville Unified School District, four elementary schools operate Proposition 49 after-school programs: Markham, Hemlock and Padan and Fairmont Charter. While a strong supporter of after-school programs, Vacaville schools Superintendent John Aycock said that a discussion about how money is spent on after-school programs vs. core educational programs during the school day would make an interesting debate. Roger Halberg, superintendent of Dixon Unified School District, said one of the continuing struggles for school districts is a lack of local control in how state and federal funds are spent. Last year, when districts were faced with deep cuts in education, the state relaxed some guidelines to allow flexibility with categorical funds. For example, Dixon Unified, like other districts, chose not to fund programs such as summer school and to use that money in other ways. In 2006, priorities changed to ensure funding was concentrated on schools serving low-income families. Federal law requires that programs funded through Proposition 49 have at least 40 percent or more of its students participating in the federal free or reduced-cost school meals program. These are often referred to as Title I schools. The report also states that local schools and communities must match 33 cents for every state dollar. The Vacaville Public Education Foundation provides that match in Vacaville. The report also states that 4,200 elementary, middle and high school campuses across the state receive funding for after-school programs, but nearly 2,000 schools in low-income neighborhoods are still without state or federally funded programs. "We all understand that we're in tough economic times, but it's important that California protects funding for after-school programs," Magnus said. The report comes at a time when the governor's budget is expected to include an $8 billion cut to education spending. Advocates of increased school funding say that already places California 46th out of 50 states in per-pupil spending, on its way to 49th. Proposition 49 money is not available to shore up other budget shortfalls. If it were, Halberg said, it would warrant some discussion. "If that was something where we could flex the funding and spend it in other areas, that would have at least been looked at closely. All of this cutting has forced us to ask, 'What is the absolute core?'" Halberg said. "I'm an avid believer and supporter of after-school programs, but no one has really broached that debate," Aycock said. To download a pdf of the report, log on to www.fightcrime.org/state/2010/ reports/californias-after-school-commitment. -
0
March 19, 2010
CA Political News
It is a loser and they abandon it. They refuse to clean up the mess and create a slum, 3000 miles from Corruption has many faces, this is one of them. "Last week, we took note of CalPERS pulling the plug on an $800 million condo and hotel complex in Adding insult to injury -- to whom we'll let you decide -- CalPERS says it can't afford to pay for the clean-up, now that the barely-begun project is dead and buried. This from the Boston Globe: Developers of the defunct In a letter released yesterday, a lawyer for Winn Companies and the California Public Employees' Retirement System told state officials the business partnership has only $1.5 million to $2 million in assets remaining, less than half what the state estimates it will cost to restore the property along the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston." Will the people of Now you know why CalPERS to Boston: Sorry, we can't pay for the mess we left behind
SF Chronicle, 3/18/10 Last week, we took note of CalPERS pulling the plug on an $800 million condo and hotel complex in Boston. Loss to CalPERS:$91.2 million. Adding insult to injury -- to whom we'll let you decide -- CalPERS says it can't afford to pay for the clean-up, now that the barely-begun project is dead and buried. This from the Boston Globe: Developers of the defunct Columbus Center development in Boston have told state officials they are running out of money and cannot afford to pay millions of dollars to clean up the abandoned construction site. In a letter released yesterday, a lawyer for WinnCompanies and the California Public Employees' Retirement System told state officials the business partnership has only $1.5 million to $2 million in assets remaining, less than half what the state estimates it will cost to restore the property along the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. The lawyer, Adam Hundley of Goulston & Storrs in Boston, acknowledged the shortfall but asked the state to "bear in mind that in addition to the enormous time and effort they have invested in this failed project, the [developers] have already lost in excess of $125 million" trying to build it. Globe story here. A Massachusetts Department of Transportation spokesman, quoted by the Boston Herald, said the agency is looking to negotiate a settlement. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
Barack Obama has ruled. The United States Constitution, which requires laws to be passed by Congress is unconstitutional.
"Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. But Obama, like a Hugo Chavez, has determined that the laws are what he says, not the laws passed by the States called the "Constitution". "According to the (Democrat/Obama) plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign. This is how totalitarian government operate--outside the law and with force. Some might even call this effort by Obama a "coup". What do you think this is? By Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com, 3/18/10 Washington (CNSNews.com) The White House declined on Thursday to rule out that President Barack Obama might sign future legislation, such as an immigration reform measure, that has not been put to a recorded yea-or-nay vote in both houses of Congress. CNSNews.com asked White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs about the possibility of the president doing so because of a prospective lawsuit that Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has prepared to file against the president if he signs a health care bill that has not been passed by a direct recorded yea-or-nay vote in the House of Representatives. The prospective lawsuit argues that the plain language of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that both houses of Congress hold recorded yea-or-nay votes on a bill before it can be presented to the president for his signature and before it can become law. I stated earlier that when this (health care) bill passes the House, the president will be happy to sign it, Gibbs told CNSNews.com. He twice declined to say, however, whether President Obama would rule out signing additional pieces of legislation that did not pass both chambers of Congress with a yea-or-nay vote. CNSNews.com asked Gibbs: Mark Levin, with the Landmark Legal Foundation, has prepared a suit against the president if he signs the health care bill not passed by the House with a recorded yea-or-nay vote required by Article 1 Section 7. My question on that is: Will the president rule out signing other bills, such as immigration reform, or finance reform you mentioned earlier, that are not subject to a recorded yea-or-nay vote in both chambers? Gibbs answered: Again, this is--I think weve discussed on a number of occasions, certainly the last time we met inside that this was the type of thing, the type of rule that youve seen pass on any number of instances. So, I understand that there are those that want to discuss this as being a unique thing. It is not. I stated earlier that when this bill passes the House, the president will be happy to sign it. CNSNews.com followed-up: Is that still a constitutional argument in favor of it? That it has been done before? Gibbs said: Im unaware, again--I didnt go to law school--Im unaware of legal suits filed by a similar organization when the Republicans did similar things on legislation. CNSNews.com then asked: So the president wouldnt rule out signing future bills that didnt pass both houses by a yea or nay vote? Gibbs responded: Im not going to get into a series of legal hypotheticals that both of us seem unprepared to discuss. Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has noted that a lawsuit was brought in regards to a similar matter in the 1998 case of That ruling cited the Constitution and stated that for a bill to become law it was neccary that 1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives; 2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and 3) the text was signed into law by the president. Levin called the Slaughter Rule an attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the process. Gibbss incoherence is an attempt to deceive, Levin told CNSNews.com on Thursday. I have no doubt in my mind that the White House is working very closely with Pelosi and her lieutenants on this strategy of pretending they voted on an underlying bill when, in fact, they didnt vote on it. So thats why he is so deceitful. His boss (Obama) yesterday, in an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier made quite clear that hes well aware of whats going on at the Hill and whatever comes to him, hes going to sign, said Levin. So what weve learned from Brett Baier and you is that we have two branches of government that are absolutely committed to violating the Constitution in order to achieve an illegitimate ends. At the same White House briefing, another reporter asked Gibbs, Hes (Obama) not worried that its constitutional? Gibbs said, He would sign that bill, yes. Another reporter also asked Gibbs if the White House was preparing a legal team to respond to lawsuits regarding the health care overhaul. Gibbs said, Not that Im aware of. The Landmark Legal Foundation is a conservative legal public interest group, led by Mark Levin, who also hosts a popular talk-radio show. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department and as deputy solicitor for the Department of the Interior. On Monday, March 15, Levin announced on his radio show that he intended to bring the lawsuit if the Senate health care bill is passed through the House without a yea-and-nay vote on the actual legislation and president signs it into law. A draft of the suit names as defendants President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Because the House violated the Constitution by never voting on the Senate bill, the Senate bill cannot be and is not the law of the The House Rules Committee drafts the terms under which bills are brought to the floor and debated. Under a plan put together by Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the House would "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without ever holding a recorded vote on it as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. According to the plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. Lynne Verdi, MB, Wiccanwolf, …
5
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
The Constitution says BOTH Houses of Congress must pass the identical bill, for the bill to become law. We know that this will not happen, per Pelosi and Reid.
President Obama, a so-called Constitutional law professor, claims that the "process" does not matter. When translated that means laws, and rules means nothing to him. This makes him sound more like Hugo Chavez than Thomas Jefferson. " Conrad said the Senate Parliamentarian has declined to make rulings on several issues in the bill that Republicans are likely to challenge under the Byrd rule. That rule states that, among other things, every provision of a budget reconciliation bill must have a budget impact and cannot be extraneous. Although we’ve spent many, many hours with the Parliamentarian, some things he has not yet rendered a conclusion on, Conrad said. He wants to hear from both sides before he does. Conrad continued: Do I expect there will be some additional Byrd rule challenges that will be upheld? Yeah. I do. San Fran Nan claims that she can DEEM the Obama care bill passed, and it becomes law--though she will not allow a vote on it in the House. And, the Senate is now changing their bill. Confusion reigns in the Democrat congress. But, one thing is clear--Democrats have declared the Constitution is dead. The lawsuits will take years. Looks like the Democrats are committing suicide. What say you? Kent Conrad Confirms the Health-Care Process May Never, Ever End
BY Mary Katharine Ham, Weekly Standard, 3/18/10 Sen. Kent Conrad, speaking to Roll Call and Fox, says the Senate will likely be unable to pass unchanged the reconciliation bill the House passes, even if the House can pass it: Conrad said the Senate Parliamentarian has declined to make rulings on several issues in the bill that Republicans are likely to challenge under the Byrd rule. That rule states that, among other things, every provision of a budget reconciliation bill must have a budget impact and cannot be extraneous. Although weve spent many, many hours with the Parliamentarian, some things he has not yet rendered a conclusion on, Conrad said. He wants to hear from both sides before he does. Conrad continued: Do I expect there will be some additional Byrd rule challenges that will be upheld? Yeah. I do. Sixty votes are needed to waive Byrd rule points of order, but with only 59 members in the Democratic Conference and united GOP opposition to the bill, Democrats are unlikely to meet that threshold if the Parliamentarian decides any provision in the bill violates the Byrd rule or the budget act. If a point of order is sustained, the offending provision would be struck from the bill, and the entire measure would need to passed again in the House before heading to the president for his signature. Conrad said House leaders were fully aware that some Byrd rule challenges might be successful, even though House Members have insisted that the Senate pass the measure unamended and unchanged. The House is expected to vote on the reconciliation bill Sunday while simultaneously passing the larger Senate-passed health care bill. Theyre fully aware where we stand, Conrad said. They know because theyve agreed to take lots of things out in order to avoid Byrd rule issues, but they know full well, as do we, that the Parliamentarian has not reached conclusion on everything and wont until he hears from both sides. And, you know, I just think that the odds would tell you I mean out of 153 pages [in the bill] that there are probably going to be a few things that still will be subject to a Byrd rule challenge and maybe some of them successful. Conrad also said the Parliamentarian has not ruled on whether changes to the Cadillac insurance tax would violate budget act rules prohibiting provisions from dealing with Social Security. Senate Republicans have said they are likely to mount a challenge to those changes. No wonder Obama postponed his trip until June. Radioguy, Pissed Off, MBee
3
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
The SEIU has members because if the workers do not pay bribes, they are not allowed to work. Is that Democracy?
The workers money is used by the union to elect legislators who will raise taxes. Is that Democracy. The SEIU trespasses, bullies people, threatens them and is openly corrupt. Is that Democracy. This lawsuit pits one corrupt gang, called a union, against another corrupt gang, called a union. This is not a fight for Democracy--it is a fight between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. This is more like a fight between Stalin and Trotsky instead of a fight for Democracy. by Carl Finamore Beyond Chron, 3/17/10 Going to Court as a defendant can make anyone nervous. A defendant in civil court cant be thrown in jail, but there are no public defenders, so all expenses are borne by the accused. I think about this as I prepare to attend the opening of a civil trial on March 22 in The trial comes one year after SEIU officials from In January 2009, SEIU officials removed the unions elected officers and suspended its constitution after UHWs 100-member Executive Board insisted that 65,000 of the unions members should have a right to a democratic vote before SEIU leaders transferred them to another SEIU affiliate with a history of tolerating corruption and negotiating substandard wages and benefits for its members. As members of UHW, these 65,000 homecare and nursing home workers had enjoyed some of the best contracts in the industry. Furthermore, they objected to SEIUs plan to separate them from 85,000 UHW hospital workers whose industrial power and industry-leading wages and benefits gave them an important strategic advantage. After SEIU leaders seized control of UHW, UHWs 100-member Executive Board voted to form a new, independent union called the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Outraged at SEIU's attempt to take over control of their union, more than 100,000 workers petitioned to switch to NUHW in the first 10 weeks. SEIU has responded to this member-led rebellion by pouring massive resources into Its current lawsuit claims the 26 breached their fiduciary duties because they resisted SEIU International President Andy Stern's takeover of UHW. Supporters of the defendants describe Sterns scurrilous civil charges as a smokescreen to conceal the underlying political reasons for the trusteeship. In the run-up to the trusteeship, UHW's 100-member Executive Board voted repeatedly to defend its members' rights and to pursue democratic reforms inside SEIU according to Fred Seavey, former Research Director of UHW. Seavey told BeyondChron, You cant wage full-out attack against our members right to vote and not expect our local union to defend itself. His comments point to a critically important different conception of unionism somewhat obscured within this legal dispute. They claim we have a fiduciary responsibility to the SEIU national office, Seavey stated, but we say its to our members who elect us and pay us. We stand for representative unionism and not bureaucratic officialdom. NUHW Organizes Workers, SEIU Files Lawsuits In fact, next weeks trial is the third time SEIU officials have sued many of the same former leaders of UHW during the past 18 months. SEIUs first lawsuit was thrown out with prejudice by a federal judge and the second was settled after SEIU faced a credible countersuit by NUHW. If one of SEIU's charges is successful in court, it would clearly pose a dangerous precedent. Essentially, SEIU's novel legal theory would mean that every time new union leaders take office, the previous leaders could be sued for funds spent on initiatives opposed by the international union. It would have a chilling effect on free speech throughout the labor movement since local union leaders would be reluctant to seek reforms or criticize International union officials for fear of facing personal financial liability for their actions. Along with its lawsuit, SEIU has waged an aggressive public relations attack against the new union. Its sent hundreds of SEIU organizers into Interestingly, SEIUs most extravagant claims are conspicuously absent from its lawsuit an admission that their charges have no basis in fact. For example, SEIU officials have repeatedly told workers that the former UHW leaders stole $3 million from the unions strike fund. This slanderous claim, which is contradicted by SEIUs own financial records and public statements, is nowhere mentioned in its lawsuit or any other legal proceeding. Despite SEIUs best efforts to bleed NUHW of its resources and support, it has not only survived but has grown quickly to genuinely establish itself as a viable challenger to SEIUs monopolistic claims to represent healthcare workers in NUHW has recently recruited 3,357 members in seven hard-fought victories during nine head-to-head election contests against SEIU, startling intractable foes and energizing growing numbers of enthusiastic supporters. The union proudly boasts that these numbers, though still modest, make it the fastest growing labor organization in Less than a year ago, the whole NUHW project began with little more than an honest and sincere pledge of preserving democratic unionism. Beginning without any formal dues-paying members, many doubted their chances of success. Today, one can see the tide is turning. To be sure, major tests lie ahead as nearly 50,000 California Kaiser workers gather petitions requesting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections so they can join NUHW. But solidarity commitments from hundreds of veteran worksite leaders and staff volunteers have so far enabled the fledgling upstart to withstand everything the much-larger international union has thrown at them. It is not without reason that NUHW has inspired many to support their courageous stand for union democracy against such a formidable opponent. It is also not without reason that a growing number of pro-labor academic, political and community observers are concluding that it is shameful for a great international union to repeatedly harass and persecute dissident voices who wanted nothing more than the right to vote against actions of their national headquarters that would have bureaucratically torn apart their powerful united local. Hopefully, broader principles of solidarity will soon replace the currently narrow and divisive pursuits of the larger organization. I will be in court on March 22 hoping that justice prevails as well. Carl Finamore is a delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO and former President (ret), Air Transport Employees, Local Lodge 1781, IAMAW. He can be reached at local1781@yahoo.com -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
No transparency. The "political director", Art Torres, is a political hack "earning" close to $300,000 per year--to do nothing. What are the results? Unaudited. This is a road map for special interests and how they can steal from the people of Shame on us for allowing this--we are going to get what we deserve--an insolvent State run into the ground by special interests, corruption and vote buying hacks. By John Howard, Capitol Weekly, 3/18/10 Lawmakers again -- are questioning the operations and culture of the states stem cell program, which was created by voters nearly six years ago in Proposition 71 and has placed California at the forefront of stem-cell research and development. But the issue isnt so much the scientific savvy of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or the competence of the group that supervises it, the 29-member Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, which serves as the CIRMs board of directors. Rather, it is the potential for conflicts in the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars of grants the current total is over $1 billion -- and the perceived lack of public disclosure cloaking the agencys activities. Proposition 71 of 2004 authorized the state to sell $3 billion in general obligation bonds and limit sales to no more than $350 million annually. Up to 6 percent of the money covers administrative costs. Over the years, lawmakers and the state controller have sought tighter controls over CIRM, assurances that the state will get the financial benefits of products developed through the CIRMs use of public money and greater disclosure of the boards activities. The stem cell agency says that the voter-approved initiative contains numerous provisions for disclosure, including the requirement for periodic audits by both the Legislature and controller. The agency also posts reports of committee and subcommittee meetings, including summaries of vote tallies and recusals for each meeting. It details the winners of grants although not the unsuccessful applicants and provides other details of its proceedings. "There is a tremendous adherence to dealing with conflicts of interest, to transparency, to making sure that anyone who has even a scintilla of a conflict is removed from the process," said Art Torres, vice chairman of the ICOC, a former state senator and former head of the California Democratic Party. "I'm there every day. If there is a conflict, they are asked to leave the room and recuse themselves." But even early backers of Basically, the attitude has been that they just want the Legislature to go away so they can run their own show, said former state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a supporter of stem cell research, who authored legislation in 2007 to tighten controls over CIRM. A number of bills targeting stem cell programs were authored by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, an early supporter of Proposition 71. Some were approved, others were rejected, but the fundamental governance of the board and CIRM remain unchanged, they say. Kuehls proposal, SB 1565, was approved by more than 70 percent in both the Senate and Assembly the 70 percent threshold was written into Proposition 71 and later vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. An earlier, similar attempt by Ortiz also was rejected. Schwarzenegger said in his veto message that Kuehls bill hampered the stem cell agency from doing its job. Another bill, SB 1064 by Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-San Jose, was introduced last month. Like Kuehl and Ortiz, Alquist supports stem cell research. However, CIRM is essentially unaccountable to no one, given the way the initiative was written, Alquist said in a written statement when she introduced the bill, which would force changes in the leadership structure of the stem cell program, expand outside auditing authority and give greater details of board votes. Stem cell officials, meanwhile, want the bill, which has not yet had its first policy committee hearing, sent to interim study, a Capitol limbo commonly used to derail or delay legislation. Last June, the Little Hoover Commission reported that skepticism continues to surface from detractors, the media, members of the Legislature even early backers about the agencys ability to direct funding to science that will best lead to new medical treatment and cures. The Commission made a number of recommendations, some of which were adopted, such as improved minutes for board meetings that identify specific votes and recusals, and the creation of succession plans for the leadership, said Stuart Drown, the commissions executive director. The commission believed that greater disclosure was necessary. It very clearly would propel forward the mission of CIRM. We support their mission. It would protect their mission and give it more transparency, more accountability, he said. But some recommendations were not accepted, he added. The commission also urged greater disclosure of the peer-review process, potential financial disclosure statements of peer-reviewers, beefed-up, more frequent audits by the state controller and a reconfiguration of the powers of the CIRM. The governance of the CIRM and the board, challenged by critics, ultimately was upheld in the courts. But the skepticism remains in the Capitol. Bob Klein, chair of the ICOC also wields influence over the CIRM a dual role that has drawn criticism from, among others, state Controller John Chiang, who heads the committee that regularly audits the stem cell agency. Alquists bill seeks to divide the roles of the board chairman and day-to-day management of CIRM. Klein, a successful businessman with a background in land development, also wrote most the Proposition 71 initiative and has played a key role in hiring personnel over the years. Klein is an absolutely tremendous entrepreneur and a creative guy, and if it wasnt for him, this (CIRM) wouldnt even exist, noted Consumer Watchdogs John Simpson, who has been sharply critical of CIRM and the ICOC. Simpson, among others, noted that 17 of the ICOCs 29 board members have ties to entities that have received stem cell funding more than $900 million by one estimate. Simpson also said that key proceedings of the ICOCs scientific advisory group, which makes recommendations on grant funding to the full ICOC, are not disclosed to the public. When they get responsible criticism from outsiders, they kind of circle the wagons and say, We know science, we know best, Simpson said. I think they would be much better off if they would sit down and engage. The fact of the matter is, he added, is that in virtually every case, the full board accepts the recommendations of the advisory panel, which means in a de facto way it is the scientists who are really making decisions on who gets grants and who doesnt. At a minimum, they are acting in a policy-making way that should require them to file Form 700 (financial disclosure) reports. But they dont, and they are exempt from having to file the same kind of financial disclosure reports that other state officials are required to file. The lack of disclosure, Simpson added, is a major bone of contention. David Jensen, publisher of the California Stem Cell Report blog, has covered CIRM since its inception and has written extensively about the potential conflicts and other issues at the agency. Jensen, a retired newsman who lives in I have been told by some reporters that in recent years that CIRM has been less than responsive. Since I am a blogger, albeit the only medium that covers the agency with regularity, it is difficult to tell whether the agencys interactions with me reflect its standard media responsiveness, Jenson wrote in an email to Capitol Weekly, which sought his views on the activities of CIRM and the ICOC. Coverage of the agency has been extremely light in the last couple of years, so it is also difficult to tell whether there is significant dissatisfaction from reporters who have written about CIRM. Not that reporters should always be happy, but CIRM ill serves its own mission if it does not communicate well with the media, he added. In the end, CIRMs difficulties with the Legislature may stem in part from its lack of political sophistication a problem that the newly named ICOC vice chairman, Torres, may be able to resolve. That interim study thing, that was Torres coming up with that. It was a actually a sensible political move. What they need to have happen is to engage the Legislature instead of stiff-arming them, Simpson said. You watch, said one Capitol staffer who asked not to be identified, Arts over there, and in two years we wont even be talking about disclosure. Well be talking about cures. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
We have unions owning government. We have AB 32 killing jobs and revenues We have illegal aliens costing the poor and middle class of We have high taxes, phony fees and regulations that kill jobs and revenues. "A report released last week showed that 21 percent of That 21-percent figure is particularly shocking, says Hauge, who also owns a small insurance firm. That should be unsettling for policymakers. Other research confirms this trend. According to analysts at Equifax, a credit firm, bankruptcies among small businesses in I am surprised that only 21% of By ELISE VIEBECK, Cal Watchdog, 3/12/10 A report released last week showed that 21 percent of California small businesses believe they will fold in the next three years. The annual survey, conducted by advocacy group Small Business California, revealed low confidence in the states business and political climate among business owners. That 21-percent figure is particularly shocking, says Hauge, who also owns a small insurance firm. That should be unsettling for policymakers. Other research confirms this trend. According to analysts at Equifax, a credit firm, bankruptcies among small businesses in Small Business California has conducted the survey since 2005. That year, 68 percent of respondents said According to the federal Small Business Administration, small businesses account for more than 60 percent of job creation in the Hauge noted one positive figure that 24 percent of survey respondents said they would be hiring in the next year. The Bay Area Council, another business group, released similar numbers last week. Small Business California received widespread criticism from its peers in 2006, when it supported the passage of AB 32, The Air Resources Board has not done a good job putting in mechanisms for small businesses to provide input, Hauge says. Still, we have confidence there is a lot of potential for job creation in AB 32. The Small Business Roundtable, a similar group that opposed AB 32, was not available for comment. The cost of regulations to small business has been widely debated in Hauges views may be unorthodox for a small business advocate, but like his peers, he remains concerned about Sacramentos role in regulating business. There is a lot of misinformation about AB 32, but it is not the only program to criticize, he says. Most bills go without a solid economic impact report. The state has got to do something to reign in regulations, and to make sure that they make sense. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
The Legislature just spent 45 days trying to fix the fiscal crisis. They did nothing and no one seems to be concerned.
What could happen? "A one time default on public obligations to the "fat" public pensioners? I predict that this will happen. Anticipating this, new employees at places like UCLA should demand a raise to compensate them for this risk. The old guys on the faculty have no choice but to suffer in silence. This raises a Legal Question. What "bankruptcy court" would handle the case? Could some judge determine the future of the public sector's balance sheet?" Financially, the State will bankrupt retirees--that is the real prospect! Sacramento, we have a problem (with California debt)
California owes its public workers $2 trillion in pensions and benefits. To pay that debt, California taxpayers would have to pay $166,000 apiece. By Matthew Kahn, Christian Science Monitor, 3/16/10 Bloggers are talking about the $2 trillion bucks that states such as California owe in pension benefits to firemen, teachers, UCLA professors, and other public sector employees. As someone with a stake in this discussion, permit me to speak. 1. If labor markets were competitive, then these job perks allowed states and cities to pay lower wages and this benefited the tax payers (simple compensating differentials logic). Given that many of these perks are not taxed (Cadillac health plans), the employee wants such "hidden" compensation that the IRS cannot see. But, there have been a series of shocks that were not anticipated when the original contracts were signed. 1. Public sector employees are living longer than ever so the present discounted value of the benefit stream is large for each worker. 2. There are a large number of these retiring babyboomers 3. health expenditures per senior per year are going to infinity. To see the public finance challenge here, let's assume that the average public sector employee lives 25 years after retiring. Let's assume that her promised annual retirement income (defined benefit) is $75,000. Let's assume that she spends an extra $25,000 per year on health and other promised benefits. So, the tax payers owe her (measured in thousands) = 100. Assume there are 1 million retired public sector total employees in California. Let there be 15 million workers in California who are paying taxes. Assuming a 0% interest rate to keep the PDV calculations simple, to support these workers over their remaining life will mean that the State will need to collect (measured in $1,000s) 1,000,000*25*100000 = 2.5 trillion dollars. The average Cumulative tax burden for Californian workers = 2.5 trillion/ 15 million = $166,000. That's the cumulative amount of money each worker would need to pay to the State so that they can redistribute promised $ back to that teacher. Now I know that my numbers are a little bit off but you can see the problem! For some actual facts on the key parameters here click here So what happens next? Ideally, we could grow our way out of this problem. If the economy and the stock market grew deterministically by 15% per year then it would be easier to achieve a dynamic balanced budget such that we tax the young, invest in a mutual fund and use the payout to payoff the public pensioners. But, today the stock market's mean return growth appears to be down and the variance is up. A one time default on public obligations to the "fat" public pensioners? I predict that this will happen. Anticipating this, new employees at places like UCLA should demand a raise to compensate them for this risk. The old guys on the faculty have no choice but to suffer in silence. This raises a Legal Question. What "bankruptcy court" would handle the case? Could some judge determine the future of the public sector's balance sheet? There is an element of behavioral economics here. The public is not aware of the cumulative benefits they had promised through being nice to unions and the unions knew this. During a time of increased risk and fundamental uncertainty, the pensioners have been offered a "risk free" retirement package. The irony here is that the deal was so good that in aggregate we will see a political backlash and increased risk for public sector employees. It appears that the field of "demography and macro economics" has a ripe future as researchers investigage whether cumulative obligations to retiring generations slow down economic growth just when we need it! -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
" Even those measures, however, don't address the rising costs to taxpayers. For example, pension costs for Higher taxes, criminals freed, fewer basic services. Between government and its owners, the unions and special interests, the poor and middle class are being forced to leave the State. What are you going to do about it? Public pension tsunami building
Daily Bulletin editorial, 3/15/10 It might not feel like it now, but Californians are lucky this is an election year with competitive state races. They are also lucky that one of the most high-profile campaigns is the Republican primary race for the gubernatorial election in November. This is good timing because a fiscal storm is headed toward state and local governments, and the only people talking about it in any serious way are Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. The two GOP rivals have made pension reform part of their gubernatorial campaigns. This is an important discussion. Although government officials knew about the soaring costs of public pensions, no one has had the guts to stand up to the public employee unions. California taxpayers spend about $17 billion a year on public employee pensions - a number that is ballooning by several billion dollars every year. That would be bad enough were it not for the financial crises facing the state and local governments because of the economic downturn. To balance their budgets and fend off bankruptcy, officials are laying off workers, cutting services and other costs and raising fees and taxes. Rialto will ask its voters in a June 8 advisory vote whether they want to hike their own property taxes to pay for $5 million a year in new pension enhancements for city employees. Even those measures, however, don't address the rising costs to taxpayers. For example, pension costs for Los Angeles County employees are expected to balloon from the current $804million to $1.27billion in just two years. How many inmates will officials have to release from county jails to make up for that revenue drain? Many people are calling the issue the pension tsunami. Sounds melodramatic, but it's actually an apt analogy. The reason that tsunamis cause so much damage and kill so many people is that they arrive with less warning than a typical natural disaster and are less scary than the mythical tidal wave that towers 200 feet above shore. Yet their quiet approach belies the tremendous destructive power behind the water surge. Whole cities are washed away before residents collectively understand what's happening. A tsunami can be building for a long time before it lands, giving those in its way a false sense of security until it's too late to get away. This is not unlike what awaits the budgets of local governments, and at least a few people are starting to realize the danger that seemed so far away is getting close. Last week, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich asked CEO Bill Fujioka to look at ways the county can reduce its pension burden. That's a good start, but the county - like cities - will have to move with more speed than the typical bureaucratic measure. This is the time for government officials - not just two campaign rivals - to undertake a discussion of serious pension reform. But so far, neither the state nor local governments have taken any real action to batten down the budget hatches to prepare for the coming perfect pension storm. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
"Professional Educators" have no idea what they are saying or doing. Don't listen to their words, look at their results. LAUSD has an over 50% dropout rate.
Money is spent on illegal aliens, while kids of honest parents barely can get a seat or textbook. Government education (we do not have PUBLIC education) is run for the purpose of power, not education. "Even district administrators don't have full confidence in district administrators. Here's a passage from the administrators' union newsletter from January: "Lost in the shuffle is the apparent lack of appreciation by district leaders for the role of the men and women who run [schools] on a daily basis. In some cases, when central and local district administrators receive a complaint from a parent or community member, they challenge the principal to respond in writing, exhibiting a 'gotcha' attitude." And they have, like United Teachers Los Angeles, a no-reprisal clause in their contract -- in other words, no real punishments for people who don't follow the agreed-upon rules. Where are the specifics of such a policy would protect all employees from decisions based on politics, personalities or propaganda?" We are spending billions on failure--when will we end the vicious cycle? Education magic bullets are often blanks
Empowering parents, giving administrators more control over teacher assignments and other reform proposals sound good. But when teachers ask for details, they usually come away empty. By Joseph Staub, LA Times, 3/17/10 Those who wonder why California was excluded from the first round of federal Race to the Top grants would do well to examine their own commentary for clues. It is typical of editorials and other articles on this topic to speak in general terms -- to throw out noble-sounding phrases that, in the end, don't offer specifics. The Times' March 4 editorial, "Another setback for California schools," reflects this kind of commentary. Take, for example, The Times' assertion that "district administrators, not union contracts," should determine teacher assignments in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Really? If you were a teacher, would you completely trust administrators to always make good assignment decisions? The same people who inspired the term "dance of the lemons" as incompetent (and sometimes criminal) administrators were transferred from one school to another by their downtown buddies? Would you want to be forced to an overcrowded school terrorized by crime and violence, hobbled by a lack of supplies and a crumbling infrastructure, in a neighborhood beset by a multitude of social ills, with only a district administrator to count on for support and security? Most administrators are talented, committed and fair, but too many are none of those things. Even district administrators don't have full confidence in district administrators. Here's a passage from the administrators' union newsletter from January: "Lost in the shuffle is the apparent lack of appreciation by district leaders for the role of the men and women who run [schools] on a daily basis. In some cases, when central and local district administrators receive a complaint from a parent or community member, they challenge the principal to respond in writing, exhibiting a 'gotcha' attitude." And they have, like United Teachers Los Angeles, a no-reprisal clause in their contract -- in other words, no real punishments for people who don't follow the agreed-upon rules. Where are the specifics of such a policy would protect all employees from decisions based on politics, personalities or propaganda? The same goes for questions on teacher evaluation and merit pay. It's easy to say we need better procedures for firing bad teachers as well as retaining and rewarding good ones. I agree. So show me a plan to do so -- a plan that, again, protects teachers from capricious decisions by district administrators. A plan that rewards teachers fairly and that encourages collaboration and teamwork. A plan that takes into account all that teachers have to deal with in order to foster student success. True student success, by the way, is more than just test scores, despite what the educational research eggheads (too many of whom have no teaching experience) would have you believe. And then there's the "parent trigger" option, by which a majority of a school's parents can initiate change by signing a petition. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Anything that gets parents involved in their children's education has merit. But turning staffing over to what is bound to be a popularity contest has its drawbacks as well. Often, parents get mad when they hear things they don't want to hear. "You're picking on my kid!" when you mention there has been no homework for a while. "You're a racist!" when you suggest that perhaps repeated loud profanity (in any language) is not acceptable in the classroom. "You don't know how to motivate my child!" when the student in question rarely comes to school, does nothing when there and calls home go unreturned for months. I wouldn't mind the "parent trigger" so much if my colleagues and I could have a "family trigger," by which a majority of a school's teachers could vote to restaff a kid's family when they don't support him or her in getting the free education offered by the state or, worse, abuse and neglect the child. Maybe we could transfer that kid to a family that does care. Add in the fact that the "parent trigger" is vulnerable to outside influences that may or may not have students' best interests at heart, and you have an idea that surely needs careful monitoring. Again, specifics on this idea are rarely offered. These are challenging times for all of us in education, especially students. All of us serve education best when we address these challenges specifically, realistically and, most of all, honestly. Joseph Staub is a writer and teacher living in Los Angeles. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
We are witnessing the attempt of a billionaire to buy the Governors office. One candidate will say and do anything, including spending $150 million of her own money, to buy political office--this from someone who did not even vote for 28 years.
Some people want a new car, a new boat or a plane as a play toy. Others want political office. We have seen what an almost billionaire, Arnold, could do in the office. Since becoming Governor, the total deficit is north of $100 billion--but he is called "Governor"--something money CAN buy. The Right, Left, even the middle is concerned about the buying of government. Are you? By Lisa Vorderbrueggen. Contra Costa Times, 3/17/10 A staggering 87 percent of voters across the political spectrum believe moneyed donors have significantly more influence than constituents over members of Congress, according to a new poll. The random, automated telephone survey of nearly 10,000 registered voters in 19 competitive "I've seen high numbers on questions similar to this one over the years, meaning in the 70s (range)," said Derek Cressman, western regional vice president for Common Cause. "But 90 percent? I've never seen it that high ... Voters have a strong sense that lawmakers are listening to the people with money and not listening to them." Common Cause and Public Campaign Action are nonpartisan watchdog groups that favor public financing of campaigns. MoveOn.org. is a liberal activist organization. The coalition commissioned the poll following a recent Supreme Court decision that enabled unlimited corporate and union spending in federal campaigns. Campaign finance watchdogs want Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. McNerney is a co-sponsor. The act calls for public campaign financing for candidates who voluntarily agree to limit Advertisement Quantcast donations to $100 or less. But Democratic leaders appear more interested in stringent disclosure rules for businesses and unions and avoiding forcing vulnerable members such as McNerney into a hazardous political vote. Democrats fear a floor vote to use of taxpayer dollars on electioneering at a time when governments all over the nation are slashing public services could further stir an already high anti-incumbent sentiment. The poll results overall and in the 11th Congressional District should allay that fear, Cressman said. Forty-two percent of voters who responded in the 11th District said the were more likely to re-elect McNerney if he voted in favor of the Fair Elections Now Act. That group included 43 percent of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents. Of the 522 respondents, 21 percent said they were less likely to re-elect McNerney, while 34 percent said his vote would make no difference for them. McNerney has no challenger in the June 2 primary election. Four Republicans will vie for their party's nomination: In other 11th District poll results: # Suspicion of Congress is high across the electorate: Of those who say members of Congress are overly influenced by the people who give them money, 93 percent are Republicans, 86 percent are Democrats and 91 percent are independents. # Even Democratic voters are mad at Democrats over campaign finance: Half the Democrats said the majority party has not done enough to reduce the influence of special interest money. By comparison, 92 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of independents agree. # Two-thirds of respondents disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission to lift campaign spending restrictions on businesses and unions. -
0
March 18, 2010
CA Political News
But, the sales of guns are at a historic high and ammunition is sometimes hard to find. The people will do for themselves what we pay government to do--protect us. " As the number of criminals grew in Now, the ACLU is popping the Do you feel protected? California's prison population falls for the third straight year
The state had the greatest drop among the states, a survey finds, with a drop of 4,257 inmates. Among the factors: a federal court order to cut the prison population, and lawmakers trimming budgets. By Shane Goldmacher, LA Times, 3/17/10 California's prison population declined in 2009 for the third straight year as the number of state prisoners fell nationally for the first time in nearly four decades, according to a new survey from the Pew Center on the States. The overall decline was relatively small, 0.4% of roughly 1.4 million state inmates in the nation, but the study's authors said it is significant because it represents the first year-over-year drop since 1972. "After so many years on the rise, any size drop is notable," said Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project. "Most people thought that the prison count was just going to continue up and up and up." California reported the greatest absolute drop last year -- a reduction of 4,257 prisoners. The continuing decline represents a trend for California, where the number of inmates grew from 76,000 in 1988 to nearly 170,000 today. The number of incarcerated Californians had surged in the two previous decades, as voters and lawmakers approved tough-on-crime measures such as the "three-strikes" law. The costs of state prisons has soared as well, doubling since 2000. What changed? "There is not a clear explanation for why California dropped as much as it did," Gelb said. One big downward pressure on California's inmate population is a federal court order to cut the prison population by as many as 40,000 inmates. Another has been the state's outsized deficits, which has led lawmakers to try to trim money from the corrections system. Last year, legislators reduced parole supervision for low-level offenders and approved taking up to six weeks off prison terms for inmates who complete rehabilitation programs. And state corrections and parole officials have tried to slow the revolving door of prisoners who leave lockups only to return months later after violating parole. "I wouldn't say it's any one thing," said Gordon Hinkle, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Other states reported mixed results. The number of inmates declined in 27 states and grew in 23, according to the Pew study. Rhode Island reported the greatest percentage population drop, 9.2%; Indiana reported the largest percentage increase, 5.3%. -
0
|
Sign our PetitionsPoll of the dayCategories
Archives
|
