The Teachers Association of Long Beach (TALB), a local extension of the California Teachers Association, lost one of two remaining seats of support yesterday when retired Cerritos College associate dean John McGinnis defeated TALB-endorsed candidate Richard Lewis and three others in a special election held yesterday.
Voters in Downtown Long Beach went to the polls to fill the open seat in District 3 for the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) Board of Education left vacant after the September 1 resignation of Michael Shane Ellis. Michael Ellis resigned his position on August 6th, 2009 - according to this Press-Telegram report - after missing nearly three months of meetings and following a District Weekly report that there was a warrant out for Ellis' arrest following a probation violation.
Ellis was one of two board members that tended to support the controversial agenda of the local teachers union, the Teachers Association of Long Beach, or TALB. The other three LBUSD board members have exhibited significant independence in their direction of the school district. Yesterday’s election was viewed as primarily a defensive one for TALB to maintain at least two supportive seats on the board leading into the regular elections for both the City of Long Beach and the school district next April. Three of the five LBUSD seats, including this one, will be up for re-election in April.
School District 3 is one of the most diverse areas of Long Beach. It covers the following schools: Chavez Elementary School, Edison Elementary School, International Elementary School, Lee Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, Stevenson Elementary School, Whittier Elementary School, Franklin Classical Middle School, and Renaissance High School for the Arts. The five candidates, Richard Lewis, John McGinnis, Raymond Chavarria, Kate Conrath, and Pauline Gonzalez Stenberg, also displayed that diversity.
As election day approached, many in the district believed that the race would be a contest between TALB-endorsed candidate Lewis and GOP-backed candidate Gonzalez Stenberg, and both campaigns had active poll-watching efforts yesterday. However, when the first polling data released shortly after polls closed at 8 p.m., it was clear that McGinnis had been more successful at conducting an aggressive absentee ballot chase.
Based on purely absentee ballots, McGinnis led Lewis by a 35%-25% margin, with Conrath, Stenberg & Chavarria coming in at about 17%, 12% and 8%, respectively. As the counting of the 27 precincts progressed, the margin between McGinnis and Lewis shrunk, indicating that Lewis’ poll-watching & follow-up with supporters to get them to the polls had been somewhat successful. However, with the resultant polling showing that absentee ballots made up over 75% of the total ballots cast yesterday, the margin was too much to overcome, and McGinnis held on for a 34%-29% victory over Lewis.
Local politicos in Long Beach anticipate a rematch between board member elect McGinnis and Lewis in 3 months, and candidate filing for the April election is already open. Incumbent LBUSD Board President Mary Stanton & David Barton, TALB’s other ally on the board, are both expected to run for re-election. Stenberg has already indicated that she will not make a second attempt and was among those that quickly left messages for McGinnis to congratulate him on his victory. (McGinnis could not be reached for comment, but is expected to release a statement soon.)
The Teachers Association of Long Beach has enjoyed mixed support in recent years, stemming partially from its frequent challenge of popular Democratic candidates that haven’t always been willing to bless its platforms unconditionally. In December 2007, before filing for the open 54th Assembly District seat opened, the TALB executive board made an early decision to suspend its own rules and endorse Long Beach City Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga over Vice-Mayor (and now Assemblymember) Bonnie Lowenthal, as well as both Republican candidates and the Libertarian candidate, without holding any interviews or discussion among its general membership.
The District 3 seat itself was occupied by now-Long Beach City Councilmember Suja Lowenthal when TALB recruited controversial teacher Michael Shane Ellis, who had been an outspoken board president at the Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Association, another local branch of the California Teachers Association, to challenge Lowenthal. The resignation of Ellis and mutual endorsement of Richard Lewis by both TALB and the former school board member, Suja Lowenthal, as well as the Long Beach Chamber, another frequent challenger to the teachers association agenda) was noticed by some as a new commitment by the association to work better with the Long Beach political influentials.
Whether the upset election by John McGinnis puts a hold on this alleged alliance while the TALB leadership figures out its strategy for the April elections will be one frequent subject of discussion for the coffeehouses around Long Beach, where most of the city’s political strategies and local activism are energized.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Senator Oropeza Absent/Abstains from nearly One-Third of Legislative Voting in 2009
When voters weigh candidates for legislative office every two years, they make decisions based primarily on how they believe the candidates will vote on key issues. They review campaign brochures, position papers, websites, and talk to friends and co-workers within their networks.
However, South Bay constituents only have a 2 in 3 chance of their current state senator even casting a vote! The Sacramento Bee reported December 7th on the California legislators’ absence & abstention records, and Senator Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, topped all 120 state legislators, missing 931 votes so far this session – about one-third of possible votes.
(from Sacbee.com):
“Oropeza said she missed most of those votes while caring for her mother, who lives alone in Southern California and became ill earlier this year."
“Oropeza said she herself came down with the flu at one point during the session, and she had planned a Mediterranean cruise for November, when the Senate typically is not in session. When the Senate was called backed to deal with water issues, Oropeza said she couldn't cancel without losing $6,000. And, anyway, she was already aboard her ship.”
‘"It's very important to be there for votes," Oropeza acknowledged, adding that she kept in contact with her staff and was prepared to do whatever it took to get to Sacramento if a bill hinged on her vote.”
One question that will be on South Bay voters’ minds is “What if I had experienced the same situations at my job? Would my job still pay me for basically missing a third of my work hours?”
[end of quote]
In the entitlement world that Oropeza lives in, along with the SEIU and the CTA, excuses for “reasonable absences” are supposed to be accepted on the backs of taxpayers. Legislators like Oropeza have worked in this entitlement world for most of their adult careers, either as elected officials or government worker.
In the private sector, we don’t get such luxury. We have what’s called “Personal Time-Off (PTO)”, and we are allotted a certain amount of paid hours each year, with an approved amount of carryover to the next calendar year. If we use more than we are allotted, the time becomes “unpaid leave”. With exceptions for bereavement & jury duty, the system encourages personal time management and personal responsibility.
The more important issue brought up by the Sacramento Bee article is the practice by legislators to “check in” at morning roll call, and then be absent for significant portions of the legislative day. The article continues:
“Oropeza was counted as present during roll call on days where she missed about half of the 931 votes, according to a Bee review of Senate daily journals. Her absences tended to come at the beginning or end of the week. In addition, her office said roll call often is taken early in the day and she would sometimes leave later to attend to her mother or official business.”
Again, voters in the South Bay need to ask themselves in 2010 whether they would receive similar privileged treatment at their place of employment. How would most businesses run if all their employees had to do was “check in” at the beginning of the day and be paid for a full day’s work?
It appears Senator Oropeza has been living in the entitlement world of Sacramento politics and only performing as a part-time legislator. She has shown what can be accomplished by legislators only participating one-third of the time.
Could this be an indirect endorsement by Senator Oropeza for the Part-Time Legislature Amendment? Are the pundits arguing how legislators need the hours allotted to full-time status going to reconcile Senator Oropeza’s “part-time” status?
What is certain is that South Bay voters need a state senator who is truly “present”, not just marked down as such, when the State Senate is in session. Senator Oropeza has not met that need, and South Bay voters will hopefully hold her & other legislators accountable next November.
However, South Bay constituents only have a 2 in 3 chance of their current state senator even casting a vote! The Sacramento Bee reported December 7th on the California legislators’ absence & abstention records, and Senator Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, topped all 120 state legislators, missing 931 votes so far this session – about one-third of possible votes.
(from Sacbee.com):
“Oropeza said she missed most of those votes while caring for her mother, who lives alone in Southern California and became ill earlier this year."
“Oropeza said she herself came down with the flu at one point during the session, and she had planned a Mediterranean cruise for November, when the Senate typically is not in session. When the Senate was called backed to deal with water issues, Oropeza said she couldn't cancel without losing $6,000. And, anyway, she was already aboard her ship.”
‘"It's very important to be there for votes," Oropeza acknowledged, adding that she kept in contact with her staff and was prepared to do whatever it took to get to Sacramento if a bill hinged on her vote.”
One question that will be on South Bay voters’ minds is “What if I had experienced the same situations at my job? Would my job still pay me for basically missing a third of my work hours?”
[end of quote]
In the entitlement world that Oropeza lives in, along with the SEIU and the CTA, excuses for “reasonable absences” are supposed to be accepted on the backs of taxpayers. Legislators like Oropeza have worked in this entitlement world for most of their adult careers, either as elected officials or government worker.
In the private sector, we don’t get such luxury. We have what’s called “Personal Time-Off (PTO)”, and we are allotted a certain amount of paid hours each year, with an approved amount of carryover to the next calendar year. If we use more than we are allotted, the time becomes “unpaid leave”. With exceptions for bereavement & jury duty, the system encourages personal time management and personal responsibility.
The more important issue brought up by the Sacramento Bee article is the practice by legislators to “check in” at morning roll call, and then be absent for significant portions of the legislative day. The article continues:
“Oropeza was counted as present during roll call on days where she missed about half of the 931 votes, according to a Bee review of Senate daily journals. Her absences tended to come at the beginning or end of the week. In addition, her office said roll call often is taken early in the day and she would sometimes leave later to attend to her mother or official business.”
Again, voters in the South Bay need to ask themselves in 2010 whether they would receive similar privileged treatment at their place of employment. How would most businesses run if all their employees had to do was “check in” at the beginning of the day and be paid for a full day’s work?
It appears Senator Oropeza has been living in the entitlement world of Sacramento politics and only performing as a part-time legislator. She has shown what can be accomplished by legislators only participating one-third of the time.
Could this be an indirect endorsement by Senator Oropeza for the Part-Time Legislature Amendment? Are the pundits arguing how legislators need the hours allotted to full-time status going to reconcile Senator Oropeza’s “part-time” status?
What is certain is that South Bay voters need a state senator who is truly “present”, not just marked down as such, when the State Senate is in session. Senator Oropeza has not met that need, and South Bay voters will hopefully hold her & other legislators accountable next November.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Part-time Legislature Petition Drive nets 1400 signatures in Anaheim
Relaunching an improved version of their career politician-feared proposition, Citizens for California Reform teamed with KFI’s John & Ken Show yesterday afternoon for a petition drive at the Ayres Hotel Anaheim that resulted in nearly 1400 signatures toward its qualification for the November 2010 ballot. The Part-Time Citizen Legislature Proposition is a constitutional amendment that returns California to a citizen legislature. Petitions can be downloaded from the website www.reformcal.com.
Over 50 signed up as volunteers for the effort, and most of those making the pilgrimage to the Ayre Hotel took additional forms with them to collect more signatures. “The state’s experiment with a full-time legislature has failed and we need Citizen Legislators who are in touch with average voters and will provide real solutions to California’s problems,” says Gabriella Holt, President of Citizen’s for California Reform, the group spearheading the initiative drive.
Steve Maviglio, the campaign manager for the opposition, was reached by phone in Sacramento by the OC Register, calling the measure a "very bad idea."
"It would cause new problems and make the situation much worse," said Maviglio, executive director of Californians for an Effective Legislature. "It would give more power to the governor and to lobbyists who would know a lot more about how government works than some part-time elite that's still wondering where the restroom is inside the Capitol."
The title of Maviglio’s group may seem a bit misleading when you take a look at what the current Legislature has done in its recent sessions. Between the significant hikes to personal income taxes, taking of local revenues from municipalities & school districts, and the resultant 13% approval rating of the Legislature, the last word that comes to mind for the entity that Maviglio is defending is “Effective”. If by “effective”, he means the effective destruction of the California economy, the effective reduction of California’s education performance, and the effective emigration of income-tax payers from California, reducing state revenues by $16B a year, Maviglio could then make the case that the full-time performance of the legislators he is defending has been very “effective”.
According to CCR, the return to a part-time Citizen Legislature will help focus leadership in Sacramento on handling the basic functions of government – namely keeping the state in the black. The “professional” politicians in Sacramento are held captive to special interests, and are unable to make hard decisions to solve the state’s budget crisis.
In the interest of full disclosure, this Los Angeles County Editor was at the Anaheim signature gathering to help gather signatures, and fully supports this measure. The next largest state in our union, Texas, has one of the most aggressive part-time structures, and recent studies are showing that, despite the current nationwide economy, the economy of Texas is growing while the only metrics growing in California are the unemployment rate and the percentage of welfare recipients.
To learn more about Citizens for California Reform and the Citizen’s Legislature Project visit: www.ReformCal.com
Over 50 signed up as volunteers for the effort, and most of those making the pilgrimage to the Ayre Hotel took additional forms with them to collect more signatures. “The state’s experiment with a full-time legislature has failed and we need Citizen Legislators who are in touch with average voters and will provide real solutions to California’s problems,” says Gabriella Holt, President of Citizen’s for California Reform, the group spearheading the initiative drive.
Steve Maviglio, the campaign manager for the opposition, was reached by phone in Sacramento by the OC Register, calling the measure a "very bad idea."
"It would cause new problems and make the situation much worse," said Maviglio, executive director of Californians for an Effective Legislature. "It would give more power to the governor and to lobbyists who would know a lot more about how government works than some part-time elite that's still wondering where the restroom is inside the Capitol."
The title of Maviglio’s group may seem a bit misleading when you take a look at what the current Legislature has done in its recent sessions. Between the significant hikes to personal income taxes, taking of local revenues from municipalities & school districts, and the resultant 13% approval rating of the Legislature, the last word that comes to mind for the entity that Maviglio is defending is “Effective”. If by “effective”, he means the effective destruction of the California economy, the effective reduction of California’s education performance, and the effective emigration of income-tax payers from California, reducing state revenues by $16B a year, Maviglio could then make the case that the full-time performance of the legislators he is defending has been very “effective”.
According to CCR, the return to a part-time Citizen Legislature will help focus leadership in Sacramento on handling the basic functions of government – namely keeping the state in the black. The “professional” politicians in Sacramento are held captive to special interests, and are unable to make hard decisions to solve the state’s budget crisis.
In the interest of full disclosure, this Los Angeles County Editor was at the Anaheim signature gathering to help gather signatures, and fully supports this measure. The next largest state in our union, Texas, has one of the most aggressive part-time structures, and recent studies are showing that, despite the current nationwide economy, the economy of Texas is growing while the only metrics growing in California are the unemployment rate and the percentage of welfare recipients.
To learn more about Citizens for California Reform and the Citizen’s Legislature Project visit: www.ReformCal.com
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tom Long: Don't let a court ruling get in the way of spinning an election
I've got to hand it to our friend, RPV Councilmember Tom Long. He really does persist through his political spin long after he's been proven wrong! He's like the attorney for OJ still arguing the case outside on the courthouse steps, long after they've carried his client away!
Even though our central committee went through the trouble of confirming with legal counsel (through a simple Lexis-Nexis search, by the way) that his partner-in-spin Councilmember Doug Stern was incorrect to state that political party committee are forbidden from participating in non-partisan elections, Long decides to send out a diatribe against my committee as follows:
"I encourage [RPV voters} not to choose candidates based on partisan labels. The California Constitution provides that city council races are non-partisan. True, a federal trial court judge has held that California cannot prevent parties from making endorsements. And in this RPV election one party central committee, led by a San Pedro resident, has done so. But the California Constitution is still on the books and reflects the judgment of our state's residents that partisanship is not valuable on the local level. Given the problems we sometimes see in the state legislature and in Congress, one has to wonder why anyone would want to bring partisanship to the city council. This year, as in past years, I am pleased to endorse candidates from both parties. I simply don't find local issues to be partisan."
Now, that "San Pedro resident" is none other than yours truly, one who was raised, received communion, confirmed by the Catholic church, graduated from high school in, and returned to get married in Rancho Palos Verdes. And oh yea, my parents still live there and own two homes in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Councilmember Long needs to stop deceiving Rancho Palos Verdes voters about the nature of local elections. All elections are partisan when it comes to endorsements. Just ask the unions throughout California. The fact that Tom makes endorsements as well shows that he understands the strength of them. And by the tone of the message he sent out this week, he realizes the renewed strength in the endorsement of this central committee. Thank you, Tom, for validating the awesome work that this committee, a majority of which are RPV residents by the way, is doing! And for most of them, their mutual disdain for both Tom and his cohort Doug Stern has been a unifying factor!
Thanks to the extensive research by these hardworking RPV residents, this committee has enthusiastically endorsed Brian Campbell & Anthony Misetich, two hard-working business men who will being fiscal sanity back to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. A third Republican, Planning Commissioner Jeff Lewis, was not granted an extension to the invitation to solicit this committee's endorsement. It is my personal opinion that the close association between Long and Mr. Lewis weighed heavily into the RPV committee majority's decision to move forward.
But ladies and gentlemen, if you think that the Los Angeles Democratic Party is not participating in the Rancho Palos Verdes elections, you're blinder than Long. I have frequent conversations with my Democratic counterparts, the two leads for this district being from San Pedro as well, and I run into them in Rancho Palos Verdes frequently! In addition to their regular attendance at RPV City Council meetings and events like the last candidate forum, they assist with the Palos Verdes Democratic Club that meets every third Sunday at the PV Library, and are enlisting numerous San Pedro high school students to walk precincts for their candidates.
And so are we! I'm sorry that Long does not "find local issues to be partisan". When the wasteful spending called out by the late Dr. Gardiner was ignored and even challenged by Long, was that simply non-partisan? When residents try to defend their property rights at city council meetings, only to have Long call them "stupid" (which I witnessed two years ago in shock!), is that non-partisan?
The Republican Party leadership has decided that one of the biggest reasons why, as Long points out, there are big issues with Sacramento & Congress is that the Democrats have done a much better job building up "the farm team" for these seats when they open. These are your school board members, water board members, and yes, city council members. Look at the rush of candidates competing for the Democratic nominations to the 53rd Assembly seat being vacated by Ted Lieu, and you'll notice something...they're all current or former city councilmembers! When our previous Assemblymember, Betty rnette, was termed out last year, the Democrats had two Long Beach City Councilmembers vying for the seat.
This is what we in the Republican Party are striving for, and the myopic rants of a far-left Democrat afraid of his council swinging back to the Republican majority again isn't going to stop us.
So when you read Tom Long's e-mails about how elections should be non-partisan, I want you all to remember that this was the original position of the Republican Party when this law came about, and that it was the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee that fought and won the battle to have that part of the California Constitution removed.
But, to show Tom I can be bi-partisan as well, I will announce my personal endorsements of Greg Royston, Anthony Collatos and Heather Matson for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unifed School District. As a graduate of Rolling Hills High School and as a parent of two young children, I am extremely impressed by the courage and commitment of these three individuals to step up as parents of young children in the school district in order to make the system a better one. They're not doing it to continue any connections with the CA Teachers Association or with the "in-crowd of PV Politics". We need more parent involvement in our local school districts, and I believe that these three school district parents will make a real difference.
Oh, and none of them are Republican...they're just great candidates. Just like Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich.
Thanks again, Tom, for continuing to be the unifying force for all of the Republican and Conservative watchdog groups throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula! I look forward to returning my hometown of Rancho Palos Verdes back to the Republican majority again in 4 weeks!
Then the fun can really begin! 2010, here we come!
Even though our central committee went through the trouble of confirming with legal counsel (through a simple Lexis-Nexis search, by the way) that his partner-in-spin Councilmember Doug Stern was incorrect to state that political party committee are forbidden from participating in non-partisan elections, Long decides to send out a diatribe against my committee as follows:
"I encourage [RPV voters} not to choose candidates based on partisan labels. The California Constitution provides that city council races are non-partisan. True, a federal trial court judge has held that California cannot prevent parties from making endorsements. And in this RPV election one party central committee, led by a San Pedro resident, has done so. But the California Constitution is still on the books and reflects the judgment of our state's residents that partisanship is not valuable on the local level. Given the problems we sometimes see in the state legislature and in Congress, one has to wonder why anyone would want to bring partisanship to the city council. This year, as in past years, I am pleased to endorse candidates from both parties. I simply don't find local issues to be partisan."
Now, that "San Pedro resident" is none other than yours truly, one who was raised, received communion, confirmed by the Catholic church, graduated from high school in, and returned to get married in Rancho Palos Verdes. And oh yea, my parents still live there and own two homes in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Councilmember Long needs to stop deceiving Rancho Palos Verdes voters about the nature of local elections. All elections are partisan when it comes to endorsements. Just ask the unions throughout California. The fact that Tom makes endorsements as well shows that he understands the strength of them. And by the tone of the message he sent out this week, he realizes the renewed strength in the endorsement of this central committee. Thank you, Tom, for validating the awesome work that this committee, a majority of which are RPV residents by the way, is doing! And for most of them, their mutual disdain for both Tom and his cohort Doug Stern has been a unifying factor!
Thanks to the extensive research by these hardworking RPV residents, this committee has enthusiastically endorsed Brian Campbell & Anthony Misetich, two hard-working business men who will being fiscal sanity back to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. A third Republican, Planning Commissioner Jeff Lewis, was not granted an extension to the invitation to solicit this committee's endorsement. It is my personal opinion that the close association between Long and Mr. Lewis weighed heavily into the RPV committee majority's decision to move forward.
But ladies and gentlemen, if you think that the Los Angeles Democratic Party is not participating in the Rancho Palos Verdes elections, you're blinder than Long. I have frequent conversations with my Democratic counterparts, the two leads for this district being from San Pedro as well, and I run into them in Rancho Palos Verdes frequently! In addition to their regular attendance at RPV City Council meetings and events like the last candidate forum, they assist with the Palos Verdes Democratic Club that meets every third Sunday at the PV Library, and are enlisting numerous San Pedro high school students to walk precincts for their candidates.
And so are we! I'm sorry that Long does not "find local issues to be partisan". When the wasteful spending called out by the late Dr. Gardiner was ignored and even challenged by Long, was that simply non-partisan? When residents try to defend their property rights at city council meetings, only to have Long call them "stupid" (which I witnessed two years ago in shock!), is that non-partisan?
The Republican Party leadership has decided that one of the biggest reasons why, as Long points out, there are big issues with Sacramento & Congress is that the Democrats have done a much better job building up "the farm team" for these seats when they open. These are your school board members, water board members, and yes, city council members. Look at the rush of candidates competing for the Democratic nominations to the 53rd Assembly seat being vacated by Ted Lieu, and you'll notice something...they're all current or former city councilmembers! When our previous Assemblymember, Betty rnette, was termed out last year, the Democrats had two Long Beach City Councilmembers vying for the seat.
This is what we in the Republican Party are striving for, and the myopic rants of a far-left Democrat afraid of his council swinging back to the Republican majority again isn't going to stop us.
So when you read Tom Long's e-mails about how elections should be non-partisan, I want you all to remember that this was the original position of the Republican Party when this law came about, and that it was the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee that fought and won the battle to have that part of the California Constitution removed.
But, to show Tom I can be bi-partisan as well, I will announce my personal endorsements of Greg Royston, Anthony Collatos and Heather Matson for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unifed School District. As a graduate of Rolling Hills High School and as a parent of two young children, I am extremely impressed by the courage and commitment of these three individuals to step up as parents of young children in the school district in order to make the system a better one. They're not doing it to continue any connections with the CA Teachers Association or with the "in-crowd of PV Politics". We need more parent involvement in our local school districts, and I believe that these three school district parents will make a real difference.
Oh, and none of them are Republican...they're just great candidates. Just like Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich.
Thanks again, Tom, for continuing to be the unifying force for all of the Republican and Conservative watchdog groups throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula! I look forward to returning my hometown of Rancho Palos Verdes back to the Republican majority again in 4 weeks!
Then the fun can really begin! 2010, here we come!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Assembly GOP wastes no time; Duvall resigns
After Assembly GOP Leader Sam Blakeslee quickly moved to remove him from all positions of authority and legislative influence in the State Assembly, Republican Assemblyman Mike Duvall, caught in a sex scandal, abruptly resigned Wednesday from the Assembly.
Working with Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Blakeslee wasted no time in deciding that in the best interests of both the citizens of California and the reputation of the California Republican Party, Duvall's comments and actions were simply intolerable.
"The statements he made were inappropriate and unacceptable. I have asked Mr. Duvall to step down from his post as a member of caucus leadership and I have requested that Speaker Bass remove Mr. Duvall as Vice Chairman of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce committee and as a member of the Assembly Rules Committee. This matter is currently under review by the Assembly Rules Committee and we are awaiting their findings."
Shortly afterwards, Duvall released this statement on his campaign web site: "I have come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to my family, my constituents or to my friends on both sides of the aisle to remain in office. Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately..."
The action followed published and televised reports that Duvall had a sexual relationship with a female lobbyist. Earlier, Assembly leaders had removed him from the vice-chairmanship of the Utilities and Commerce Committee, his seat on the powerful Assembly Rules Committee and his ranking role in the GOP caucus.
The issue was first reported in the OC Weekly newspaper and by KCAL-TV in Los Angeles.
Duvall had been representing a district that includes Anaheim, Fullerton, Placentia, Orange, Brea, La Habra and Yorba Linda.
Duvall, 54, was caught on an open microphone prior to a July 8 Appropriations Committee hearing describing in detail his relationship with the lobbyist, 18 years his junior, as well as his relations with an another woman. The lobbyist worked for Sempra Energy. Both the lobbyist and Duvall are married. Duvall's words were audible and recorded by the Capitol's television system. In the videotaped sidebar discussion, Duvall offered clues as to the lobbyist's identity.
"And so her birthday was Monday," he said at the Wednesday, July 8 committee hearing. "I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than me. I said, 'Now, you're getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.' And she goes, '[I'm] 36.' She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep teasing her, and she goes, 'I know you French men. You divide your age by two and add seven, and if you're older than that, you dump us.'"
According to voter-registration records reviewed by and reported by Capitol Weekly, veteran Sacramento-based lobbyist Heidi DeJong Barsuglia turned 36 years old on Monday, July 6.
Duvall had been witnessed by many legislative sources socializing after-hours with Barsuglia. They also say they have seen Duvall with Barsuglia in restaurants, "arm-in-arm" at political fund-raising events and even shopping together for groceries just blocks from the capitol building.
Bass said she had "directed the Ethics Committee to look into the matter," and that the matter also was being reviewed by the Rules Committee.
Even before Duvall resigned, Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh said he had seen the video, "and there's absolutely nothing you can defend in anything that was said by Assemblyman Duvall." He added: "My heart goes out to his family, but I think he should go home and consider resigning."
The Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative, self-described "pro-family" advocacy organization that had given Duvall a "100%" score for his voting record on issues of concern to the group, denounced the lawmaker in a statement today.
"It is always disappointing when a champion of traditional values does not practice the same in his private life," said Karen England, executive director of CRI. "And this appears to be the case with Assemblyman Duvall."
Amid the overwhelming evidence against him, Duvall eventually did the right thing by immediately tendering his resignation to allow the citizens of his district to move forward. Of course, the TRUE right thing would have been to never get involved in this kind of mess in the first place.
However, this examiner feels that the Assembly GOP Leader, Sam Blakeslee, as well as other conservative leaders cited, should be commended for taking immediate action rather than making legal or political arguments to stall what would most likely have been an inevitable removal.
If only all political leaders at all levels of government moved this fast to remove an obvious violator of the term "civil servant", maybe the approval ratings of these legislative bodies wouldn't be as far low as they currently are.
Thoughts to ponder for the state elections in 2010...
Working with Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Blakeslee wasted no time in deciding that in the best interests of both the citizens of California and the reputation of the California Republican Party, Duvall's comments and actions were simply intolerable.
"The statements he made were inappropriate and unacceptable. I have asked Mr. Duvall to step down from his post as a member of caucus leadership and I have requested that Speaker Bass remove Mr. Duvall as Vice Chairman of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce committee and as a member of the Assembly Rules Committee. This matter is currently under review by the Assembly Rules Committee and we are awaiting their findings."
Shortly afterwards, Duvall released this statement on his campaign web site: "I have come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to my family, my constituents or to my friends on both sides of the aisle to remain in office. Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately..."
The action followed published and televised reports that Duvall had a sexual relationship with a female lobbyist. Earlier, Assembly leaders had removed him from the vice-chairmanship of the Utilities and Commerce Committee, his seat on the powerful Assembly Rules Committee and his ranking role in the GOP caucus.
The issue was first reported in the OC Weekly newspaper and by KCAL-TV in Los Angeles.
Duvall had been representing a district that includes Anaheim, Fullerton, Placentia, Orange, Brea, La Habra and Yorba Linda.
Duvall, 54, was caught on an open microphone prior to a July 8 Appropriations Committee hearing describing in detail his relationship with the lobbyist, 18 years his junior, as well as his relations with an another woman. The lobbyist worked for Sempra Energy. Both the lobbyist and Duvall are married. Duvall's words were audible and recorded by the Capitol's television system. In the videotaped sidebar discussion, Duvall offered clues as to the lobbyist's identity.
"And so her birthday was Monday," he said at the Wednesday, July 8 committee hearing. "I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than me. I said, 'Now, you're getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.' And she goes, '[I'm] 36.' She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep teasing her, and she goes, 'I know you French men. You divide your age by two and add seven, and if you're older than that, you dump us.'"
According to voter-registration records reviewed by and reported by Capitol Weekly, veteran Sacramento-based lobbyist Heidi DeJong Barsuglia turned 36 years old on Monday, July 6.
Duvall had been witnessed by many legislative sources socializing after-hours with Barsuglia. They also say they have seen Duvall with Barsuglia in restaurants, "arm-in-arm" at political fund-raising events and even shopping together for groceries just blocks from the capitol building.
Bass said she had "directed the Ethics Committee to look into the matter," and that the matter also was being reviewed by the Rules Committee.
Even before Duvall resigned, Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh said he had seen the video, "and there's absolutely nothing you can defend in anything that was said by Assemblyman Duvall." He added: "My heart goes out to his family, but I think he should go home and consider resigning."
The Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative, self-described "pro-family" advocacy organization that had given Duvall a "100%" score for his voting record on issues of concern to the group, denounced the lawmaker in a statement today.
"It is always disappointing when a champion of traditional values does not practice the same in his private life," said Karen England, executive director of CRI. "And this appears to be the case with Assemblyman Duvall."
Amid the overwhelming evidence against him, Duvall eventually did the right thing by immediately tendering his resignation to allow the citizens of his district to move forward. Of course, the TRUE right thing would have been to never get involved in this kind of mess in the first place.
However, this examiner feels that the Assembly GOP Leader, Sam Blakeslee, as well as other conservative leaders cited, should be commended for taking immediate action rather than making legal or political arguments to stall what would most likely have been an inevitable removal.
If only all political leaders at all levels of government moved this fast to remove an obvious violator of the term "civil servant", maybe the approval ratings of these legislative bodies wouldn't be as far low as they currently are.
Thoughts to ponder for the state elections in 2010...
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Dr. Peter Gardiner: Courage
(Also posted at LA Republican Examiner)
Dr. Peter Gardiner, our friend and mentor on the Rancho Palos Verdes city council since 2001, lost his battle with melanoma on Saturday, July 25. He was 68.
Dr. Gardiner set the bar for conservatives throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the 54th Assembly District and the South Bay of Southern California. Never shying away from expressing what needed to be said on key issues, Dr. Gardiner consistently displayed a level of courage and dedication for his constituents that will never be surpassed. Peter was not afraid to be a lone dissenter on an issue in order to defend what was right. It was an honor for me to learn from him as a trusted friend & advisor of our district central committee. I hope someday to have the opportunity to display similar political courage under fire, and I pray that I will remember Dr. Gardiner’s stead-fastness in the face of opposition and also hold firm on behalf of all those we serve.
In addition to serving Rancho Palos Verdes on the City Council for eight years, Peter served one four-year term as a trustee on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education. Peter was an active member of the East Peninsula Education Council, or EPEC, which worked successfully to prevent further closures and the potential sale of Peninsula public schools. EPEC was able to successfully preserve school sites such as Dapplegray, Miraleste Intermediate, Ridgecrest and Margate — all of which are in use today.
Family spokesperson Gabriella Holt, a member of our committee, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“The family of Peter C. Gardiner regretfully announces that Peter passed away on the evening of Saturday, July 25, 2009 after a long and courageous battle with melanoma. Peter loved life, his family and his community, and will be sorely missed. Peter joins his wife Tanda Kynette Gardiner, who passed away on December 11, 1994.
The family is both proud of and grateful for Peter's eight years of public service on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and four years as trustee on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education. Peter was also a man with a strong faith in God and was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where over the years Peter served as Seminary Teacher, High Priest Group Leader, Sunday School President and Ward Missionary for the Crestridge Ward of the Church.
The family would like to take this opportunity to thank the many friends who offered their kindness and support during Peter's difficult battle. Peter is survived by his son, Christopher, daughter, Christine and son in law, Karl Schmitz, his brothers Thomas and Jeffrey, sister Christine Novak; and his grandchildren, Benjamin, Aimee, Sean and Ellerbrook Schmitz.
Funeral services for Peter will be on Saturday, August 1, 2009, details yet to be finalized. In lieu of flowers, Peter had requested that donations be made to the Perpetual Education Fund of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those interested in making such a donation may make checks payable to: Perpetual Education Fund, 50 East North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150.”
As we head into the November elections for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, partially to fill his seat, I hope and pray that residents will think about whom among the candidates is best suited to carry the heavy mantle that Dr. Peter Gardiner bore. Dr. Gardiner didn’t just work tirelessly to cultivate the best for his community; he stood in defense against those that did not have the community’s best interests at heart. His successors must have this same conviction. Peter would want nothing less.
Thank you, Peter, for your leadership, your courage, and your example of what a public servant is supposed to be. Rest assured that we will never forget the bar you have set.
Dr. Peter Gardiner, our friend and mentor on the Rancho Palos Verdes city council since 2001, lost his battle with melanoma on Saturday, July 25. He was 68.
Dr. Gardiner set the bar for conservatives throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the 54th Assembly District and the South Bay of Southern California. Never shying away from expressing what needed to be said on key issues, Dr. Gardiner consistently displayed a level of courage and dedication for his constituents that will never be surpassed. Peter was not afraid to be a lone dissenter on an issue in order to defend what was right. It was an honor for me to learn from him as a trusted friend & advisor of our district central committee. I hope someday to have the opportunity to display similar political courage under fire, and I pray that I will remember Dr. Gardiner’s stead-fastness in the face of opposition and also hold firm on behalf of all those we serve.
In addition to serving Rancho Palos Verdes on the City Council for eight years, Peter served one four-year term as a trustee on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education. Peter was an active member of the East Peninsula Education Council, or EPEC, which worked successfully to prevent further closures and the potential sale of Peninsula public schools. EPEC was able to successfully preserve school sites such as Dapplegray, Miraleste Intermediate, Ridgecrest and Margate — all of which are in use today.
Family spokesperson Gabriella Holt, a member of our committee, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“The family of Peter C. Gardiner regretfully announces that Peter passed away on the evening of Saturday, July 25, 2009 after a long and courageous battle with melanoma. Peter loved life, his family and his community, and will be sorely missed. Peter joins his wife Tanda Kynette Gardiner, who passed away on December 11, 1994.
The family is both proud of and grateful for Peter's eight years of public service on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and four years as trustee on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Board of Education. Peter was also a man with a strong faith in God and was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where over the years Peter served as Seminary Teacher, High Priest Group Leader, Sunday School President and Ward Missionary for the Crestridge Ward of the Church.
The family would like to take this opportunity to thank the many friends who offered their kindness and support during Peter's difficult battle. Peter is survived by his son, Christopher, daughter, Christine and son in law, Karl Schmitz, his brothers Thomas and Jeffrey, sister Christine Novak; and his grandchildren, Benjamin, Aimee, Sean and Ellerbrook Schmitz.
Funeral services for Peter will be on Saturday, August 1, 2009, details yet to be finalized. In lieu of flowers, Peter had requested that donations be made to the Perpetual Education Fund of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those interested in making such a donation may make checks payable to: Perpetual Education Fund, 50 East North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150.”
As we head into the November elections for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, partially to fill his seat, I hope and pray that residents will think about whom among the candidates is best suited to carry the heavy mantle that Dr. Peter Gardiner bore. Dr. Gardiner didn’t just work tirelessly to cultivate the best for his community; he stood in defense against those that did not have the community’s best interests at heart. His successors must have this same conviction. Peter would want nothing less.
Thank you, Peter, for your leadership, your courage, and your example of what a public servant is supposed to be. Rest assured that we will never forget the bar you have set.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Hermosa Beach business tax increase measure postponed
(Modified from the original posting on my campaign website, www.Stammreich4Senate.org )
Hermosa Beach is one of the cities that sit in the heart of the South Bay, and I remember many a Saturday afternoon at the boardwalk trying to keep up with the volleyball studs that ruled the section of beach just north of the pier.
As many of you read, last Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting agenda was highlighted by an attempt by Hermosa Beach City Council member (and city business-killer) Michael Keegan to raise the business license fees within the city he resides in order to be more comparable with the city he does business in, namely Manhattan Beach. Keegan, like many misguided far-left liberals, still hold on to the notion that raising taxes during a recession actually increases revenues, despite what the State of California is beginning to learn about the ineffective April tax hikes this year.
Of course, the lobbying tactic for convincing three of the remaining four city council members to place this tax measure on the November ballot was the same as many of us saw earlier this year by Los Angeles City Council members when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure placed on the March 2009 ballot. Many city council members, including our own Los Angeles member Janice Hahn, stated that they were “undecided” on the measure themselves and were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!
Tuesday night, a coalition of South Bay conservatives descended on the Hermosa Beach City Council to bring forth what placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot to raise the business license fees by as much as 800% would do to businesses both in Hermosa Beach and throughout the South Bay. The process in Hermosa Beach required 4 of 5 members’ approval to place it on the ballot. Keegan was in full support; Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, was already openly opposed.
And so it began.
Speakers against the measure included myself, residents & business owners, including the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Carla Merriman, who specifically pointed out that the finance committee that was forwarding the proposed tax measure to the city council had not only failed to contact business representatives for their input, the members of this committee had actually refused requests by both the Chamber and other local business owners to participate in the discussion. After this stunning revelation and a few others, Council member Peter Tucker and Mayor Pro Tem Michael DiVirgilio realized that the proper discussions with all of the appropriate stakeholders had not been properly conducted, and voiced their opposition to a November tax measure without that discussion being held. A supplemental motion was made and unanimously approved to hold that discussion after the November 2009 election.
This delay should have been seen as a blessing to Council Member Keegan, who is up for re-election this November. Keeping a controversial measure that could be used to rally conservative voters similar to May 19th would have helped Keegan by keeping the voter base somewhat moderate to liberal. However, not leaving well enough alone, most of the city council gallery was shocked when Keegan exclaimed that "I'm working for the residents, not for the businesses. That's right, I work for the residents. I get elected by them, and that's who I represent here."
Expectations are that Keegan will be reminded of these comments throughout his re-election campaign when he solicits contributions and window-space from local businesses, as well as has to explain to residents who do not like to drive out of town to go shopping why their purchases cost more.
Putting questionable ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting questionable food in front of a guest & letting them decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? A professional and responsible chef always knows what they are serving to guests, and stands behind everything they prepare and serve.
State legislators and City Council members throughout California and the South Bay, respectively, must be held to this same standard. It is up to us as voters and friends of voters in cities like Hermosa Beach to ensure that they are.
Hermosa Beach is one of the cities that sit in the heart of the South Bay, and I remember many a Saturday afternoon at the boardwalk trying to keep up with the volleyball studs that ruled the section of beach just north of the pier.
As many of you read, last Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting agenda was highlighted by an attempt by Hermosa Beach City Council member (and city business-killer) Michael Keegan to raise the business license fees within the city he resides in order to be more comparable with the city he does business in, namely Manhattan Beach. Keegan, like many misguided far-left liberals, still hold on to the notion that raising taxes during a recession actually increases revenues, despite what the State of California is beginning to learn about the ineffective April tax hikes this year.
Of course, the lobbying tactic for convincing three of the remaining four city council members to place this tax measure on the November ballot was the same as many of us saw earlier this year by Los Angeles City Council members when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure placed on the March 2009 ballot. Many city council members, including our own Los Angeles member Janice Hahn, stated that they were “undecided” on the measure themselves and were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!
Tuesday night, a coalition of South Bay conservatives descended on the Hermosa Beach City Council to bring forth what placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot to raise the business license fees by as much as 800% would do to businesses both in Hermosa Beach and throughout the South Bay. The process in Hermosa Beach required 4 of 5 members’ approval to place it on the ballot. Keegan was in full support; Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, was already openly opposed.
And so it began.
Speakers against the measure included myself, residents & business owners, including the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Carla Merriman, who specifically pointed out that the finance committee that was forwarding the proposed tax measure to the city council had not only failed to contact business representatives for their input, the members of this committee had actually refused requests by both the Chamber and other local business owners to participate in the discussion. After this stunning revelation and a few others, Council member Peter Tucker and Mayor Pro Tem Michael DiVirgilio realized that the proper discussions with all of the appropriate stakeholders had not been properly conducted, and voiced their opposition to a November tax measure without that discussion being held. A supplemental motion was made and unanimously approved to hold that discussion after the November 2009 election.
This delay should have been seen as a blessing to Council Member Keegan, who is up for re-election this November. Keeping a controversial measure that could be used to rally conservative voters similar to May 19th would have helped Keegan by keeping the voter base somewhat moderate to liberal. However, not leaving well enough alone, most of the city council gallery was shocked when Keegan exclaimed that "I'm working for the residents, not for the businesses. That's right, I work for the residents. I get elected by them, and that's who I represent here."
Expectations are that Keegan will be reminded of these comments throughout his re-election campaign when he solicits contributions and window-space from local businesses, as well as has to explain to residents who do not like to drive out of town to go shopping why their purchases cost more.
Putting questionable ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting questionable food in front of a guest & letting them decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? A professional and responsible chef always knows what they are serving to guests, and stands behind everything they prepare and serve.
State legislators and City Council members throughout California and the South Bay, respectively, must be held to this same standard. It is up to us as voters and friends of voters in cities like Hermosa Beach to ensure that they are.
WSJ: Why We'll Leave L.A.
I’m forwarding an Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week because it highlights my primary issue with the anti-business mentality of our Democratic-elected officials (state and local), as well as showing how the entertainment industry, filled with its liberal crusaders, is going to feel the long-term effects of a non-friendly business environment.
While the Hollywood elite walk the red carpets and talk about how we just need to pay our fair shares, the agents, columnists & contractors who employ much of the entertainment industry, including the stage hands, film support, fashion consultants and numerous catering services for film productions are getting squeezed right out of the city of Los Angeles, and they’re not simply moving to another part of California.
Please read on as the President of Creators Syndicate, well-known to anyone with aspirations in the entertainment industry, warns us about a critical decision he may have to make. (His editorial was so sharp that he was booked on KFI’s John & Ken Show the same day it appeared!)
The business climate is worse than the air quality.
by RICK NEWCOMBE
Los Angeles
If New Yorkers fantasize that doing business here in Los Angeles would be less of a headache, forget about it. This city is fast becoming a job-killing machine. It's no accident the unemployment rate is a frightening 11.4% and climbing.
I never could have imagined that, after living here for more than three decades, I would be filing a lawsuit against my beloved Los Angeles and making plans for my company, Creators Syndicate, to move elsewhere.
But we have no choice. The city's bureaucrats rival Stalin's apparatchiks in issuing decrees, rescinding them, and then punishing citizens for having followed them in the first place.
I founded Creators Syndicate in 1987, and we have represented hundreds of important writers, syndicating their columns to newspapers and Web sites around the world. The most famous include Hillary Clinton, who, like Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote a syndicated column when she was first lady. Another star was the advice columnist Ann Landers, once described by "The World Almanac" as "the most influential woman in America." Other Creators columnists include Bill O'Reilly, Susan Estrich, Thomas Sowell, Roland Martin and Michelle Malkin -- plus Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonists and your favorite comic strips.
From the beginning, we've been headquartered in Los Angeles. But 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an "occupations and professions" classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a "wholesale and retail" classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.
After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.
You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.
Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.
Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings -- only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.
We work with hundreds of outside agents, consultants, independent contractors and support services -- many of whom pay taxes to the city of Los Angeles. This spurs a job-creating ripple effect on the city's economy. Yet I suspect many companies like ours already have quietly left town in the face of the city's taxes and regulations. This would help explain the erosion of jobs.
Regardless of the outcome of our case, the arbitrary and capricious behavior of some bureaucrats is creating a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If we win in court, the taxpayers of Los Angeles will have lost because all those tax dollars will have been wasted on needless litigation.
If we lose in court, the remaining taxpayers in Los Angeles will have lost because their burden will continue to swell as yet another business moves its jobs -- and taxpayers -- to another city.
As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
Mr. Newcombe is president of Creators Syndicate.
While the Hollywood elite walk the red carpets and talk about how we just need to pay our fair shares, the agents, columnists & contractors who employ much of the entertainment industry, including the stage hands, film support, fashion consultants and numerous catering services for film productions are getting squeezed right out of the city of Los Angeles, and they’re not simply moving to another part of California.
Please read on as the President of Creators Syndicate, well-known to anyone with aspirations in the entertainment industry, warns us about a critical decision he may have to make. (His editorial was so sharp that he was booked on KFI’s John & Ken Show the same day it appeared!)
The business climate is worse than the air quality.
by RICK NEWCOMBE
Los Angeles
If New Yorkers fantasize that doing business here in Los Angeles would be less of a headache, forget about it. This city is fast becoming a job-killing machine. It's no accident the unemployment rate is a frightening 11.4% and climbing.
I never could have imagined that, after living here for more than three decades, I would be filing a lawsuit against my beloved Los Angeles and making plans for my company, Creators Syndicate, to move elsewhere.
But we have no choice. The city's bureaucrats rival Stalin's apparatchiks in issuing decrees, rescinding them, and then punishing citizens for having followed them in the first place.
I founded Creators Syndicate in 1987, and we have represented hundreds of important writers, syndicating their columns to newspapers and Web sites around the world. The most famous include Hillary Clinton, who, like Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote a syndicated column when she was first lady. Another star was the advice columnist Ann Landers, once described by "The World Almanac" as "the most influential woman in America." Other Creators columnists include Bill O'Reilly, Susan Estrich, Thomas Sowell, Roland Martin and Michelle Malkin -- plus Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonists and your favorite comic strips.
From the beginning, we've been headquartered in Los Angeles. But 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an "occupations and professions" classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a "wholesale and retail" classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.
After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.
You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.
Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.
Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings -- only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.
We work with hundreds of outside agents, consultants, independent contractors and support services -- many of whom pay taxes to the city of Los Angeles. This spurs a job-creating ripple effect on the city's economy. Yet I suspect many companies like ours already have quietly left town in the face of the city's taxes and regulations. This would help explain the erosion of jobs.
Regardless of the outcome of our case, the arbitrary and capricious behavior of some bureaucrats is creating a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If we win in court, the taxpayers of Los Angeles will have lost because all those tax dollars will have been wasted on needless litigation.
If we lose in court, the remaining taxpayers in Los Angeles will have lost because their burden will continue to swell as yet another business moves its jobs -- and taxpayers -- to another city.
As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
Mr. Newcombe is president of Creators Syndicate.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Governor's opportunity to create fiscally responsible Board of Equalization
(As posted in the LA Republican Examiner)
For the past three years, Board of Equalization Members Michelle Park Steel and Bill Leonard have worked tirelessly to try and give business taxpayers opportunities to reconcile their tax debts, only to be consistently opposed by fellow board members Betty Yee and Judy Chu, with State Controller John Chaing often casting the tie-breaker vote to squeeze business owners for every dollar they can. They claim to do so in order to maximize the state’s revenue, but this short-sightedness often results in these businesses leaving the state or simply having to close its doors to liquidate enough assets to pay the board’s imposed debt.
With board member Judy Chu winning Tuesday’s special election to replace former congress member, now Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, the opportunity to appoint a third advocate for taxpayers was laid in front of Governor Schwarzenegger. Someone who understands, just as the Governor purports to solicit, that small businesses are the employers of over 70% of the California workforce would symbolize the start the beginning of the business revolution for our Golden State.
But the Governor understands that his selection must also be approved by the State Legislature. So appointing someone like former Assembly Member Ray Haynes or a Tom McClintock “disciple” would prove fruitless. The new selection needs time to build up enough support in the district to run for the seat in the statewide elections in November 2010. The taxpayers need a true advocate who understands what businesses provide to our state, and will ensure that the Democratic legislators will support.
In what may signify as a total understanding of both the opportunity in front of him and the need to have a candidate that the Liberal Democrats in both state houses dare not take on directly, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed former South Bay Assembly Member Jerome Horton, the 2006 runner-up in the Democratic primary to Judy Chu, to serve on the Board of Equalization.
Horton brings a solid reputation and performance record of business-friendly legislation as both a six-year Assembly member representing the 51st District (cities include Inglewood, Hawthorne, Lawndale, Gardena, West Compton and Playa Vista, among others), as well as over 20 years experience working for the State Board of Equalization.
If confirmed by the Democratic Legislature, Horton will become the swing vote on a board that has been split 2-2 between liberal and conservative members. Comparisons to current State Senator Rod Wright, another business-friendly Democrat, have already been spread in leadership circles of both parties, and Republicans would be wise to take advantage of the opportunity to support one who is more aligned with their current cries for lower business taxes and regulations. Democratic veterans know well the similarities between Horton and Wright. Both have established records of switching sides for votes on key anti-business legislation.
In his announcement on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger credited Horton with "supporting tax policies that promote economic growth”. This governor is apparently hoping that pro-business Democrats in California, just as Blue-Dog Democrats are doing across the state, will provide the necessary momentum to challenge their own party’s allegiance to the special interests and anti-business unions bleeding the state economy dry.
This appointment can be summarized as a very bold chess move by the Governor. It will be interesting to see how the leadership of both parties, from their elected legislative leaders to the state party leadership, respond.
For the past three years, Board of Equalization Members Michelle Park Steel and Bill Leonard have worked tirelessly to try and give business taxpayers opportunities to reconcile their tax debts, only to be consistently opposed by fellow board members Betty Yee and Judy Chu, with State Controller John Chaing often casting the tie-breaker vote to squeeze business owners for every dollar they can. They claim to do so in order to maximize the state’s revenue, but this short-sightedness often results in these businesses leaving the state or simply having to close its doors to liquidate enough assets to pay the board’s imposed debt.
With board member Judy Chu winning Tuesday’s special election to replace former congress member, now Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, the opportunity to appoint a third advocate for taxpayers was laid in front of Governor Schwarzenegger. Someone who understands, just as the Governor purports to solicit, that small businesses are the employers of over 70% of the California workforce would symbolize the start the beginning of the business revolution for our Golden State.
But the Governor understands that his selection must also be approved by the State Legislature. So appointing someone like former Assembly Member Ray Haynes or a Tom McClintock “disciple” would prove fruitless. The new selection needs time to build up enough support in the district to run for the seat in the statewide elections in November 2010. The taxpayers need a true advocate who understands what businesses provide to our state, and will ensure that the Democratic legislators will support.
In what may signify as a total understanding of both the opportunity in front of him and the need to have a candidate that the Liberal Democrats in both state houses dare not take on directly, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed former South Bay Assembly Member Jerome Horton, the 2006 runner-up in the Democratic primary to Judy Chu, to serve on the Board of Equalization.
Horton brings a solid reputation and performance record of business-friendly legislation as both a six-year Assembly member representing the 51st District (cities include Inglewood, Hawthorne, Lawndale, Gardena, West Compton and Playa Vista, among others), as well as over 20 years experience working for the State Board of Equalization.
If confirmed by the Democratic Legislature, Horton will become the swing vote on a board that has been split 2-2 between liberal and conservative members. Comparisons to current State Senator Rod Wright, another business-friendly Democrat, have already been spread in leadership circles of both parties, and Republicans would be wise to take advantage of the opportunity to support one who is more aligned with their current cries for lower business taxes and regulations. Democratic veterans know well the similarities between Horton and Wright. Both have established records of switching sides for votes on key anti-business legislation.
In his announcement on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger credited Horton with "supporting tax policies that promote economic growth”. This governor is apparently hoping that pro-business Democrats in California, just as Blue-Dog Democrats are doing across the state, will provide the necessary momentum to challenge their own party’s allegiance to the special interests and anti-business unions bleeding the state economy dry.
This appointment can be summarized as a very bold chess move by the Governor. It will be interesting to see how the leadership of both parties, from their elected legislative leaders to the state party leadership, respond.
Monday, July 13, 2009
"Letting Voters Decide": The Democrat cop-out for tax measures
Even though it does not sit in the 54th AD, I want to bring attention of my fellow Republicans within the district to yet another attempt by some tax-and-spend city council members to implement a tax increase without having to claim responsibility for it later. We saw this response by Los Angeles City Council members last December when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure that was placed on the March 2009 ballot by council members who stated that they were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!
Tomorrow night, the Hermosa Beach City Council will consider placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot that will raise the business license fees by as much as 800%! Their process is the same as Los Angeles, except they need 4 of 5 members to place it on the ballot. (Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, is already openly opposed to this measure.)
Putting ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting food in front of a child & letting her decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? Who would be prosecuted if the child were seriously harmed or died as a result of the food?
Democratic city council members understand the importance of appearing fiscally responsible to their constituents. While voters tend to allow their federal & state legislators be much more liberal on spending, city councils have often been targets for constituents who want their tax dollar spent right. So the latest tactic, as employed by many of the Democratic City Council members in Los Angeles, is to vote to place a measure on an upcoming ballot and claim to be "neutral" on the measure by stating that they simply want the voters to decide.
The proposed motion, forwarded by the city sub-committee specifically organized to explore the feasibility of increasing business license taxes (and "simplifying the tax structure" per the sub-committee's forwarded motion) will be discussed at the regular city council meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Expected speakers from the South Bay Tea Party, the Beach Cities Republican Club and prospective candidates for state & federal offices plan to attend.
Hermosa Beach also has its local election this November. Any incumbent that supports putting this on the ballot can expect to face significant criticism throughout their campaign. Voting simply to put a measure on the ballot and later trying to claim an opposition to it is simply hypocrisy.
The Hermosa Beach City Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow promises to be an active one! City council members need to realize that voters are on to them! If you vote to place a measure on the ballot, you must support it!
I would never place food in front of my children that I would be unwilling to eat myself. Elected officials need to learn their roles as advocates for their constituents.
Tomorrow night, the Hermosa Beach City Council will consider placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot that will raise the business license fees by as much as 800%! Their process is the same as Los Angeles, except they need 4 of 5 members to place it on the ballot. (Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, is already openly opposed to this measure.)
Putting ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting food in front of a child & letting her decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? Who would be prosecuted if the child were seriously harmed or died as a result of the food?
Democratic city council members understand the importance of appearing fiscally responsible to their constituents. While voters tend to allow their federal & state legislators be much more liberal on spending, city councils have often been targets for constituents who want their tax dollar spent right. So the latest tactic, as employed by many of the Democratic City Council members in Los Angeles, is to vote to place a measure on an upcoming ballot and claim to be "neutral" on the measure by stating that they simply want the voters to decide.
The proposed motion, forwarded by the city sub-committee specifically organized to explore the feasibility of increasing business license taxes (and "simplifying the tax structure" per the sub-committee's forwarded motion) will be discussed at the regular city council meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Expected speakers from the South Bay Tea Party, the Beach Cities Republican Club and prospective candidates for state & federal offices plan to attend.
Hermosa Beach also has its local election this November. Any incumbent that supports putting this on the ballot can expect to face significant criticism throughout their campaign. Voting simply to put a measure on the ballot and later trying to claim an opposition to it is simply hypocrisy.
The Hermosa Beach City Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow promises to be an active one! City council members need to realize that voters are on to them! If you vote to place a measure on the ballot, you must support it!
I would never place food in front of my children that I would be unwilling to eat myself. Elected officials need to learn their roles as advocates for their constituents.
Was May 19th THAT long ago?
Most local voters remember the overwhelming results of the May 19th special election. Despite the Governor and Assembly Speaker Bass predicting either a victory or a "close loss", over 65% of 4.8 million voters throughout the state sent a strong, direct message that they want state legislators to balance their budget the way citizens have to balance their checkbooks - with no more taxes. The bleeding heart tactics of Democrats & special interest groups who drag out young children, minority teachers, firefighters and cops telling voters how they're all going to lose funding if they don't sacrifice more of their hard-earned salaries are no longer resonating.
But even as the June 30th deadline came and went, state Democrats were still trying to convince their GOP counterparts that they had to compromise what voters already told them they didn't have to compromise - more tax dollars. Democratic Majority Senate Leader Jenny Oropeza (D - Long Beach) is seen in a YouTube video , taken on June 30th in the Senate chambers,pleading with the State Senate GOP, stating that she "doesn't appreciate rhetoric about what took place a few weeks ago", referring to the 65% of voters cited earlier (in Los Angeles County, as well as her own district, the percentage voting "NO" on Proposition 1A was actually over 68%). But this is the rhetoric that Senator Oropeza and her Democratic friends need to hear. Instead, Oropeza proceeds in the video to talk about wheelchair patients not getting bathed. More bleeding heart tactics.
Of course, what Democratic electeds do not mention are the boondoggle commission positions making over $120K a year for one meeting per month, or the excessively high percentage of administrators the state education system employs. While states like New York and Massachusetts dedicate over 80% of their education budgets to teachers and the classroom, California barely clears the 45% threshold. There are many other line items in the state budget worth scrutinizing, but one that is getting major exposure lately is the pension payouts to former government employees at nearly 100% of their former salaries...at the ripe-old age of 50. The primary purpose of a pension is supposed to be to help those that can no longer work day-to-day through long-term investments while they can work. While there are 50-yr-old citizens who can no longer work due to hardships or disabilities, most 50-yr olds are far healthier than their ancestors were at the same age.
So what needs to happen to remind the state legislators that they work for the voters of California? Will they start respecting their will as expressed on May 19th? Most voters now know that this simply is not going to happen. So the follow-on question regarding the state budget should be "why are budgets for education, police & fire so low in the list of budgetary priorities?"
As Audra Strickland pointed out on the Assembly floow a few weeks back, priorities are supposed to be funded first, not last. If there is a risk of police, fire, education, children seniors or disabled having critical services go unfunded, voters from all parties should be asking what other line items in the budget warrant a higher priority than these.
A final L.A. County highlight from May 19th: Los Angeles County actually voted more "conservative" than the statewide average. Prop 1A received 2.5% fewer votes in LA County; Prop 1B received 2.7% less; the others all finished with lower percentages than their statewide totals.
At least for Republicans and other conservatives, this is a highlight. It's hopefully a sign of things to come.
But even as the June 30th deadline came and went, state Democrats were still trying to convince their GOP counterparts that they had to compromise what voters already told them they didn't have to compromise - more tax dollars. Democratic Majority Senate Leader Jenny Oropeza (D - Long Beach) is seen in a YouTube video , taken on June 30th in the Senate chambers,pleading with the State Senate GOP, stating that she "doesn't appreciate rhetoric about what took place a few weeks ago", referring to the 65% of voters cited earlier (in Los Angeles County, as well as her own district, the percentage voting "NO" on Proposition 1A was actually over 68%). But this is the rhetoric that Senator Oropeza and her Democratic friends need to hear. Instead, Oropeza proceeds in the video to talk about wheelchair patients not getting bathed. More bleeding heart tactics.
Of course, what Democratic electeds do not mention are the boondoggle commission positions making over $120K a year for one meeting per month, or the excessively high percentage of administrators the state education system employs. While states like New York and Massachusetts dedicate over 80% of their education budgets to teachers and the classroom, California barely clears the 45% threshold. There are many other line items in the state budget worth scrutinizing, but one that is getting major exposure lately is the pension payouts to former government employees at nearly 100% of their former salaries...at the ripe-old age of 50. The primary purpose of a pension is supposed to be to help those that can no longer work day-to-day through long-term investments while they can work. While there are 50-yr-old citizens who can no longer work due to hardships or disabilities, most 50-yr olds are far healthier than their ancestors were at the same age.
So what needs to happen to remind the state legislators that they work for the voters of California? Will they start respecting their will as expressed on May 19th? Most voters now know that this simply is not going to happen. So the follow-on question regarding the state budget should be "why are budgets for education, police & fire so low in the list of budgetary priorities?"
As Audra Strickland pointed out on the Assembly floow a few weeks back, priorities are supposed to be funded first, not last. If there is a risk of police, fire, education, children seniors or disabled having critical services go unfunded, voters from all parties should be asking what other line items in the budget warrant a higher priority than these.
A final L.A. County highlight from May 19th: Los Angeles County actually voted more "conservative" than the statewide average. Prop 1A received 2.5% fewer votes in LA County; Prop 1B received 2.7% less; the others all finished with lower percentages than their statewide totals.
At least for Republicans and other conservatives, this is a highlight. It's hopefully a sign of things to come.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Call our local state Legislators today
Forwarded from Jon Fleischman, CRP Vice Chairman for the Southern Region and publisher of Flash Report (www.flashreport.com)
We sent a message to Sacramento on May 19th! What is it going to take for them to properly receive it?
I think it's going to take November 2010 to truly shake up Sacramento. It's going to take an overhaul in both how the Legislature performs and, because they refuse to change, those performing the overhaul. Honestly, do you see Senator Jenny Oropeza suddenly "getting it" and becoming fiscally conservative? Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal is still fairly new, but her latest e-blast to us here in the 54th tells us that she's been fully assimilated into the "borg" that is Assembly Speaker Karen Bass' mandatory rhetoric for all Democratic legislators.
Great post by Jon follows. Let's heed his action and heat up the phone lines!
Bonnie's Office # is 310-548-6420 (I already talked to her in person on Saturday. Her response was the typical "protect the children...blah, blah, blah)
Jenny's office # is 310-318-6944 (I don't expect her back in town until the per-diem budget runs dry. Gabriella Holt's group is going to change all that by making the per-diem run out much faster! The union grip will be weakened considerably when this happens!)
Light up the lines!
John
Subject: Have You Contacted GOP State Legislators?
GOP Legislators: Stand Firm And Don't "Kick The Can" -- Your State Is Counting On You
by Jon Fleischman - Publisher
Today is the last day of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, and it is the final opportunity for the State Legislature to place on the Governor's desk a comprehensive fix to next fiscal year's way-out-out-whack budget before we are actually IN that fiscal year. By "comprehensive fix" -- I mean a package of cuts and reforms that ensures that state government will be able to make it all of the way to June 30, 2010 without having yet another "fiscal crisis" where we are back at the cliff, again.
Governor Schwarzenegger has been 100% on message since the May 19th Special Election -- we need a complete fix for the budget situation -- one that does so taking into account that the voters overwhelmingly rejected tax increases to do so.
Legislative Democrats, unbelievably Sunday (in the Assembly) and yesterday (in the Senate) rammed through billions of dollars in illegal majority-vote tax increases for what appears to be the sole purpose of sticking the legislative "middle finger" up at California voters -- especially since the Governor has and continues to make it clear that any legislation that hits his desk with tax increases will be vetoed -- look for that to happen today.
Republican legislators need to keep the pressure on Democrat lawmakers who, understanding the world of politics, are under immense pressure internally. The public employee unions don't just wield a big stick -- they are swinging a multi-million dollar PAC baseball bat, and are prepared to make a pinata out of any Democrat who votes for comprehensive cuts. That said, they probably don't have to bother swinging that bat because the liberal ideologues in the Democrat caucus are probably prepared to drive off of the proverbial cliff before they make the kinds of cuts that are needed.
I have written several times already about the inherent and perilous danger of "partial solutions" to the budget crisis -- where some cuts are adopted, but cuts that fall far short of what is needed to make it all the way through the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Passing these kinds of cuts is a recipe for another show-down well into the new fiscal year, when the case will be made that the shorter time window make it far more difficult to make and implement cuts to state spending. Which is really the goal of the Democrats -- partial cuts now -- and then push for tax increases after the Summer. And why not? They've already seen Republicans who spent years vocalizing anti-tax sentiments cave in last February to massive increases in sales, income and car taxes. Why shouldn't they hold out hope?
Republicans hold the strategic advantage right now. It is right now at this time and in this place that the argument has flipped from February, where it was whether Republicans will support taxes to avoid insolvency -- to whether or not the Democrats will make enough cuts to do so. And believe me, the Democrats will do anything to "kick the can" into next fiscal year.
Which brings into play this issue of around $3 billion in available cuts to eduction in the fiscal year ending today that the Democrats, and at least as of three days ago, Assembly Republicans want to implement. I have spoken to many legislators who have said to me, "If we don't take those cuts now, before the fiscal year ends, we'll never be able to take them."
To those folks I have responded that there is always a reason to delay needed, comprehensive reforms. Today it is some education cuts, tomorrow it will be something else. Let us consider the effect of pushing through those cuts today (in a wonderful, happy show of bipartisan love). First and foremost, we will have "kicked the can" probably into the Fall on having to make cuts to avoid insolvency and the issuance of IOU's. Understand that without this back pressure, the Democrats in the legislature WILL NOT produce comprehensive cuts. Also not that while $3 billion in cuts will have been achieved, what is the "opportunity cost" of pushing out the pressure for a real solution (the one that protects taxpayers)?
The biggest financial cost is that if the Democrats get even nine weeks of a breather, than means that over 1/5th of the call-in $17 billion in cuts that the Governor has proposed for FY 2009-2010 will have been lost. That's around $2.5 billion in lost cuts -- or nearly the entire amount "saved" by rushing into a deal today. Also, as I mentioned above, as we get into the fall, it becomes that much harder for cuts to be implemented in time to impact this fiscal year (nothing happens quickly in government -- except implementing tax increases).
A number of the GOP legislators that I spoke or emailed with told me that it would be folly not to take the $3 billion in education cuts on the table today -- "Cuts without strings? How can I vote against that? The next time I see cuts like this, they may be attached to tax increases!"
Mark my words, making partial cuts today, that do not solve the state's entire FY 2009-2010 problem do come with "strings" -- they come with emboldening the Democrats in Sacramento, and in moving the debate time and circumstances.
Every Republican legislator needs to remember what the political atmosphere was like in the State Capitol this past January and February. That is what you are inviting back into the process if you don't hold the line against partial fixes and short-term "kick the can" cuts.
Unlike last February, we now have an opportunity to face this budget crisis with all Republicans united -- legislators and the Governor. Let's take that opportunity to accomplish a complete victory. We do this by keeping the pressure on for a comprehensive and total solution.
We sent a message to Sacramento on May 19th! What is it going to take for them to properly receive it?
I think it's going to take November 2010 to truly shake up Sacramento. It's going to take an overhaul in both how the Legislature performs and, because they refuse to change, those performing the overhaul. Honestly, do you see Senator Jenny Oropeza suddenly "getting it" and becoming fiscally conservative? Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal is still fairly new, but her latest e-blast to us here in the 54th tells us that she's been fully assimilated into the "borg" that is Assembly Speaker Karen Bass' mandatory rhetoric for all Democratic legislators.
Great post by Jon follows. Let's heed his action and heat up the phone lines!
Bonnie's Office # is 310-548-6420 (I already talked to her in person on Saturday. Her response was the typical "protect the children...blah, blah, blah)
Jenny's office # is 310-318-6944 (I don't expect her back in town until the per-diem budget runs dry. Gabriella Holt's group is going to change all that by making the per-diem run out much faster! The union grip will be weakened considerably when this happens!)
Light up the lines!
John
Subject: Have You Contacted GOP State Legislators?
GOP Legislators: Stand Firm And Don't "Kick The Can" -- Your State Is Counting On You
by Jon Fleischman - Publisher
Today is the last day of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, and it is the final opportunity for the State Legislature to place on the Governor's desk a comprehensive fix to next fiscal year's way-out-out-whack budget before we are actually IN that fiscal year. By "comprehensive fix" -- I mean a package of cuts and reforms that ensures that state government will be able to make it all of the way to June 30, 2010 without having yet another "fiscal crisis" where we are back at the cliff, again.
Governor Schwarzenegger has been 100% on message since the May 19th Special Election -- we need a complete fix for the budget situation -- one that does so taking into account that the voters overwhelmingly rejected tax increases to do so.
Legislative Democrats, unbelievably Sunday (in the Assembly) and yesterday (in the Senate) rammed through billions of dollars in illegal majority-vote tax increases for what appears to be the sole purpose of sticking the legislative "middle finger" up at California voters -- especially since the Governor has and continues to make it clear that any legislation that hits his desk with tax increases will be vetoed -- look for that to happen today.
Republican legislators need to keep the pressure on Democrat lawmakers who, understanding the world of politics, are under immense pressure internally. The public employee unions don't just wield a big stick -- they are swinging a multi-million dollar PAC baseball bat, and are prepared to make a pinata out of any Democrat who votes for comprehensive cuts. That said, they probably don't have to bother swinging that bat because the liberal ideologues in the Democrat caucus are probably prepared to drive off of the proverbial cliff before they make the kinds of cuts that are needed.
I have written several times already about the inherent and perilous danger of "partial solutions" to the budget crisis -- where some cuts are adopted, but cuts that fall far short of what is needed to make it all the way through the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Passing these kinds of cuts is a recipe for another show-down well into the new fiscal year, when the case will be made that the shorter time window make it far more difficult to make and implement cuts to state spending. Which is really the goal of the Democrats -- partial cuts now -- and then push for tax increases after the Summer. And why not? They've already seen Republicans who spent years vocalizing anti-tax sentiments cave in last February to massive increases in sales, income and car taxes. Why shouldn't they hold out hope?
Republicans hold the strategic advantage right now. It is right now at this time and in this place that the argument has flipped from February, where it was whether Republicans will support taxes to avoid insolvency -- to whether or not the Democrats will make enough cuts to do so. And believe me, the Democrats will do anything to "kick the can" into next fiscal year.
Which brings into play this issue of around $3 billion in available cuts to eduction in the fiscal year ending today that the Democrats, and at least as of three days ago, Assembly Republicans want to implement. I have spoken to many legislators who have said to me, "If we don't take those cuts now, before the fiscal year ends, we'll never be able to take them."
To those folks I have responded that there is always a reason to delay needed, comprehensive reforms. Today it is some education cuts, tomorrow it will be something else. Let us consider the effect of pushing through those cuts today (in a wonderful, happy show of bipartisan love). First and foremost, we will have "kicked the can" probably into the Fall on having to make cuts to avoid insolvency and the issuance of IOU's. Understand that without this back pressure, the Democrats in the legislature WILL NOT produce comprehensive cuts. Also not that while $3 billion in cuts will have been achieved, what is the "opportunity cost" of pushing out the pressure for a real solution (the one that protects taxpayers)?
The biggest financial cost is that if the Democrats get even nine weeks of a breather, than means that over 1/5th of the call-in $17 billion in cuts that the Governor has proposed for FY 2009-2010 will have been lost. That's around $2.5 billion in lost cuts -- or nearly the entire amount "saved" by rushing into a deal today. Also, as I mentioned above, as we get into the fall, it becomes that much harder for cuts to be implemented in time to impact this fiscal year (nothing happens quickly in government -- except implementing tax increases).
A number of the GOP legislators that I spoke or emailed with told me that it would be folly not to take the $3 billion in education cuts on the table today -- "Cuts without strings? How can I vote against that? The next time I see cuts like this, they may be attached to tax increases!"
Mark my words, making partial cuts today, that do not solve the state's entire FY 2009-2010 problem do come with "strings" -- they come with emboldening the Democrats in Sacramento, and in moving the debate time and circumstances.
Every Republican legislator needs to remember what the political atmosphere was like in the State Capitol this past January and February. That is what you are inviting back into the process if you don't hold the line against partial fixes and short-term "kick the can" cuts.
Unlike last February, we now have an opportunity to face this budget crisis with all Republicans united -- legislators and the Governor. Let's take that opportunity to accomplish a complete victory. We do this by keeping the pressure on for a comprehensive and total solution.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Over 70% of 54th AD voters tell Arnold (and Bonnie) NO!
By now most of you know the overwhelming results of this past Tuesday's special election. Despite the Governor and Assembly Speaker predicting either a victory or a "close loss", the voters throughout the state sent a strong, direct message that no more tax revenue will be acceptable. The bleeding heart tactics of the Democrats, who drag out young children, minority teachers, firefighters and cops to do commercials telling voters how they're all going to lose funding if they don't sacrifice more of their hard-earned salaries are no longer resonating.
Voters now know that this simply is not going to happen. If so, the follow-on question would be "why are budgets for education, police & fire so low in the list of budgetary priorities?"
I have a few highlights from Tuesday:
- For the first time in a long while, Los Angeles County actually voted more "conservative" than the statewide average. Prop 1A received 2.5% fewer votes in LA County; Prop 1B received 2.7% less; the others all finished with lower percentages than their statewide totals.
- Here in the 54th AD, Prop 1A finished over 6% below the statewide average, limping in with just barely 28%. Prop 1B also finished over 6% below the statewide average. Our new assemblymember, Bonnie Lowenthal, endorsed the statewide ballot measures, as evidenced by her staff members assigned to the neighborhood councils and HOA's handing out literature specifically showing a lack of opposition to them.
- Similar results are seen in the results of the 28th State Senate District, the race that you all know I'm running for in 2010.
- San Pedro native Carmen Trutanich rose above the slime that his opponent, Jack Weiss, was trying to drag them both through and will now show the City of Los Angeles what a "TRU" public servant can do!
- Republican Tina Park did a fantastic job with a late-season rally to unseat a Democratic imcumbent from the Los Angeles Community College Board. This is the first time in recent memory that a Republican has sat on that board, and Tina will have a lot of support, based on Tuesday's results, for criticizing how the Measure J funds are spent.
So the primary question I'll leave you with is this: Do you think our state legislators understood, or will make a sincere effort to understand, the results we gave them this past Tuesday?
Somehow, I anticipate the answer to this question will drive the 2010 elections. (Hey, a candidate can dream...!)
Voters now know that this simply is not going to happen. If so, the follow-on question would be "why are budgets for education, police & fire so low in the list of budgetary priorities?"
I have a few highlights from Tuesday:
- For the first time in a long while, Los Angeles County actually voted more "conservative" than the statewide average. Prop 1A received 2.5% fewer votes in LA County; Prop 1B received 2.7% less; the others all finished with lower percentages than their statewide totals.
- Here in the 54th AD, Prop 1A finished over 6% below the statewide average, limping in with just barely 28%. Prop 1B also finished over 6% below the statewide average. Our new assemblymember, Bonnie Lowenthal, endorsed the statewide ballot measures, as evidenced by her staff members assigned to the neighborhood councils and HOA's handing out literature specifically showing a lack of opposition to them.
- Similar results are seen in the results of the 28th State Senate District, the race that you all know I'm running for in 2010.
- San Pedro native Carmen Trutanich rose above the slime that his opponent, Jack Weiss, was trying to drag them both through and will now show the City of Los Angeles what a "TRU" public servant can do!
- Republican Tina Park did a fantastic job with a late-season rally to unseat a Democratic imcumbent from the Los Angeles Community College Board. This is the first time in recent memory that a Republican has sat on that board, and Tina will have a lot of support, based on Tuesday's results, for criticizing how the Measure J funds are spent.
So the primary question I'll leave you with is this: Do you think our state legislators understood, or will make a sincere effort to understand, the results we gave them this past Tuesday?
Somehow, I anticipate the answer to this question will drive the 2010 elections. (Hey, a candidate can dream...!)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Why I am running for the State Senate
I consider those of you who actually take time to read my rantings and ravings to be special friends and supporters, and I wanted you to be among the first to know that I have filed candidacy papers to run for the California State Senate in 2010.
As you know, I have worked many political campaigns over the past 10 years; including campaigns for Republicans, Democrats and Independents. All have shared my basic principles of limited government, lower tax burdens on families/small businesses, and government’s role to serve its citizens, not the other way around.
Taxpayers from all political parties are banding together at Tea Parties across California and the nation to tell our elected officials that they have had enough. California’s legislators continue to engage in wasteful spending and propose higher taxes every year to pay for it. This month, six state ballot propositions (1A - 1F) threaten to increase the tax burden on California working families and small businesses to their highest levels in our state history. I cannot sit idly by and allow this madness to continue. I feel it is my calling to stand for the most important “special interest”: You, the taxpayers throughout California.
I am challenging Senator Jenny Oropeza in 2010 for the 28th State Senate District. This district includes Torrance, Carson, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, Lomita, and the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Venice, Mar Vista, Harbor City, Wilmington, and my own Northwest San Pedro. I plan to officially kick-off my campaign in mid-May, shortly following our defeat of Propositions 1A-1F. I commit to you an aggressive campaign for the principles and values you have always known me to possess and require in your elected officials. Our state legislators, including Oropeza, need to learn how their wasteful spending and alliances with special interest groups are hurting the working class of California.
Thank you so much for your support for me these past few years. As the Obama administration continues to place heavy tax burdens on Americans and make mistakes to both domestic and foreign policy, we need to also focus on the significant lack of priorities our state government has set for California's future! We will send a message to Senator Oropeza and her tax-and-spend friends running California that the taxpayers will have a formidable defender of their quality of life and their pocketbooks in November 2010. Because as we all know,
It's STILL about the economy, ... Jenny!
javascript:void(0)
As you know, I have worked many political campaigns over the past 10 years; including campaigns for Republicans, Democrats and Independents. All have shared my basic principles of limited government, lower tax burdens on families/small businesses, and government’s role to serve its citizens, not the other way around.
Taxpayers from all political parties are banding together at Tea Parties across California and the nation to tell our elected officials that they have had enough. California’s legislators continue to engage in wasteful spending and propose higher taxes every year to pay for it. This month, six state ballot propositions (1A - 1F) threaten to increase the tax burden on California working families and small businesses to their highest levels in our state history. I cannot sit idly by and allow this madness to continue. I feel it is my calling to stand for the most important “special interest”: You, the taxpayers throughout California.
I am challenging Senator Jenny Oropeza in 2010 for the 28th State Senate District. This district includes Torrance, Carson, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, Lomita, and the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Venice, Mar Vista, Harbor City, Wilmington, and my own Northwest San Pedro. I plan to officially kick-off my campaign in mid-May, shortly following our defeat of Propositions 1A-1F. I commit to you an aggressive campaign for the principles and values you have always known me to possess and require in your elected officials. Our state legislators, including Oropeza, need to learn how their wasteful spending and alliances with special interest groups are hurting the working class of California.
Thank you so much for your support for me these past few years. As the Obama administration continues to place heavy tax burdens on Americans and make mistakes to both domestic and foreign policy, we need to also focus on the significant lack of priorities our state government has set for California's future! We will send a message to Senator Oropeza and her tax-and-spend friends running California that the taxpayers will have a formidable defender of their quality of life and their pocketbooks in November 2010. Because as we all know,
It's STILL about the economy, ... Jenny!
javascript:void(0)
Glen's latest obsession: ME!
To those of you who attended either the Palos Verdes Peninsula RWF Membership Party last week or the Southeast Los Angeles Lincoln Club breakfast yesterday morning, you had the chance to meet the current chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, Glen Forsch. I hope you were able to ask him questions about the future of the county party, and that Glen actually gave you a solid answer. Goodness knows most of us in the county leadership and executive committee have been trying to get Glen to take some position - any position - on many of the issues that face us as Californians. Key among those are the six ballot propositions that most of you are fighting hard to defeat - for which I sincerely thank you so much!
Some of you heard about the strong performances by key county Republicans like Gary Aminoff, Drew Mercy, Jane Barnett, Kathy Howard, Lorenzo Lanzi, Ed Williams and Samantha Allen-Newman at the April Executive Committee meeting. Not all of them were in agreement with each other or myself, but all did a great job of representing their positions with solid analysis and strong presentation. My primary desire for our county party is to evaluate and then quickly take positions on candidates and measures, regardless of what the debate results are, and not simply sit on the sidelines with a neutral position because one hasn't researched an issue enough or, worse, doesn't want to upset anyone. If legislators in Sacramento are proposing measures that continue to hurt the California economy, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines because I "may upset them".
When talking to those that attended these events (I had a 5th birthday party to host with none other than Cinderella!), a few specifically stated that Glen spent a great deal of time talking about your humble blogger himself. Glen was concerned about my lack of ability to look at ALL of the positions of an issue and see the merits of them. To me, this means that I need to stop making decisions to stand up for any side of an issue because I may "upset" those on the other side of the issue. Glen has established himself throughout your county Republican leadership as one who wants to "include everyone" by not taking a solid position on any issue. A few on his executive board have tried to get Glen to take more decisive action, but most of them have simply sat on the sideline as well, allowing the county party to turn into a social club rather than an activism group worth one's donations.
This is the primary reason why I have always advocated for donating to either the local Republican clubs, like the RWF, PHRC or BCRC, or directly to candidates running for office. You know they have solid plans to use your donations to further the causes you care about. Speaking of candidates running for office.....
Some of you heard about the strong performances by key county Republicans like Gary Aminoff, Drew Mercy, Jane Barnett, Kathy Howard, Lorenzo Lanzi, Ed Williams and Samantha Allen-Newman at the April Executive Committee meeting. Not all of them were in agreement with each other or myself, but all did a great job of representing their positions with solid analysis and strong presentation. My primary desire for our county party is to evaluate and then quickly take positions on candidates and measures, regardless of what the debate results are, and not simply sit on the sidelines with a neutral position because one hasn't researched an issue enough or, worse, doesn't want to upset anyone. If legislators in Sacramento are proposing measures that continue to hurt the California economy, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines because I "may upset them".
When talking to those that attended these events (I had a 5th birthday party to host with none other than Cinderella!), a few specifically stated that Glen spent a great deal of time talking about your humble blogger himself. Glen was concerned about my lack of ability to look at ALL of the positions of an issue and see the merits of them. To me, this means that I need to stop making decisions to stand up for any side of an issue because I may "upset" those on the other side of the issue. Glen has established himself throughout your county Republican leadership as one who wants to "include everyone" by not taking a solid position on any issue. A few on his executive board have tried to get Glen to take more decisive action, but most of them have simply sat on the sideline as well, allowing the county party to turn into a social club rather than an activism group worth one's donations.
This is the primary reason why I have always advocated for donating to either the local Republican clubs, like the RWF, PHRC or BCRC, or directly to candidates running for office. You know they have solid plans to use your donations to further the causes you care about. Speaking of candidates running for office.....
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Republicans OPPOSE Propositions 1A-1F; Democrats stay "Neutral"
Well, finally! I am happy to announce that the California Republican Party has officially taken a NO position on all six of the toxic state ballot measures known as Propositions 1A through 1F. There was some debate by a few "intellectuals" who wanted to peel off one or two of these for consideration, but an overwhelming majority of the California Republican Party Executive Committee was ready to support a NO vote for all six of these as a package.
Because let's face it - these are all part of a bag-room deal that needs to be rejected in its entirety. Supporting ANY of these propositions gives the voter the impression that the current level of state government spending is acceptable - and it's NOT! The Republican Party stands for the principle of limited government and reducing the tax burdens on working families and businesses, and that was re-affirmed today.
Two interesting points to note:
- There was actually more debate about these propositions at the County level, where the discussion focused on whether the transfer of funds through propositions 1D & 1E may actually be acceptable. This was based on the fact that neither of these propositions actually raises taxes. However, they do not reduce taxes either. Furthermore, the next action by the special interest groups that these funds come from will have a new ballot measure labeling Republicans as the "evil party that took away funds" by supporting these measures, and it's time for the Democrats to step up if these propositions are truly viable.
- Speaking of the Democratic Party, I recently found out that even the LA County Democratic Party is not endorsing these propositions! Their LA County Executive Committee voted to take "NO POSITION" on the six propositions. Turns out that a combination of fiscally responsible Democrats were joined by a few unions that were not getting a piece of the proposition "action" (and were hence only going to see the higher taxes for their membership) opposed the special interest groups that were lobbying the Democratic Party for support.
So basically - NEITHER party is supporting these propositions. We all know why the Republicans are opposing these. (What we've been beating our heads against the wall about is why it took to darn long!). But why won't the Democrats get behind these?
Maybe they ARE watching the Tea Party footage, and are just a little bit concerned that their candidates in 2010 are going to have to explain their support for the highest sales tax, highest vehicle license tax, and highest income tax in the nation?
Personally, I don't plan on just watching these in CNN with my nose in the air, like most of our Democratic friends are doing. I will BE there with my American Flag & California flag waving proudly! It's time to take back the state for the taxpayers!
Stand by for more on how we will do just that! Until then, save these dates for the next set of Tea Parties across Southern California: May 1st & May 16th. (Locations TBA)
Because let's face it - these are all part of a bag-room deal that needs to be rejected in its entirety. Supporting ANY of these propositions gives the voter the impression that the current level of state government spending is acceptable - and it's NOT! The Republican Party stands for the principle of limited government and reducing the tax burdens on working families and businesses, and that was re-affirmed today.
Two interesting points to note:
- There was actually more debate about these propositions at the County level, where the discussion focused on whether the transfer of funds through propositions 1D & 1E may actually be acceptable. This was based on the fact that neither of these propositions actually raises taxes. However, they do not reduce taxes either. Furthermore, the next action by the special interest groups that these funds come from will have a new ballot measure labeling Republicans as the "evil party that took away funds" by supporting these measures, and it's time for the Democrats to step up if these propositions are truly viable.
- Speaking of the Democratic Party, I recently found out that even the LA County Democratic Party is not endorsing these propositions! Their LA County Executive Committee voted to take "NO POSITION" on the six propositions. Turns out that a combination of fiscally responsible Democrats were joined by a few unions that were not getting a piece of the proposition "action" (and were hence only going to see the higher taxes for their membership) opposed the special interest groups that were lobbying the Democratic Party for support.
So basically - NEITHER party is supporting these propositions. We all know why the Republicans are opposing these. (What we've been beating our heads against the wall about is why it took to darn long!). But why won't the Democrats get behind these?
Maybe they ARE watching the Tea Party footage, and are just a little bit concerned that their candidates in 2010 are going to have to explain their support for the highest sales tax, highest vehicle license tax, and highest income tax in the nation?
Personally, I don't plan on just watching these in CNN with my nose in the air, like most of our Democratic friends are doing. I will BE there with my American Flag & California flag waving proudly! It's time to take back the state for the taxpayers!
Stand by for more on how we will do just that! Until then, save these dates for the next set of Tea Parties across Southern California: May 1st & May 16th. (Locations TBA)
Friday, April 3, 2009
Why the Dems are killing California, but no one cares...
I have been asked often the past few weeks why the Republican leadership in the California State Legislature are catching more blame for the state propositions on the May ballot that threaten to take away tax credits like the dependent child credit and double your vehicle license fee, and their Democratic counterparts and their special interest pandering is going relatively unchecked. I'd like to use an example from my childhood that I think will explain the logic.
I am the oldest of three, and my younger sisters and I are the best of friends. We each have families now, and we stay in frequent contact. When we were growing up, we would do what kids did: argue, fight, do crazy things. But it always seemed like I was getting a little more blame than my sisters. The reason: "I was older and I was supposed to know better!"
When the Democrats continued to increase spending every year with reckless abandon, the citizens of California had one line of defense that was supposed to keep that at bay: The Republicans. Now the voters have to take responsibility for some of the damage that the Democratic leaders have caused. After all, they elected the Democrats to be the majority party. Democrats run on "feel good" campaigns that do not take fiscal or managerial responsibility into account. Democrats appeal to people's sensical urges that make them feel better, and hide from voters the responsibility aspects of their legislation. For years, they have been able to increase budget handouts and earmarks to their special interests without having to substantially increase taxes or fees. This year, the well is much drier, and they had to negotiate what you now see as the six state propositions, 1A through 1F, in order to salvage the financial interests of their true constituents: the special interests and unions that fed their election campaigns.
What the Republicans in both the State Senate and the Assembly were supposed to do this year is finally show the Democrats the results of what they had been preaching all these years. They are supposed to be showing voters that they will do "their job" in being the more responsible party; the "oldest child" that is supposed to know better. Because most of our Republican leaders did not perform their role and teach their Democratic counterparts the error of their ways, conservative voters throughout the state joined others throughout the country in saying "enough's enough!" If the Republican electeds are not going to do their job, then the voters will do it for them! This is why you are seeing much of the tax revolt and tea party activity directed against elected Republicans.
My personal belief is that if our electeds acted more like Congressman (former State Senator) Tom McClintock, the activity would all be directed at the state Democrats. But this is not to mean that the State Democrats are off the hook. The protests taking place throughout the state are taking place in Democratic strongholds like Santa Monica, Pasadena and Hermosa Beach. Most of the attendees are decline-to-state voters that are realizing just how bad the state spending has become. They're learning more about the contract deals strangling the state budget, including those by the teachers union (CTA) and the service employees union (SEIU). (I always like pointing out these two groups because they are the first to complain about how their performance will drop if they don't get funding. Have you seen graduation rates in the LAUSD, as well as the state? Under 50% for both! And have you experienced the "high performance" at the DMV? "Nuff said!)
So the first wave of protest and resentment is against those that Republicans and other conservatives were counting on to support them. Once this wave has had it's effect, including the defeat of the state ballot propositions, the focus will definitely shift to the tax-and-spend Democrats that are the prime movers behind everyone's increased sales tax, increased income tax, and the reduction in the child tax credit. As voters see their spending power go down, and then experience their first adjusted income tax return under the new taxes, they will know who is to blame, and will hold those who take away income from struggling families and redistribute it to their union friends.
The next wave of Republican candidates will have the wave of this momentum behind them. The Democrats will have their usual special interest groups, losing popularity every month as voters learn how these groups are stealing their money!
So stand by, my Democratic friends and electeds! Your time of political reckoning is coming!
I am the oldest of three, and my younger sisters and I are the best of friends. We each have families now, and we stay in frequent contact. When we were growing up, we would do what kids did: argue, fight, do crazy things. But it always seemed like I was getting a little more blame than my sisters. The reason: "I was older and I was supposed to know better!"
When the Democrats continued to increase spending every year with reckless abandon, the citizens of California had one line of defense that was supposed to keep that at bay: The Republicans. Now the voters have to take responsibility for some of the damage that the Democratic leaders have caused. After all, they elected the Democrats to be the majority party. Democrats run on "feel good" campaigns that do not take fiscal or managerial responsibility into account. Democrats appeal to people's sensical urges that make them feel better, and hide from voters the responsibility aspects of their legislation. For years, they have been able to increase budget handouts and earmarks to their special interests without having to substantially increase taxes or fees. This year, the well is much drier, and they had to negotiate what you now see as the six state propositions, 1A through 1F, in order to salvage the financial interests of their true constituents: the special interests and unions that fed their election campaigns.
What the Republicans in both the State Senate and the Assembly were supposed to do this year is finally show the Democrats the results of what they had been preaching all these years. They are supposed to be showing voters that they will do "their job" in being the more responsible party; the "oldest child" that is supposed to know better. Because most of our Republican leaders did not perform their role and teach their Democratic counterparts the error of their ways, conservative voters throughout the state joined others throughout the country in saying "enough's enough!" If the Republican electeds are not going to do their job, then the voters will do it for them! This is why you are seeing much of the tax revolt and tea party activity directed against elected Republicans.
My personal belief is that if our electeds acted more like Congressman (former State Senator) Tom McClintock, the activity would all be directed at the state Democrats. But this is not to mean that the State Democrats are off the hook. The protests taking place throughout the state are taking place in Democratic strongholds like Santa Monica, Pasadena and Hermosa Beach. Most of the attendees are decline-to-state voters that are realizing just how bad the state spending has become. They're learning more about the contract deals strangling the state budget, including those by the teachers union (CTA) and the service employees union (SEIU). (I always like pointing out these two groups because they are the first to complain about how their performance will drop if they don't get funding. Have you seen graduation rates in the LAUSD, as well as the state? Under 50% for both! And have you experienced the "high performance" at the DMV? "Nuff said!)
So the first wave of protest and resentment is against those that Republicans and other conservatives were counting on to support them. Once this wave has had it's effect, including the defeat of the state ballot propositions, the focus will definitely shift to the tax-and-spend Democrats that are the prime movers behind everyone's increased sales tax, increased income tax, and the reduction in the child tax credit. As voters see their spending power go down, and then experience their first adjusted income tax return under the new taxes, they will know who is to blame, and will hold those who take away income from struggling families and redistribute it to their union friends.
The next wave of Republican candidates will have the wave of this momentum behind them. The Democrats will have their usual special interest groups, losing popularity every month as voters learn how these groups are stealing their money!
So stand by, my Democratic friends and electeds! Your time of political reckoning is coming!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
These tea parties are great, but . . .
The activism that has dramatically increased as a result off both the Obama administration decisions and the California political negotiations has been extremely exciting to watch and be a part of. From the surge in attendance at our local Republican Clubs to the road trips to tea parties throughout Southern California, the opportunities for conservative activism are at an all time high.
But how will we begin seeing this activism translate into results that the Democrats will honestly care about? You would think most of our state legislators would be sweating profusely about the events taking place in many of their own districts. Why, then, have they just proceeded on as if nothing on their agendas have changed?
It's because for them...nothing has changed. While conservatives are coming out in record numbers to support the various tea parties and maybe to join in the "Heads on a Stick" campaigns from KFI's John and Ken, the Democratic machine has been allowed to simply watch from the sidelines as they continue pandering to the special interest groups that are truly running the state. While I agree that the Republicans need to be held accountable for upholding their higher levels of accountability, responsibility and morals, at some point we need to begin the process of true change by holding the political party directly responsible for financially strangling our state. But where do we begin?
In the 54th AD, we begin with taking control of every local council and board seat with fiscally responsible individuals who know what the term "public servant" truly means. We already had a great start to this activism in the City of Los Angeles, as we found out on March 19th that we had officially defeated Measure B, Mayor Villaraigosa's attempt to double everyone's energy bills to provide job security to the IBEW union through the installation of solar panels. This was not just a Republican victory; this was a victory for conservative independents and Democrats who see the Los Angeles City political machine for what it is. We need to continue fighting liberal tax-and-spend candidates who only represent union interests throughout our district, and the next opportunity to tell Democrats that the citizens are taking back the state is April 7th, when we take Bonnie Lowenthal's old seat and elect Rick Berry to fill it.
Rick Berry has been endorsed by all of the fiscal watchdog groups in Long Beach, including the Long Beach Taxpayers Association & the Long Beach Business Journal. All media sources either endorse Rick Berry to put him in the upper tier of candidates vying for the seat. The other two viable candidates are Democrats Evan Braude and Robert Garcia. Evan is a former city council member who happens to be Bonnie Lowenthal's boyfriend. He did receive the Democratic Party's endorsement over Robert Garcia, who has been endorsed by some of my "favorites", including Alan Lowenthal and Jenny Oropeza. Robert is an interesting story, having moved into the district right about the same time Bonnie declared her candidacy for the 54th Assembly seat in 2007. Interesting...!
We need to send continuous messages to the Democrats that we don't plan to wait until 2010 to begin our take back of our state. Rick Berry is our district's first opportunity, but there's more. Real quick:
- May 19th: We can kill all six of the horrible state propositions, 1A - 1F. We can also remove a liberal political, Jack Weiss, from public service by helping elect Carmen Trutanich to the LA City Attorney's office.
- June: The Palos Verdes Peninsula USD is actually trying to pass ANOTHER parcel tax, again without any specifics. No surprise they didn't want it on the May ballot with the state propositions!
- November: Rancho Palos Verdes will be a big testament to whether the district is truly getting the message. Stand by for more details on this exciting and already jam-packed race.
The best way you can all get involved and show the state Democrats that you're not going to take any more of their union pandering and special interest prioritizing is to come out next weekend and either walk a precinct or help at a phone bank for Rick Berry. There will be opportunities on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and next Monday to help Rick lock up the final votes needed to win this race. His website is www.BerryBest4LB.com and I have the link near the top of the left column.
Putting Rick Berry in the seat formerly occupied by Bonnie Lowenthal will send a huge message from the 5th largest city in California that the Democratic agenda is not what we want in our local leaders!
I'll be out there next weekend; come on out, regardless whether you live in Long Beach or not!
But how will we begin seeing this activism translate into results that the Democrats will honestly care about? You would think most of our state legislators would be sweating profusely about the events taking place in many of their own districts. Why, then, have they just proceeded on as if nothing on their agendas have changed?
It's because for them...nothing has changed. While conservatives are coming out in record numbers to support the various tea parties and maybe to join in the "Heads on a Stick" campaigns from KFI's John and Ken, the Democratic machine has been allowed to simply watch from the sidelines as they continue pandering to the special interest groups that are truly running the state. While I agree that the Republicans need to be held accountable for upholding their higher levels of accountability, responsibility and morals, at some point we need to begin the process of true change by holding the political party directly responsible for financially strangling our state. But where do we begin?
In the 54th AD, we begin with taking control of every local council and board seat with fiscally responsible individuals who know what the term "public servant" truly means. We already had a great start to this activism in the City of Los Angeles, as we found out on March 19th that we had officially defeated Measure B, Mayor Villaraigosa's attempt to double everyone's energy bills to provide job security to the IBEW union through the installation of solar panels. This was not just a Republican victory; this was a victory for conservative independents and Democrats who see the Los Angeles City political machine for what it is. We need to continue fighting liberal tax-and-spend candidates who only represent union interests throughout our district, and the next opportunity to tell Democrats that the citizens are taking back the state is April 7th, when we take Bonnie Lowenthal's old seat and elect Rick Berry to fill it.
Rick Berry has been endorsed by all of the fiscal watchdog groups in Long Beach, including the Long Beach Taxpayers Association & the Long Beach Business Journal. All media sources either endorse Rick Berry to put him in the upper tier of candidates vying for the seat. The other two viable candidates are Democrats Evan Braude and Robert Garcia. Evan is a former city council member who happens to be Bonnie Lowenthal's boyfriend. He did receive the Democratic Party's endorsement over Robert Garcia, who has been endorsed by some of my "favorites", including Alan Lowenthal and Jenny Oropeza. Robert is an interesting story, having moved into the district right about the same time Bonnie declared her candidacy for the 54th Assembly seat in 2007. Interesting...!
We need to send continuous messages to the Democrats that we don't plan to wait until 2010 to begin our take back of our state. Rick Berry is our district's first opportunity, but there's more. Real quick:
- May 19th: We can kill all six of the horrible state propositions, 1A - 1F. We can also remove a liberal political, Jack Weiss, from public service by helping elect Carmen Trutanich to the LA City Attorney's office.
- June: The Palos Verdes Peninsula USD is actually trying to pass ANOTHER parcel tax, again without any specifics. No surprise they didn't want it on the May ballot with the state propositions!
- November: Rancho Palos Verdes will be a big testament to whether the district is truly getting the message. Stand by for more details on this exciting and already jam-packed race.
The best way you can all get involved and show the state Democrats that you're not going to take any more of their union pandering and special interest prioritizing is to come out next weekend and either walk a precinct or help at a phone bank for Rick Berry. There will be opportunities on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and next Monday to help Rick lock up the final votes needed to win this race. His website is www.BerryBest4LB.com and I have the link near the top of the left column.
Putting Rick Berry in the seat formerly occupied by Bonnie Lowenthal will send a huge message from the 5th largest city in California that the Democratic agenda is not what we want in our local leaders!
I'll be out there next weekend; come on out, regardless whether you live in Long Beach or not!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
From your local "Fringe Activist"...
This is a repost of an article appearing in the latest issue of CityWatch (www.citywatchla.com), the online source for Los Angeles politics, neighborhood councils & "fringe activism" like those of us from the "No on Measure B" committee. As a proud member of that group, I am pleased to forward you the article by one of the lead activists working to improve Los Angeles, Ron Kaye...
How the ‘Fringe Activists’ Stopped the Machine
Changing LA
By Ron Kaye
The extraordinary success of the No on Measure B -- from its origins among community activists to a coalition that included business, labor and political parties of every type -- has laid the groundwork for a mass movement that can take back LA from the special interests.
Contrary to what many expected, the total vote last Tuesday was nearly 18 percent of registered voters when as few as 10 percent was expected and the mayor's minions boasted they would win if the total reached 15 percent. The "No" side leads by 1,322 votes with the remaining 46,000 absentee, provisional and damaged votes to be tallied later this week. For the Saving LA Project, Neighborhood Cou ncils and homeowner/resident groups, fighting the City Hall political machine to a stalemate on an issue like solar energy was a tremendous victory.
Whatever the final tally, there is no mandate for a DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy or for the mayor and City Council's seizing direct control of the contracting process in order to shake down everyone who wants a piece of the billions of dollars involved in the massive program.
So how did community activists -- dismissed as "fringe activists" by the "Yes" campaign -- stop the machine?
It starts with a decade of failure of the DWP to deliver on its many promises to bring solar energy to the city and the IBEW's total resistance during that time to renewable energy because you don't need the state's (if not the nation's) highest paid utility workers to run windmills or rooftop solar installations.
Faced with the inevitable need for clean energy, the IBEW, in league with environmental political action committees willing to pay any price to move forward, came up with Measure B.
The mayor, who never has been able to say no to the IBEW or its generous campaign money, got aboard in hopes of enhancing his political ambitions.
Business, labor and the solar energy industry then were confronted with a campaign of intimidation that kept them quiet. Similar tactics brought the timid City Council into unanimous obedience without its members even having a clue about what they were voting on after a three-week legislative process that made a mockery of the democratic process and the notion that our Council members actually represent the citizens of Los Angeles.
Outcries from community activists almost certainly would have gone nowhere if the City Hall political machine weren't so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that it kept critical information secret and then went to court to crush all opposition.
Not satisfied with having all the advantages, the machine ordered top environment greenwasher Mitchell Schwartz, a lobbyist and head of a PAC that calls itself the LA League of Conservation Voters, to sue the authors of the ballot argument against Measure B, accusing them of false and misleading statements.
Judge David Yaffe took the side of the Solar 8 and laughed the real liars out of court, dismissing the arguments put forward by the machine's mouthpiece, attorney Stephen Kaufman.
From that moment on, the community was energized and came together as never before, came together in a way that someday will be seen as the historic turning point when the machine started to fall apart and the people started to take back City Hall.
Literally hundreds of people got involved, a word-of-mouth campaign began to form using the revolutionary tools of the Internet: Email, Facebook, Twitter.
After hearing arguments from both sides and DWP's thinly-veiled presentations of a massive solar energy program that was slapped together without any planning or analysis, dozens of Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups joined the campaign against Measure B.
Business groups like the apartment owners association, VICA, United Chambers followed suit. And with help from Paul Hefner of Polka Consulting in Sacramento, the campaign became more focused and effective until it became obvious that Measure B could be defeated.
The media pounded away at the flaws in Measure B, exposing one lie and deceit after another and questioning it in editorials. Three council members defected from the Yes campaign.
With the groundswell building, Bill Luddy brought the Carpenters Union into the battle with mass mailings and professional phone banks. Members of the Laborers Union got involved and the LA Chamber joined in. The Times and Daily News came out in full opposition.
In the end, the "Yes" campaign, with the full advantage of the political machine's power, outspent the "No" campaign 25 to 1. The mayor was damaged by managing to win re-election with only 55 percent of the vote. Jack Weiss was humiliated when 64 percent of the voters turned against him. A long-time Neighbhorhood Council and homeowner activist, David Vahedi, made the runoff to succeed Weiss in CD5.
The political dynamic of LA was changed by results of Tuesday's elections. The question now is what must be done to build on this success. (This column was posted first at www.ronkayla.com. Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News turned blogger activist. You can reach him at ron@ronkayela.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )
How the ‘Fringe Activists’ Stopped the Machine
Changing LA
By Ron Kaye
The extraordinary success of the No on Measure B -- from its origins among community activists to a coalition that included business, labor and political parties of every type -- has laid the groundwork for a mass movement that can take back LA from the special interests.
Contrary to what many expected, the total vote last Tuesday was nearly 18 percent of registered voters when as few as 10 percent was expected and the mayor's minions boasted they would win if the total reached 15 percent. The "No" side leads by 1,322 votes with the remaining 46,000 absentee, provisional and damaged votes to be tallied later this week. For the Saving LA Project, Neighborhood Cou ncils and homeowner/resident groups, fighting the City Hall political machine to a stalemate on an issue like solar energy was a tremendous victory.
Whatever the final tally, there is no mandate for a DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy or for the mayor and City Council's seizing direct control of the contracting process in order to shake down everyone who wants a piece of the billions of dollars involved in the massive program.
So how did community activists -- dismissed as "fringe activists" by the "Yes" campaign -- stop the machine?
It starts with a decade of failure of the DWP to deliver on its many promises to bring solar energy to the city and the IBEW's total resistance during that time to renewable energy because you don't need the state's (if not the nation's) highest paid utility workers to run windmills or rooftop solar installations.
Faced with the inevitable need for clean energy, the IBEW, in league with environmental political action committees willing to pay any price to move forward, came up with Measure B.
The mayor, who never has been able to say no to the IBEW or its generous campaign money, got aboard in hopes of enhancing his political ambitions.
Business, labor and the solar energy industry then were confronted with a campaign of intimidation that kept them quiet. Similar tactics brought the timid City Council into unanimous obedience without its members even having a clue about what they were voting on after a three-week legislative process that made a mockery of the democratic process and the notion that our Council members actually represent the citizens of Los Angeles.
Outcries from community activists almost certainly would have gone nowhere if the City Hall political machine weren't so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that it kept critical information secret and then went to court to crush all opposition.
Not satisfied with having all the advantages, the machine ordered top environment greenwasher Mitchell Schwartz, a lobbyist and head of a PAC that calls itself the LA League of Conservation Voters, to sue the authors of the ballot argument against Measure B, accusing them of false and misleading statements.
Judge David Yaffe took the side of the Solar 8 and laughed the real liars out of court, dismissing the arguments put forward by the machine's mouthpiece, attorney Stephen Kaufman.
From that moment on, the community was energized and came together as never before, came together in a way that someday will be seen as the historic turning point when the machine started to fall apart and the people started to take back City Hall.
Literally hundreds of people got involved, a word-of-mouth campaign began to form using the revolutionary tools of the Internet: Email, Facebook, Twitter.
After hearing arguments from both sides and DWP's thinly-veiled presentations of a massive solar energy program that was slapped together without any planning or analysis, dozens of Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups joined the campaign against Measure B.
Business groups like the apartment owners association, VICA, United Chambers followed suit. And with help from Paul Hefner of Polka Consulting in Sacramento, the campaign became more focused and effective until it became obvious that Measure B could be defeated.
The media pounded away at the flaws in Measure B, exposing one lie and deceit after another and questioning it in editorials. Three council members defected from the Yes campaign.
With the groundswell building, Bill Luddy brought the Carpenters Union into the battle with mass mailings and professional phone banks. Members of the Laborers Union got involved and the LA Chamber joined in. The Times and Daily News came out in full opposition.
In the end, the "Yes" campaign, with the full advantage of the political machine's power, outspent the "No" campaign 25 to 1. The mayor was damaged by managing to win re-election with only 55 percent of the vote. Jack Weiss was humiliated when 64 percent of the voters turned against him. A long-time Neighbhorhood Council and homeowner activist, David Vahedi, made the runoff to succeed Weiss in CD5.
The political dynamic of LA was changed by results of Tuesday's elections. The question now is what must be done to build on this success. (This column was posted first at www.ronkayla.com. Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News turned blogger activist. You can reach him at ron@ronkayela.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Republican Values victorious on Tuesday
I know some of you will think this is a bit of a spin job, but the results of Tuesday's election for Los Angeles County, and specifically the City of Los Angeles, should give those of us loyal to conservative principles and values much hope. From the defense of EVERY Republican local seat to the voting trend symbolized by the results of key measures, the liberals are starting to lose their grip on this county, slowly but surely.
The 54th AD had two Republican candidates in Palos Verdes Estates up for election Tuesday against a Democrat who ran on the "why can't I break the law and disturb my neighbors" campaign. Incumbent James Goodhart and PVE Planning Commissioner George Bird ran great campaigns that represented what most of the voters in PVE were looking for. Their sole opponent was Democrat Sheryll Iannitti, who would not likely have received our endorsement has she been a Republican anyway due to her reason for running. This was the woman who ran for office because she was upset that the city asked her to remove her Halloween decorations from city property. She was basically running on an assumption that residents of Palos Verdes Estates wanted "change"; anyone familiar with PVE like I am can tell you that's not the best campaign slogan on "the Hill".
Congratulations to our two endorsed elected candidates!
For San Pedro Republicans, Tuesday night seemed somewhat bleak and uneventful to start. Mayor Villaraigosa was leading by a comfortable margin, Janice Hahn had pretty much locked up her third term, and Measure B was still in a slight lead despite every neighborhood council from the Northern San Fernando Valley to Coastal San Pedro opposing it. When most of the voters went to bed, even the IBEW has issued their announcement talking about how great their Measure B victory was.
But something funny happened around 1:00am...the majority vote turned to NO!
The final bulletin issued at 1:45am Wednesday morning shows only 49.7% of voters supporting Measure B, signifying a trend that resulted from the voting public learning more about the issues of the measure. I have been pretty detailed in my earlier posts about Measure B, so I won't repeat them. The trend of voting was a result of the absentee voters and districts closer to downtown L.A. being the first counted. As the precincts from the San Fernando Valley, Westside, and Harbor area came in, the gap narrowed until it flipped right before the end of counting the nearly 250,000 votes.
But the battle to defeat Measure B is not yet complete. Another 46,000 ballots remain from late absentees turned in at polling places, provisional ballots, and ballots with issues and discrepancies. The No on Measure B team has committed members observing the counting daily, and it looks like the trend downward for Measure B should continue. I look forward to announcing the official defeat of this measure.
There was much to be proud of Tuesday for those who believe in the Republican principles and values of limited government and better business practices. Now we hope to begin the resurgence of the Party through taking local seats from Democrats, and it starts in Long Beach in just 4 1/2 weeks...
The 54th AD had two Republican candidates in Palos Verdes Estates up for election Tuesday against a Democrat who ran on the "why can't I break the law and disturb my neighbors" campaign. Incumbent James Goodhart and PVE Planning Commissioner George Bird ran great campaigns that represented what most of the voters in PVE were looking for. Their sole opponent was Democrat Sheryll Iannitti, who would not likely have received our endorsement has she been a Republican anyway due to her reason for running. This was the woman who ran for office because she was upset that the city asked her to remove her Halloween decorations from city property. She was basically running on an assumption that residents of Palos Verdes Estates wanted "change"; anyone familiar with PVE like I am can tell you that's not the best campaign slogan on "the Hill".
Congratulations to our two endorsed elected candidates!
For San Pedro Republicans, Tuesday night seemed somewhat bleak and uneventful to start. Mayor Villaraigosa was leading by a comfortable margin, Janice Hahn had pretty much locked up her third term, and Measure B was still in a slight lead despite every neighborhood council from the Northern San Fernando Valley to Coastal San Pedro opposing it. When most of the voters went to bed, even the IBEW has issued their announcement talking about how great their Measure B victory was.
But something funny happened around 1:00am...the majority vote turned to NO!
The final bulletin issued at 1:45am Wednesday morning shows only 49.7% of voters supporting Measure B, signifying a trend that resulted from the voting public learning more about the issues of the measure. I have been pretty detailed in my earlier posts about Measure B, so I won't repeat them. The trend of voting was a result of the absentee voters and districts closer to downtown L.A. being the first counted. As the precincts from the San Fernando Valley, Westside, and Harbor area came in, the gap narrowed until it flipped right before the end of counting the nearly 250,000 votes.
But the battle to defeat Measure B is not yet complete. Another 46,000 ballots remain from late absentees turned in at polling places, provisional ballots, and ballots with issues and discrepancies. The No on Measure B team has committed members observing the counting daily, and it looks like the trend downward for Measure B should continue. I look forward to announcing the official defeat of this measure.
There was much to be proud of Tuesday for those who believe in the Republican principles and values of limited government and better business practices. Now we hope to begin the resurgence of the Party through taking local seats from Democrats, and it starts in Long Beach in just 4 1/2 weeks...
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Mayor Villaraigosa has to "pull a weekender" for Measure B
There have been many great accomplishments for the rag-tag, rebellious group I have been proud to work with in opposition to Measure B, the solar energy boondoggle that has unified not only city-wide Republicans and Democrats active in the neighborhood councils, but Laborer Union Locals throughout the city who are having city facility work normally set aside for them being transferred solely to the IBEW membership under Measure B. Our combined effort, combined with opposition endorsements from great civic leaders like Laura Chick and Dennis Zine, have resulted in recommendations to vote NO on Measure B from the Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Daily News and our local paper, the Daily Breeze.
To try and swing the tide from the city council members who are now embarrassed for "placing the measure on the ballot for voter to decide" to the DWP & IBEW's failure to address the calculated doubling of energy rates (according to their own endorsed Huron Report), the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (who desperately needs this measure passed in order to beef up his political resume for his run for Governor next year) had to initiate a city-wide bus tour this weekend in order to promote Measure B. Fox 11 News covered it last night, and interviewed one of our speakers, Jack Humpreville, about why the measure is having such difficulty.
I want to personally thank all of you that forced our 11% mayor to forgo his regular weekend schedule of finding the closest "televised" public event, away from any of the other mayoral candidates, and forcing him to actually invest personal time in campaigning this weekend. Your phone calls to absentee voters the past four weeks, plus your renewed energy this weekend to call poll voters in key districts, has made a real difference!
This past week, I was very excited to see the energy and activism by two local unions, the Laborers Local 802 and Local 872, who really took the Huron consultant and DWP managers to task at the Wilmington DWP Townhall last Wednesday. You can only imagine how much fun I had speaking on behalf of labor unions being shut out from what is supposed to be their contracted work effort in the city. To their credit, the Laborers Union members are the ones working at our trade schools and junior colleges to train young men and women the trades associated with building and construction, and have a far better record of providing training in under-privileged communities and community colleges. The marketing rep from the Laborers Union specifically asked the DWP about the record of bringing in and training new IBEW members from under-privileged neighborhoods. When the DWP rep "could not recall" the numbers, the marketing rep informed her that the numbers were "practically non-existent".
Now these great union colleagues are taking every phone list I can create for them and calling residents to oppose this measure on behalf of the truly local union residents. Awesome!
So if you see our Mayor's bus driving through the neighborhood, wave "Hello"! And then contact me for a call list to do either Sunday or Monday. But don't worry about the Mayor's precinct...we've already called it and left a message for his household to vote NO on Measure B!
After all, he is a high-propensity voter...
To try and swing the tide from the city council members who are now embarrassed for "placing the measure on the ballot for voter to decide" to the DWP & IBEW's failure to address the calculated doubling of energy rates (according to their own endorsed Huron Report), the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (who desperately needs this measure passed in order to beef up his political resume for his run for Governor next year) had to initiate a city-wide bus tour this weekend in order to promote Measure B. Fox 11 News covered it last night, and interviewed one of our speakers, Jack Humpreville, about why the measure is having such difficulty.
I want to personally thank all of you that forced our 11% mayor to forgo his regular weekend schedule of finding the closest "televised" public event, away from any of the other mayoral candidates, and forcing him to actually invest personal time in campaigning this weekend. Your phone calls to absentee voters the past four weeks, plus your renewed energy this weekend to call poll voters in key districts, has made a real difference!
This past week, I was very excited to see the energy and activism by two local unions, the Laborers Local 802 and Local 872, who really took the Huron consultant and DWP managers to task at the Wilmington DWP Townhall last Wednesday. You can only imagine how much fun I had speaking on behalf of labor unions being shut out from what is supposed to be their contracted work effort in the city. To their credit, the Laborers Union members are the ones working at our trade schools and junior colleges to train young men and women the trades associated with building and construction, and have a far better record of providing training in under-privileged communities and community colleges. The marketing rep from the Laborers Union specifically asked the DWP about the record of bringing in and training new IBEW members from under-privileged neighborhoods. When the DWP rep "could not recall" the numbers, the marketing rep informed her that the numbers were "practically non-existent".
Now these great union colleagues are taking every phone list I can create for them and calling residents to oppose this measure on behalf of the truly local union residents. Awesome!
So if you see our Mayor's bus driving through the neighborhood, wave "Hello"! And then contact me for a call list to do either Sunday or Monday. But don't worry about the Mayor's precinct...we've already called it and left a message for his household to vote NO on Measure B!
After all, he is a high-propensity voter...
Monday, February 23, 2009
State Budget Resentment Electrifies GOP Convention
Thanks to my good friend and 56th AD GOP ex-oficio, Roger Garrett, I was once again able to participate as a delegate at the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento this past weekend. As expected, the primary topic of discussion, debate, outrage and concern for most delegates was the defeat of Republican principles and values in the approval of the increased tax-and-spend budget bill by the state Legislature. I could spent most of this blog post talking about how angry people were, and I was even quoted in the Contra Costa Times on Saturday about that I called "very confusing times". "We have to figure out what our party stands for if it's not for less of a tax burden for Californians."
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B
I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
