(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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
