Repub Club 54

Teachers Union loses defense of board seat in Long Beach

2009-12-30T09:50:00.000-08:00

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.

Senator Oropeza Absent/Abstains from nearly One-Third of Legislative Voting in 2009

2009-12-09T14:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Part-time Legislature Petition Drive nets 1400 signatures in Anaheim

2009-12-04T22:41:00.000-08:00

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

Tom Long: Don't let a court ruling get in the way of spinning an election

2009-10-09T22:13:00.000-07:00

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!

Assembly GOP wastes no time; Duvall resigns

2009-09-10T12:27:00.000-07:00

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...

Dr. Peter Gardiner: Courage

2009-07-28T15:20:00.000-07:00

(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.

Hermosa Beach business tax increase measure postponed

2009-07-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

(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.

WSJ: Why We'll Leave L.A.

2009-07-18T18:36:00.000-07:00

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.

Governor's opportunity to create fiscally responsible Board of Equalization

2009-07-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

(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.

"Letting Voters Decide": The Democrat cop-out for tax measures

2009-07-13T22:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Was May 19th THAT long ago?

2009-07-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Call our local state Legislators today

2009-06-30T09:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Over 70% of 54th AD voters tell Arnold (and Bonnie) NO!

2009-05-22T22:03:00.000-07:00

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...!)

Why I am running for the State Senate

2009-05-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

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)

Glen's latest obsession: ME!

2009-05-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

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.....

Republicans OPPOSE Propositions 1A-1F; Democrats stay "Neutral"

2009-04-18T17:34:00.000-07:00

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)

Why the Dems are killing California, but no one cares...

2009-04-03T22:15:00.000-07:00

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!

These tea parties are great, but . . .

2009-03-29T22:44:00.000-07:00

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!

From your local "Fringe Activist"...

2009-03-10T13:40:00.000-07:00

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 )

Republican Values victorious on Tuesday

2009-03-07T21:26:00.000-08:00

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...

Mayor Villaraigosa has to "pull a weekender" for Measure B

2009-02-28T18:32:00.000-08:00

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...

State Budget Resentment Electrifies GOP Convention

2009-02-23T12:20:00.000-08:00

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!

Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B

2009-02-06T12:46:00.000-08:00

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!

How many bad nominees does it take to change an administration?

2009-02-05T14:14:00.000-08:00

I'm forwarding an update from the Weekly Standard about yet ANOTHER cabinet nominee with issues to address. This one is relevant to us because it's our own Hilda Solis, union champion and Democratic Congressmember from East Los Angeles. Add Ms. Solis' name to that of the nominees that had to learn how to do their taxes, and we're starting to see what kind of "change" is truly coming to DC.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.

The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.

However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.

Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.

Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.

Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.

Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.

© The Weekly Standard

Lowenthal, Oropeza & Hahn, obviously...but VLADOVIC?!

2009-01-29T23:14:00.000-08:00

Among the liberal, anti-business politicians that are listed as supporters of the unpredictable Department of Water and Power energy rate hike on residents and businesses in the City of Los Angeles, the website lists the usual suspects who care more about their union pandering than their constituents' wallets, including Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal, State Senator Jenny Oropeza, and "San Pedro" / L.A. City Council member Janice Hahn. All three of these ladies have a past performance of making such horrible endorsements, and all have received my support during the few times that they display a glimmer of understanding how the economic engine truly works. In this situation, it does not take a CPA to understand that increasing the energy rates for residents and small businesses throughout the city will reduce spending power and the ability of businesses to employ as many residents. But as far as our Democratic leaders are concerned, so long as it helps satisfy one of the largest contributors to local elected campaigns, they can check the box.

What surprised me was scrolling down the list of supporters on the IBEW propaganda website and noticing someone who I assumed would be a little more knowledgeable about how the rate hike will affect the families of his students, LAUSD Board Member Richard Vladovic, whom many of us conservatives worked hard to get elected over the two liberal, union-friendly alternatives in 2007. I consider Dick a personal friend, and his endorsement for this measure surprised me. Even though he has his own union ties, I would have assumed that his long-time association with conservative principles, including his registration as a Republican until December 2006, would have steered him toward the decision in the best interests of the voters and not the special interests.

If you want to know what the informed residents and small businesses truly think, all one has to do in Los Angeles is look at which way the 90+ neighborhood councils are leaning. So far, every neighborhood council that has taken up a motion to consider this measure has voted to oppose it! EVERY ONE! A complete list will soon be available on www.VoteNoMeasureB,com, but just take my word for it.

The only people endorsing this measure are either working for the IBEW (and willing to steal money out of the pockets of residents to give to themselves in undeserving jobs) or looking for some sort of recognition or acknowledgement from the IBEW for a future political campaign. Like I said, the usual liberal, business-hating politicos are front and center on the supporter list.

It's just a shame that someone I thought was above it has decided that the slop in the trough tastes just fine!

Los Angeles Times Editorial - "Measure B: L.A.'s secret solar plan"

2009-01-29T15:41:00.000-08:00

(from today's Los Angeles Times Editorial page - I've got more to write about, but this was very good, and from a source that usually gives the L.A. City Council a pass...)

Angelenos will be asked to weigh in on a solar power plan on the city's March 3 ballot, but officials haven't really told us what we're voting on.

January 29, 2009

The City Council was unfazed in November when no one from the Department of Water and Power or other City Hall offices could answer some of the most basic questions about a proposed solar power measure the council was about to put on the ballot. How much will it cost ratepayers? Is it financially feasible? How much money will it take to recruit and train new workers? DWP General Manager H. David Nahai said his agency would have the answers after Huron Consulting Group completed its independent analysis of the plan sometime in January, and council members promised one another that would leave plenty of time for open discussion about the "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles" program that they seemed too rushed to deal with at the moment. They scheduled the measure for the March 3 election.

The Huron report is due next week, but don't expect that to spur a month of thoughtful City Council discourse based on the findings. The report is not about Measure B (or Charter Amendment B, take your pick); it's an analysis of the entire three-part Solar L.A. program, of which Measure B is one part. It won't tell ratepayers how much their rates will rise. It can't. There are too many variables -- just as there are too many variables to let voters know how much rates will rise without Measure B.Yet there was Nahai at last week's commission meeting urging everyone to hold their fire until the Huron report is out. "Until then, I feel that all of the conjecture really does a disservice to the debate," he said.The Yes-on-B campaign is in high gear, asking voters to adopt the measure. Voting begins Monday with mail balloting. Yet we're not supposed to ask questions until the Huron report is out? Meanwhile, where is the language of the measure we're voting on? Have voters seen it? Is it available? Is it on the city's website? No -- the city clerk's office is shooting for posting the language sometime toward the end of next week. (If you don't want to wait, you can find the ballot language on our website, at latimes.com/opinion.)

This page wants smart "in-basin" solar power as an integral part of the city's energy generation and distribution strategy, and we remain open to the idea that this ballot measure may be the best way to get it. But the process seems designed to get voters to sign off on a plan without sufficient knowledge of it, and it is undermining a broader discussion of solar power in Los Angeles. There is a point at which process gets so bad that it outweighs substance, no matter how good that substance may be. We're rapidly approaching that point.

Will the L.A. City Council get stung by Proposition B?

2009-01-13T22:48:00.000-08:00

To give you an idea of just how much of a "third rail" the ballot measure known as Proposition B is here in Los Angeles, I've copied in the latest article from CityWatch, the publication that I trust to keep the best watchful eye on what the L.A. City Council is up to. I have some good friends writing for CityWatch, including Stephen Box (one of the writers below).

In addition to the article below about L.A. Councilmember Bill Rosendahl's lukewarm position, I was a personal witness to our own councilmember, Janice Hahn, giving a neutral response to her position on Proposition B when asked by DWP Committee chair, Dr. Soledad Garcia, at last night's Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting. I think Hahn gave a good, politically safe answer, given the growing unpopularity of this measure, as well as the process of how the L.A. City Council placed it on the March ballot. As the newest appointee to the DWP Committee as the lead liaison for Hahn's district, I am committed to representing both the low to middle-income residents, as well as the numerous small businesses, who will be hard hit by the passage of this rate hike measure.

Here is the latest article from CityWatch (http://www.citywatchla.com):

DWP Workshop Notebook
By David Lowell and Stephen Box

DWP General Manager, H. David Nahai, spent Saturday morning giving a three-hour "Renewable Energy" presentation to a crowd of approximately 70 community leaders representing Neighborhood Councils from throughout the city, most of whom were sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the discussion of Measure B to come up.

Measure B is the City's proposed "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act," which has been called "risky" by the City's own analyst and will appear on the March 3rd ballot. Nahai and Assistant GM Aram Benyamin went to great lengths to steer clear of the topic, instead demonstrating incredible message control and sticking to the polished PowerPoint presentation that was well received.

Their efforts to bypass B went askew, however, when Councilman Bill Rosendahl dropped by and jumped into the mix, announcing "I have not made up my mind. I voted to put it on the ballot but I haven't voted to support it because, frankly, I want to understand the details that are to be presented to us as a Council. I might end up supporting it, I might not." (Click here for Rosendahl video)

Rosendahl echoed the sentiment of literally everybody by stating "I believe whole-heartedly in Solar. We're in California. It's Sunny. My roof is flat." He continued by endorsing the DWP's union and the opportunity to bring more people into the DWP workforce while at the same time developing the private sector partnerships and supporting solar housing collectives such as proposed in Mar Vista.

Rosendahl polled the room and found that many were opposed to measure B, that many were undecided, that everybody reckoned that they had an open mind and that there were two people in support of Measure B, one of whom was Gary Baratta who explained "Solar Power has to go forward. There is absolutely no reason not to go forward. The DWP is the only party in a position to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver power." Gary went on to urge Nahai to ignore the City Charter and to stop contributing funds to the City's general funds.

This softball suggestion from Baratta allowed Nahai to respond vigorously that the DWP would by no means violate the City charter and that it was their desire to abide by the rules and obligations and processes.

Nahai called the meeting a success saying "I think it went well. There were many probing questions and the feedback from the audience was that the presentation was very comprehensive. It was a good meeting. As for Measure B, the DWP has no position on Measure B. We are waiting on financial reports from Huron and we will release them as part of our outreach."

Jack Humphreville “thought the presentation was great, very informative and very interesting. The thing is,” he said, “I came to hear about Measure B."

DWP Advocacy Committee Chair Soledad Garcia agreed, "Solar energy is not the issue, we're all for it. The DWP has much to answer for if we are to work together to develop a solar plan for Los Angeles.”

Rusty Millar, Co-Chair at the Silver Lake NC was unconvinced saying "The LADWP asks us to trust them but they never came to the Neighborhood Councils as required by the City charter and they never revealed any information on the cost of Measure B. I want to know how much, how it will be paid and what the fiscal impact on the city will be."

Barbara Moynihan Burke called the entire process "A travesty!. I was there in Van Nuys when they voted on Measure B. It was called as a "special" with 24 hour notice and then it was over. No financials, no information, no opportunity for feedback from the community. I protested to Council President Garcetti based on process and based on content and yet it's still underway."

Jeff Jacobberger and Tony Butka both referred to the meeting as an informative and comprehensive big-picture presentation of the future of LA's Renewable Energy program but both also left with their expectation of a discussion of Measure B unmet.

Observers Everett Littlefield and BONC Commissioner Al Abrams seemed destined for the Diplomatic Corps. They both argued for open minds. Littlefield said "I'm union and I believe in unions but not when we're getting less for more. I have an open mind and I think like an investor, I think like a rate payer, and I think like a homeowner who wants to install solar. I need to know that everything we do is financially sound." Abrams echoed and said "It's our DWP, we're the stakeholders. We owe it to the DWP to wait and see, to keep an open mind and to evaluate the Huron financial report."

In summary: the Department got good marks for their solar presentation but disappointed many when they avoided the hot-button Solar Energy Prop B issue. ◘

CityWatch
Vol 7 Issue 4
Pub: Jan 13, 2009

Los Angeles Update: Proposition B ballot argument to keep its "teeth"

2009-01-09T15:07:00.000-08:00

As many of you have learned over the past month, I have volunteered my services to fight a power grab by the IBEW union to pay for a sole-source boondoggle solar project for themselves on the backs of Los Angeles City residents & businesses. This measure threatens to double or even triple the electrical rates of all residents & businesses in the City of Angels; not just those registered as Republicans! ;-)

The opposition leaders to this deceitful proposition submitted a proper ballot argument for the March 2009 election, but the IBEW hired a slick law firm to challenge much of the wording in order to remove most of the "bite" from the ballot argument. Candidate for Mayor David Hernandez stepped up with his own resources to lead the fight in court against this attack, and I was able to get the news personally from him last night that he and the opposition leaders had scored a great victory in court.

Below is the article from the L.A. Times from the same reporter that originally blew the whistle on this scheme by the IBEW, DWP and the L.A. City Council. He tells it best:

Judge upholds wording of Measure B's ballot argument

He refuses to remove key passages warning that Los Angeles' solar energy initiative in the March 3 election would create a monopoly.
By David Zahniser

5:02 PM PST, January 8, 2009

A judge on Thursday refused to remove key passages used by neighborhood activists in their ballot argument against Measure B, the solar energy proposal heading to Los Angeles voters in the March 3 election.

Mitchell Schwartz, a political strategist who staged Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 2005 inaugural gala, had asked the judge to take out wording in the voter pamphlet warning that the solar plan would give a monopoly to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union that represents employees at the city's Department of Water and Power.

But Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe said the measure -- which has been embraced by Villaraigosa and the City Council -- is open to a range of interpretations. "The proposition is so vague and so encompassing that speculation about just about anything is fair game," he said.

Yaffe issued a tentative ruling that is expected to become final today. But his statements did little to end a heated debate over the solar proposal, which seeks to add 400 megawatts of solar energy to rooftops and parking lots by 2014.

Those who signed the argument against Measure B accused allies of the mayor of using expensive lawyers to squelch the opposition's political views. After Schwartz went to court, signers of the ballot argument against Measure B hired a lawyer -- city attorney candidate Noel Weiss -- and dubbed themselves "the Solar 8."

The group's members includes former DWP president Nick Patsaouras, now a candidate for city controller, and former Los Angeles Daily News editor Ron Kaye.

In his tentative ruling, Yaffe also refused to remove language that warned that "no competitive bidding" would be used by the solar program. And he declined to take out wording that warned that the DWP would use "outdated technology" for the initiative. "The judge did the right thing," Weiss said.

Schwartz, who served last year as state campaign director for President-elect Barack Obama, did not attend the hearing. But attorney Stephen Kaufman, who represented Schwartz, said opponents of Measure B had made false or misleading statements that would be corrected during the campaign.

In the opponents' ballot argument, "the implication is that this is a self-serving deal being foisted on the voters here, and that is simply not the case," Kaufman told the judge.

He said his client scored one important victory, by forcing opponents of Measure B to remove a passage stating that no public hearings had been held on the solar proposal. Instead, the argument will say that the DWP did not provide "engineering or operational input" before Measure B went on the ballot.

The measure was proposed by Working Californians, an advocacy group headed by two high-level officials from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The Measure B campaign paid for Schwartz's legal fees.

Schwartz, president of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, was part of a select group that attended a Feb. 29, 2008, presentation on the solar plan by the union's Local 18 business manager Brian D'Arcy. His public relations firm, Bomaye Company, provided services to the DWP between 1999 and 2003. During that period, the firm helped promote the DWP's green initiatives, including one of its existing solar programs.

Schwartz's latest firm, skImpact, has a contract with CH2M Hill, a company that has been accused by the DWP of overbilling. But Schwartz said he is not doing any work related to the city or its electrical utility -- and only joined the lawsuit at Kaufman's request.

"I'm not part of the insider crew at all," he said. "I know them, but I'm not part of them. I just think the solar thing is really good."

david.zahniser@latimes.com

"Rock the First" candidate takes on "establishment" candidate Garcia in Long Beach

2009-01-01T14:21:00.000-08:00

[This was posted on LBReport.com, a truly grassroots internet newspaper for Long Beach that I recommend all Long Beach residents bookmark.]

Rick Berry, Spotted At City Clerk's Candidate Workshop, Will Formally Announce 1st dist Council Run Saturday...Using Political Consultant Who Waged "No on I" Campaign

(Jan. 1, 2009) -- Rick Berry, a 15-year 1st district resident and former LB Community Band President, has scheduled a Saturday (Jan. 3) event to announce his entry into the special election to succeed Bonnie Lowenthal on the City Council...and has hired political consultant Randy Terrell who ran the "No on I" campaign that blunted the $700,000+ Mayor-backed campaign for a City Hall sought property parcel tax.

We first spotted Mr. Berry at the Dec. 29 City Clerk workshop for prospective candidates (in photo below, bearded man across the table from Robert Garcia).

In a Dec. 31 emailed release, Mr. Berry states:

"After being involved in the district for fifteen years, and Long Beach all of my life, I have seen a lot of wasted opportunities that could be corrected easily with proactive, common sense thinking...My campaign is about bringing those qualities to the City Council, but also about challenging the status quo so that residents do benefit."

Mr. Terrell, who previously ran paid political ads on LBReport.com for the No on I campaign (including an animated ad of Mayor Foster's head peaking out from behind a podium, challenging him to debate the measure) recently purchased paid political ad space on LBReport.com listing a series of what the ads call "bad City Hall ideas." The ads link to a separate website by Mr. Terrell, saying an unnamed 1st district candidate will be announced Jan. 3 who'll be "the only one independent enough to stand up to special interests, and help transform our neighborhoods and our city for the better."

The campaign release quotes Mr. Berry as saying, "I am serious about this campaign, and serious about winning. From public health and a clean environment, to making sure that the City Council focuses on the needs of the residents instead of special interests -- these are issues I don't see any other candidate addressing adequately."

Why L.A. Conservatives should LOVE Laura Chick...

2008-12-29T18:39:00.000-08:00

[I've attached a column from Rick Orlov that should really open the eyes of L.A. City residents and show them that not all Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. L.A. Controller Laura Chick is an admirable defender of the citizens of Los Angeles, and the Democratic elitists know it!]

Open debate sought on privatization

By Rick Orlov, Columnist

Updated: 12/28/2008 09:40:47 PM PST

City Controller Laura Chick has six months left in office. And, as she
made clear this past week, she will not go quietly.

Chick remains uncertain whether she will try for a return to the City
Council, take a job at a university or go into private enterprise. One
thing you can probably bet on is that she won't become a lobbyist seeking
favors from city officials.

In the past few months, she has taken on, again, her main nemesis, City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, the City Council and most recently, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa. Her latest action is blowing the lid off what she said was a
confidential effort - Chick called it Chicago-style politics - to study privatizing
city services. "What is needed", Chick said, "is an open debate in which the public can hear all the arguments and decide how it wants the city to go."

Villaraigosa was quick to acknowledge the study being done by Mike Keeley,
one-time budget director to former Mayor Richard Riordan - who was the first
to propose privatizing city services, including the sale of Los Angeles
International Airport and naming rights to city buildings. The latter deal
fell apart when it was proposed to sell the name of the Central Library to
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris. Ironically, the Central Library
building was named after Riordan when he left office.

Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said Keeley is providing "strategic
counsel on budget issues and to spearhead public-private partnership
efforts." City unions are prepared to fight off the latest proposal - much as they
did 15 years ago.

For the moment, Szabo said the mayor is looking at privatizing the
management of city parking lots and parking meters. A recommendation is
expected in January or February.

But it also has others on alert.

Golfers, in particular, are concerned about what will happen to the city
courses - where fees already have gone up dramatically for residents and
nonresidents, who are now on a two-tiered system of payments.

The desire for secrecy is also costing the mayor and City Council as they
prepare to ask voter support for Proposition B, the solar initiative on the
March 3 ballot. The City Council put the measure through on a fast track, without disclosing to the public and some council members a critical report on the measure
- which warns that the costly program, now estimated at $3 billion, might not
be practical given the limited number of solar panel manufacturers in the country.

City Council President Eric Garcetti downplayed the significance of the
report as he insisted he used its concerns to question officials on how it
could be improved and to address the concerns raised. And he was forced to later release the review to the public and his fellow council members.

Of course, it happened on a week when the City Council was in recess, with
many members out of town. So there was no major political penalty paid by
Villaraigosa or Garcetti. The biggest question that has been unanswered is why the measure is even on the ballot, since the basic job could be adopted by the DWP and its board.

Villaraigosa and Garcetti will be seeing a lot of each other over the next several weeks. The two, who served as California co-chairmen of the campaign of
President-elect Barack Obama, are both heading back to Washington, D.C., to
attend the inauguration. Garcetti supported Obama from the start, while
Villaraigosa came on after Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination.

Other local officials who are planning to attend the event include new
county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, California co-chairman for Obama;
Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
A number of state legislators also are said to want to go - but no one knows
if they will have a state budget fix adopted by then.

Rick Orlov's column appears Mondays. For a daily political fix, check
out the Daily News' Sausage Factory blog at insidesocal.com/politics.

rick.orlov@dailynews.com
213-978-0390

City Hall Political Machine Tries to Intimidate Activist Community

2008-12-28T22:47:00.000-08:00

[Ron Kaye is the former Editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, and one of those standing up to the latest ploy within the City of Los Angeles. Plan to hear A LOT more about Proposition B and my efforts to defeat it in March]

Lawsuit Seeks to Squelch Public Debate on Solar Energy Fraud

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his team of lobbyists, strategists and pay-to-play cronies have sued the eight people who signed the No. on Prop. B ballot argument -- an attempt at intimidation under the guise of law.

This measure isn't about solar energy and has nothing to do with the largest solar energy initiative ever undertaken. The City Council and mayor could initiate that by their own actions. This is solely about paying blackmail to the DWP and its IBEW union which have blocked solar projects for a decade and would have exclusivity on large-scale projects under this measure.

The Solar Eight -- Jack Humphreville, Soledad Garcia, Humberto Camacho, Kristine Lee, Nick Patsaouras, Joe Pulido, James O'Sullivan and me -- will not be silenced by this tactic.

But our lives have made difficult as we need to respond in court on Tuesday to the allegations that are ballot argument is false and misleading. We were unable to find a lawyer knowledgeable in city election law because this was dropped on us during Christmas week but Noel Weiss, candidate for City Attorney, has now volunteered to provide us help in putting together our pleading. The next hearing in court is Jan. 8.

Stephen Kaufman's law firm, which represents the mayor, eight City Council members and a host of other political figures, is handling the case for the City Hall political machine for the named plaintiff, Mitchell Schwartz, a high-powered environmental lobbyist.

This isn't just an attempt to squelch the Solar Eight or the debate over this phony ballot measure but a direct assault on everyone's right to freedom of speech and to participate in the political and electoral process.

We need support from Neighborhood Councils, homeowner and resident groups, service clubs, churches and every individual who cares about L.A. This is a defining moment. We need to come together and stop the political machine that is destroying the city. If we won't fight as one against these tactics and this dirty deal, I don't know that we ever will.

The March 3 primary gives us the chance to change L.A., to elect candidates to the City Controller's and City Attorney's offices who can stand for the community. Villaraigosa, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss along with the 15 obedient council members will have nothing in their way if they prevail in this election.

I have written about it today and over several days recently. Here are the links to copy and paste:

http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/prop-b-is-for-bribery-and-blac.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/sunshine-on-solar-fraud-the-ci.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/laura-chick-chicagostyle-polit.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/scenario-for-dictatorship-los.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-secret-solar-plan-document.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-city-hall-political-machin.html

Support the Solar Eight. Support the efforts to make this a great city and get rid of Chicago-style corruption.

ronkayela.com

cell 818-621-8349
office 818-704-8418

Jerry Brown: California's Panderer General

2008-12-26T23:16:00.000-08:00

The “shift” of Attorney General Jerry Brown to oppose the decision of California voters, mostly Black & Hispanic majorities who voted for Proposition 8, is pandering to the far-left at its best.

Minority voters, who represent a large portion of both the religious faithful and patriotic segments of California’s citizenry, stood up for their beliefs just as they voted for “change”. What they did not count on was the lack of “change” in the rhetoric and special-interest pandering by Democratic officials, of which AG Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is one of the best. Brown actually tried to change the wording of this proposition to increase its chances of not passing; even then, it passed with strong support from minority voters. It would likely have passed by a stronger majority had Brown left the wording alone.

This “shift” by AG Brown is nothing more than failing to carry out his duties to support the will of the citizens of California even if that will does not agree with the principles of Brown’s far-left agenda. Jerry Brown is choosing far-left partisan loyalties over his responsibilities as Attorney General. Brown’s secular principles, brought forward from his hippie days, are not in touch with today’s values of California’s voters, especially those of our strong minority families.

Meanwhile, my experience with the protesters of Proposition 8 (and of the Iraq War) has been almost totally absent of any minority representation on the protester side. This is an issue Democrats will face in future state elections, including their gubernatorial primary in June 2010. Can religiously faithful and patriotic minority voters support a gubernatorial nominee who rendered their vote for traditional marriage irrelevant because he “now” discovered that the proposition was unconstitutional to begin with? Does Jerry Brown believe California voters are that dumb? Are we?

RPLAC: "Change" for the sake of "change"

2008-12-20T12:11:00.000-08:00

To begin, I want to be on record that I warned the former Executive Board that moving the Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC) Organizational Meeting to the same day as the USC-UCLA game, the SEC Championship game and, most importantly, the Army-Navy game would be bad luck! Up until the night before, I was still undecided on whether I was going to attend. I know for sure of at least three newly-elected members who chose the Rose Bowl over the Reagan Building, where the meeting was held. I personally took a lot of flack from fellow Navy alumni, even though we trounced Army 34-0, for choosing politics over tradition.

But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!

The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.

This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.

To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".

The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.

I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.

I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.

I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.

Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.

Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.

What went right, wrong & what's next?

2008-11-22T22:18:00.000-08:00

OK, I know! Where the heck have I been?

When I started this blog in January, I was committed to doing an update at least weekly, and was doing a pretty decent job of meeting that recurrence up until about mid-September. Then...life got a bit hectic. Now, I'm not going to blame any particular change, whether it was the birth of my 2nd child, Violet, some urgent matters at work that took me away from California, or just a simple burn-out of issues. Now that the results are in, we should be able to look back at some things that went right, things that went wrong, and what we should be looking at now.

Despite the defeat of our presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, we had may efforts succeed that we can take pride in. To start, we defeated an attempt by the Democrats to remove one of our stalwart warriors, Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher. Many of you contributed many hours to making phone calls, walking your neighborhood, and getting the word out about Dana, and you should feel proud of your success. This was achieved despite a 2% decrease in Republican voter registration in the L.A. portion of the 46th CD. Your efforts ensured that the registration decrease was countered by a higher voter turnout. This turnout was also a key factor in the passage of Propositions 8 and 11.

As many of you know, the opponents of Proposition 8 have been less than accepting of their defeat, despite the wide spectrum of support it had. They are trying to label it a "racist" measure, but how do you do this with a 70% support among African-American voters & over 55% support from Hispanic voters. I have my own theories regarding why these two groups supported Proposition 8, but the focus here is on the efforts many of you made to ensure it's passage.

Proposition 11 should be seen as a covert victory for the California Republican Party. We will know for sure after the 2010 census when the districts are re-established under the requirements of this measure. But with the districts gerry-mandered as they are now, I think it's safe to say that we in Los Angeles County have no where to go but up. My only caution for those ecstatic about Proposition 11 passing and "can't wait for the new districts" should step aside while the rest of us try to work on improving the party in this environment. The earliest we'll see improvements is 2012, and even then, the Democrats will already be working to mitigate those effects. We need to work now to ensure that the effects of Proposition 11 are both improvements and are long-lasting.

These are not all of the things that were successes, but I want to make an observation about what I believe is a fundamental operational problem with the Republican Party. I state this as a holder of a Certification in Marketing Communications, among other degrees, when I say that the Democrats are far better at marketing their messages to voters than Republicans. This is true not just locally or in California, but across the nation. The Democratic message that resonated among voters this year was actually begun in 2005, and Republicans not only did not counter it quickly and strongly, but did not even see what destruction it was doing to our party. We saw a glimpse of it in 2006 when we lost both Houses of Congress, but by then the slide was in full force. I also have a more detailed theory about this, but I'll focus on the point - Republicans need to get better at delivering a message that the average voter can quickly absorb. We teach Dale Carnegie students that the initial message has to be a complete, powerful statement that takes seven (7) seconds or less; otherwise the audience will likely tune out for the rest of the discussion. Democratic campaign managers know this well, as well as another important fact - the brain takes much more convincing than the heart. (Ever hear of "Knowledge at First Sight"? Me neither!)

Take an example - Proposition 2 passing. The Democratic message behind Proposition 2 was simple - Fight Animal Cruelty! If you vote against Prop 2, you hate animals! What was the "logical, conservative" response? Draw a 30-second connection between the financial effects of the measure with the eventual increase in meat & poultry products from Mexico, and hence an increase in salmonella. The problem with this tactic - most viewers of the ads had already tuned out. The initial message needed to be quick, sustaining - how about a "Kentucky Fried Tofu" billboard, just to lure the audience in, and then quickly state that this is the agenda of the Prop 2 supporters? Voters like animals, but they also like their KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell.

So what's next? How do we take what we learned this year and in 2006 and start the road to improvement? The primary thing we do is we keep the momentum, the passion, and the desire to see tings through. How do we do that? We get involved. This past week, I was extremely impressed with the enthusiasm and interest at two key meetings. The first was the local Central Committee meeting in San Pedro, in which the newest members of your local Republican Party got together to talk about many of the things I mentioned above, as well as strategies to start building back our foundation. The second, even more inspiring, was the tremendous turnout at the Beach Cities Republican Club event in Torrance on Thursday. I've never seen the level of turnout, over 120 people, who all wanted to learn more about what they can do. Club President, Pete Kesterson, and Southern California Republican Coalition Chairman, James Crean, both laid out opportunities for these motivated individuals to get more involved in taking action. My recommendation to all of you, if you were not at the Thursday meeting and did not sign up, is to join one of these great Republican Clubs. We will all be working together to rebuild, strengthen, and take back both what was lost and what should rightfully be done.

Please take a look at the list of clubs and their associated links in the left column. Please send me an email at stammiam@yahoo.com if you need some recommendations on which club(s) you should check out. Regardless of which you get involved with, you'll learn more about what you can do to be a part of the Republican revival! I hope to see you at these meetings soon!

State Propositions - Part 2

2008-09-19T20:42:00.001-07:00

I apologize for the delay in completing my run-through of the propositions. However, I was extremely fortunate to attend the South Bay Lincoln Club luncheon today and listen to my good friend, Stephen Frank, run through them for us. As most of you know, Stephen Frank is a political genius and watchdog who may very well be the best we have at critiquing and analyzing ballot measures like these, as well as executive and legislative action from our legislators. (It's no coincidence I have subscribed to his RSS feed in the left column of this blog from Day 1.)

After talking with Stephen today and listening to his review, I am now prepared to run down the remainder of the propositions for you. I'm going to start where I left off with Proposition 4, as my analysis of the first three was accurate, and run through the next three.

Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Don't let any side spin about this proposition fool you. This is a modified version of the original Parental Notification measure, relaxed in some ways in order to obtain what is hoped to be the necesary majority vote. These are the relevant changes:
- Consent is not required; only notification. The form of notification is either personal written or via mail;
- Medical emergencies;
- another adult family member can be notified if the minor submits a written statement that she fears physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a parent;
- a waiver could be granted by a juvenile court.

Some have asked me if I'm comfortable with all of these exceptions. What I'm less comfortable with is the current state, where no exception is needed because the procedure can be done without ANY notification.

The simple fact that Planned Parenthood, which I believe is simply an organization dedicated to performing as many abortions (especially minority abortions) as possible, is working hard to oppose this proposition tells me that it's better than what exists now and I urge a YES vote on Proposition 4.

Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.

Expands drug treatment programs to allow those committing major drug offenses, including meth dealers and other drug felons, to opt out of most of their jail time in exchange for a "commitment" to attend drug treatment programs. Here's the problem - those that attend these programs instead of jail time have a higher rate of committing more drug offenses. (How many celebrities can you think of that have gone through these programs?)

Guess who's supporting this proposition? Owners of treatment centers that will be funded through this proposition. Big surprise!

Know who opposes it? Among others, L.A. County District Attorney, the Honorable Steve Cooley, and State Senator Jeff Denham, the target of the "Don Perata" recall against Republican senators who opposed higher taxes. These two outstanding Republicans have the credibility to convince me - NO on Proposition 5.

Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.

This measure is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that specifically targets the gangs that prey on our children and on the immigrant communities. Specifically, provisions include:
- prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants that commit violent or gang crimes;
- imposes an additional 10-year penalty on gang offenders that commit violent crimes;
- requires convicted gang members to register with local law enforcement every year for five years following conviction or release from custody;
- increases penalties for manufacture or sale of meth, to match that of cocaine;
- additional 10-year penalty for felons that carry loaded or concealed firearms in public; and
- increased penalties for multiple acts of grafitti.

This measure was written by State Senator George Runner, after consultation with Jamiel Shaw, Sr. (father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the outstanding football player that was brutally gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, illegal Mexican gang member, simply for being black), and is endorsed by our own L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.

This is a close state version of the "Jamiel's Law" we're trying to pass in the City of Los Angeles, and will go a long way toward reducing the ability of gangs to "import" members through illigal immigration.

Vote YES on Proposition 6.

More to follow soon...

FLASH, FLASH, FLASH: Republican lawmakers unveil a no-tax budget at Sacramento press conference - CA

2008-09-01T10:11:00.000-07:00

Forwarding from Red County &, of all places, the Los Angeles Times.

Source: www.redcounty.com

"During a 1:30 PM Sacramento press conference, Republican lawmakers led by Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines unveiled a no-tax budget that funds education at the same level that Democrats proposed while trimming spending in other areas."

Republicans unveil no-tax budget in Sacramento press conference.

By Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 31, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Republican lawmakers, who are blocking plans by the governor and Democrats to raise taxes, proposed Saturday to balance the state budget instead with borrowing and deeper spending cuts.

Their plan, released 61 days into the new fiscal year, is the first complete budget offered by the Republicans. A vote on the proposal is not expected for days.

The legislative session ends at midnight tonight, and lawmakers are on the verge of breaking the record for the latest budget in at least 60 years, a mark set Aug. 31, 2002.

The failure of lawmakers to reach a budget agreement means the session will have to be extended, but no business other than the budget is likely to be discussed.

"Raising taxes at this point will definitely damage and hinder the economy and make it even more difficult to rebound form this downturn," said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, GOP leader in the state Senate.

Republicans are proposing instead to speed up borrowing against the lottery -- something the governor and Democrats had been proposing for next year -- to generate nearly $2 billion in cash in the current fiscal year. They would also take $349 million from a fund that cities and counties tap for redevelopment projects, including affordable housing.

The plan also would close the state's $15.2-billion gap with the help of $1.4 billion in service cuts beyond those already proposed by the governor and Democrats. The additional cuts would affect dozens of programs. Cash grants intended for the children of needy families, in-home care for the elderly and disabled, and financial aid for college students would all be reduced.

Programs to protect the environment, provide treatment to AIDS patients and offer new immigrants access to healthcare would also be scaled back. A labor studies center at the University of California would be eliminated.

Together, the measures would replace more than $4 billion in new sales taxes proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats.

Schwarzenegger dismissed the proposal as one that would merely push more of the deficit into next year.

"We were sent to Sacramento to solve problems once and for all -- not kick the can down the alley for others to deal with in the future," he said in a statement Saturday.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) called the GOP proposal a "blueprint for economic disaster."

California State Propositions 2008 - Part 1

2008-08-31T13:52:00.000-07:00

As promised, I am planning to go through each of the California State propositions and my personal voting recommendation for each. I may skip a few in order to do a full posting dedicated to those; currently, I plan to skip Proposition 4 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment), Proposition 8 (Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment) and Proposition 11 (Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute) because there are strong cases for each side that should be addressed.

I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:

Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.

This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:

1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!

2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".

I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.

Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.

"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"

After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.

But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.

Proposition 3 : 1271. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.

"Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"

I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.

Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.

I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.

NEWS FLASH - Local Assemblywoman says "Drill now"...sort of

2008-08-28T09:05:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, I'm a proponent of the "Drill Now" coalition that believes that the laws of supply and demand still govern modern day economics, and that increasing domestic supplies of oil will not only reduce the price of oil and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, it will increase revenues for the state & local jurisdictions without raising taxes on hard-working families.

Today, this was in the Long Beach Press Telegram & the Daily Breeze:

"By John Canalis, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/27/2008 11:31:22 PM PDT

LONG BEACH - A bill by Assemblywoman Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach, could lead to the discovery and extraction of additional oil from the Wilmington Oil Field beneath the harbor and pour hundreds of millions of dollars into city, port and state coffers, officials said Wednesday.

Assembly Bill 2165 would allow the State Lands Commission to negotiate a contract with the city and Occidental Petroleum Corp. to search for reserves and open new wells in the western end of the nation's third-largest oil field.

The agreement could mean an estimated $130 million to the city, $150 million to the port and $200 million to the state over 10 years, according to a bill summary.

'As we face difficult budget times at both state and local levels of government, this bill has the potential to help protect us from cuts to important city services, such as public safety,' Karnette said in a prepared statement.

'And as a Long Beach resident, I'm all for that.'"

Has the issue of higher gas prices reached a boiling point for voters, including Democratic voters throughout Long Beach? As many of you have correctly advised me as early as June, the answer appears to be "YES". With Senator McCain edging past Senator Obama in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll within days AFTER both the Democratic VP selection and the start of their convention, Democratic pollsters appear worried. Both of these events usually trigger a measurable increase in polling for the party candidate, and the state Democrats need voters to be excited about their presidential candidate in order to hide all of their failings here in California. Because this is not the case, and with 20%-30% of former Hillary voters stating their support for McCain (plus another roughly 20%+ of former Hillary voters still undecided), State Democrats are going to start feeling the pinch.

Assembly member Karnette's legacy will mean little if she cannot successfully hand off her termed-out seat to her mirror-image candidate, Bonnie Lowenthal. With California, and especially Long Beach, being a big source of Hillary supporters, the Democrats need to try to win those voters back. Because Senator Obama's campaign has not yet been successful in securing much more than 50% of them, this leaves open opportunities not only for Senator McCain to compete in California, but for Republican Assembly nominee Gabriella Holt to entertain Democrats & Independents that formerly supported Karnette, and are now taking serious looks at Senator McCain.

I believe this is an attempt by Assembly member Karnette and fellow Democrats to try and take the oil issue off of the table, and I hope our Republican nominees and leadership call them out for what this is...blatant pandering. I understand that Democrats will like this bill because it will provide more funds for them to waste; do you really think that public safety has such a low priority in the state budget that their services would be the first to go? And if so, why aren't Republicans calling for an open, public look at how all state services are funded, and where they are on the Democrat's list of priorities? If Public Safety and Education are so high on their lists, why are they the two subjects always threatened to be cut if another bond isn't passed?

We'll have to see how serious Assembly member Karnette is in ensuring this bill actually gets passed, or if this is merely a political stunt to say "See, Democrats want to solve the oil crisis! We introduced a bill!". I suspect that the worst thing that the Legislature could do, as far as Karnette and the Democrats are concerned, is actually pass this bill. I hope the Republicans call her bluff and pass it!

Then Bonnie can go back to the PV Land Conservancy & the Sierra Club and explain whether she supports Karnette's bill to drill in the district. I think you all know my position...

California Proposition Strategy - "Earn Your Vote or Else"

2008-08-23T22:55:00.000-07:00

Many of you are rightfully questioning the number of propositions on ballots each election day, and have figured out the Democratic strategy for getting important propositions crowded in with nanny legislation and expensive bond measures. Where some of you have taken the "when all else fails, vote no" in order to ensure our legislators can't "do more damage", it's critical to get the word out about those propositions we DO need passed in order to hold legislators more accountable to you the voters.

While I am currently working on a quick black-and-white slate form for assembly district precinct chairs to customize for their specific areas, I will ensure the recommended voting for the 12 propositions is included to distribute. But I will need the help of all of you to spread the word. Even better is to help spread the strategy I hope all of us will adopt: Propositions should "earn your vote" in order to be considered. So far, only three propositions have earned my support. I will break these out in separate posts to hopefully make the case and earn your support as well.

Over the next few weeks, unless other local news rises to a level of immediate need in reporting, I plan to dedicate my next few posts to specifically discuss each proposition. You're both welcome and encouraged to forward these comments throughout your statewide friends and family, and to post comments about whether you feel I'm on the right track or should consider a different position. While the overwhelming majority of this blog's readers are Republican, I know I have some Independent and Democratic readers, including RPV City Council member Tom Long (I didn't say they were all "fans"! LOL!). I welcome comments from all sources, and so long as there is no profanity or personal attacks, I allow the comments to be posted without edit. I feel it's important for all of us to see and participate in the comment dialogue.

If you'd like to prepare a position on a particular proposition, send me a word document at stammiam@yahoo.com, and if I agree with the position, I'll gladly post it with your name as a "special guest blogger".

Let's get these propositions vetted on behalf of our fellow Californians!

Calm before the Storm

2008-08-21T14:37:00.000-07:00

I hope I haven't woken up any one's e-mail as I've sent this out. No doubt most of us have been either on vacation or otherwise pre-occupied the past two months since the June primary to think about the political scene, whether it's Senator McCain's consecutive weeks closing the opinion poll gap or Gabriella Holt's repeated appearances at local Long Beach events to raise key issues within the "safe" Democratic forums. Today's posting is both a status check and an announcement of events in each of the three main 54th AD cities to get all of us excited and optimistic about the fall campaign season.

First, if you haven't heard about Senator McCain's stomping of Senator Obama at last Saturday's Saddleback Forum, then I definitely want to welcome you back from your overseas vacation. I have co-workers from Boston to Long Beach, including a lot of non-Republicans, who were talking about how poorly Obama did and how well McCain answered each question. The media has "acknowledged" McCain's victory through their non-existent coverage of the forum. Did anyone else notice the TINY article in the Daily Breeze about the forum? Our central committee got more coverage about our local TALB resolution last May than the nationwide Saddleback Forum received! The network news sources and CNN have all foregone doing ANY analysis of the forum, except to state that it happened and that Pastor Peter Warren should be commended for holding it. Pastor Warren should moderate ALL of the upcoming forums! He asked each candidate the same hard questions we would have asked each candidate, and the results were apparent. But, if you haven't seen the forum, the best site for viewing the forum is http://trevinwax.com/2008/08/17/obama-mccain-with-rick-warren-at-saddleback-forum-video/. This site breaks out every 10-15 minutes, and also has the complete transcript.

(As a side note, if you haven't read Pastor Warren's book, The Purpose-Driven Life, it is phenomenal!)

Locally, fellow activists like you have been asking me how our Republican Assembly Nominee, Gabriella Holt, is doing. I have not been as plugged in as I was prior to the June primary due to both county political activities and personal events. (In addition to my responsibilities to GOTV for Republicans across the county, I'm actually on a "Ready 5" status to welcome my 2nd daughter, Violet, to the world! So if I cut this posting short....). Gabriella has been running across the district, especially throughout Long Beach, in order to shore up local support and give Bonnie a challenge in her own backyard. And Gabriella's support has not been limited to "McCain-supporting" Republicans. Gabriella has met with voters across the spectrum, from dis-enfranchised Democrats who want change in Sacramento, Independent voters who want a representative that is not beholden to their party's agenda without exception, to other Republicans who are demanding more accountability from their current leaders. We have a candidate who appeals to them all, and her volunteer list has been growing recently with members from all of these groups.

A special recognition has to go out to her newest campaign manager, JoAnn Funch, who has temporarily relocated from the Northern Mid-West for the fall campaign to dedicate 100% of her time to getting Gabriella elected! JoAnn is working hard to coordinate Gabriella's appearances, including tomorrow evening's Long Beach Meet & Greet at 6132 Corsica Circle from 6pm-8pm. If you have some time tomorrow evening, please come out and let Gabriella know you're back from vacation and are ready to join the fall campaign!

Another surge of Republican Activism in Long Beach is the set of Long Beach Townhalls hosted by LBARP both this week and next. If you were not able to get to any of them this week, they are holding them at the same locations next week, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday. (Please visit the LBARP website at http://www.longbeachrepublicans.org/ for the three locations). The LBARP team, led by Long Beach City Prosecutor Tom Reeves, has been working hard to set up these opportunities for the conservative voice on the proposed tax increases and lack of civic accountability by many of the Democratic City Council members to be voiced, and for Republicans to learn how they can get plugged into Getting Out The Vote for their neighborhoods. Thanks in part to both the influence from our hard-fighting LB Chamber of Commerce and local conservative activists, Long Beach has been a much more business-friendly environment than it's sister-city across the bridges, San Pedro. It's no wonder all of the newer restaurants and retail predominantly open in Long Beach. (Meanwhile, San Pedro JUST got their first downtown Starbucks! Amazing!)

In San Pedro, however, all is not lost. We recently held our San Pedro GOTV event in conjunction with the McCain Nation event, and now have a great venue available for another event this fall to energize Republicans from San Pedro and East RPV. Thanks goes out to Golden State Campaigns and central committee member-elect John Cozza for helping me set up this event. Though the attendance did not match the 50+ RSVP response, it was a good event to have as a predecessor to others once our fellow Republicans return from summer vacations.

And on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the persistence and hard work of central committee members Nancy Comaford and James Crean have borne fruit in the securing of the former Marie Callendar's at the Promenade as our Republican campaign headquarters for the 2008 fall campaign season! We are making arrangements to get the furniture into it, and I will post operating hours as soon as I learn them. This will serve as an energizing venue for all of our fall Republican campaigns, including McCain, Holt, Gutierrez & Rohrabacher. So stand by for upcoming news about when to visit and get involved!

So from Long Beach, with the Holt Campaign & LBARP stirring up activism, to the Palos Verdes Peninsula setting up a new temporary campaign headquarters, I hope all of those reading this will set aside any large non-political projects to help us this season as we battle for both the future of our nation and the future of our state. All of our candidates will need your help!

GOTV Night - Michelle & Shawn Steel join Host Committee; Republican Nominees Holt & Gutierrez confirmed to speak

2008-08-11T17:05:00.000-07:00

Fellow Republican Activists & Friends,

I first want to send out a personal thank-you to both the Honorable Michelle Steel, our hard-fighting Board of Equalization Member, and our National Committeeman-Elect Shawn Steel for joining our host committee and lending their valuable support for this important event.

I am also extremely pleased to confirm both of your Republican Nominees, 54th State Assembly Nominee Gabriella Holt & 25th State Senate Nominee Lydia Gutierrez, to our fantastic agenda for Thursday Night's McCain Nation / GOP GOTV Event in San Pedro.

Both Gabriella & Lydia are important additions to our agenda, and these fantastic Republican women will have a dedicated portion of the agenda to present their campaigns, as well as the opportunity through an open forum with you to answer questions about how they will fight for you in Sacramento. This is your opportunity to have your voice heard and to learn how to get these great nominees elected by turning out the vote in your neighborhood!

The agenda includes:
- Two-way audience discussion about the 2008 national election;
- Brief video about Senator McCain;
- Joint conference call with a national Republican VIP;
- Brief overview on how you can Get-Out-The Vote in your local neighborhood;
- Discussion period about our state & local issues, followed by our state candidates (or representatives) telling you how they are going to address these issues when we get them elected.

I expect the California Republican Party to send the media to our event due to the relative size and planned agenda. This will be a good rally for all of us to kick-off our fall campaigns!

If you haven't done so already, please RSVP on our event site at: http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainnation/Default.aspx. (The zip code for our event is 90731.)

The site includes a feature to do driving directions for you. Though it's not required to attend, the RSVP help ensure we plan for seating, refreshments, and campaign literature for the nominees. Please bring as many friends, neighbors, disenfranchised Democrats & Independents, and others as you can!

See you Thursday for this important event in our local efforts to turn out the Republican vote!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008

2008-08-09T07:50:00.000-07:00

Fellow 54th AD Republicans,

It's time to kick off the fall campaign season with a motivating rally for the Republican ticket! August 14th is McCain Nation Night, so let's get together for John McCain's first national event day and get organized for the election. All of our local GOP candidates need our support!

South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008

August 14th, 2008 7:00pm

1891 N. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA

Please come to my event to talk about John McCain's agenda for America and to discuss what we can do to help him win. Then listen to other local candidates or their representatives to learn how you can help them get elected. As the election is only a few months away, this event will focus on making sure every supporter is empowered to get out the vote in their neighborhood.

John McCain consistently puts his country before his political interests and is committed to addressing the tough issues America cares about most. Our Republican candidates are also taking on the special insterests killing California, and they need our help! Please join us for this important and fun event!

Invited speakers include (partial list):
Lydia Gutierrez – Republican Nominee, 25th Senate District
Brian Gibson – Republican Nominee, 36th Congressional District
Gabriella Holt – Republican Nominee, 54th Assembly District

I hope you can join us for this important event!

Very Best Regards,
John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

Called your councilmember "fat" today?

2008-07-30T21:58:00.000-07:00

For those of us not blessed with an aggressive metabolism (which is probably 95% of us), we have to have some discipline in maintaining an active lifestyle & healthy habits, including our nutritional intake. This means making the proper choices and reaching personal decisions about one's physical appearance. While we all can't "decide" to be as physically fit as Governor Schwarzenegger, we must have some personal accountability about where we choose to eat. More importantly, we must preserve the right of all to choose when to eat well, and when to indulge. As Republicans, we believe in personal responsibility and the natural drive of people to want to be better.

The Democrats in the Los Angeles City Council have shown once again that they do not trust their citizens to do the right thing, and feel that it is their job to "guide" their residents to the right decision as they interpret it to be. The latest example of this elitist mentality is their decision on Tuesday to approve a measure banning new, stand-alone fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, including Council District 15 in the 54th Assembly District. Ironically, our own councilmember Janice Hahn was not among the 12 councilmembers unanimously voting for this insane measure. The roll call was both a surprise and a disappointment, because among the YEA votes were both Republican councilmembers Dennis Zine & Greig Smith, as well as City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss. I can understand Jack Weiss' lack of faith in trusting the citizens of Los Angeles to do the right thing, but our two Republican councilmembers will have some explaining to do to their party supporters.

The measure was led by Councilmember Jan Perry, whose comments lead us to the true motivation behind this personal vendetta of hers against the evil fast-food chains that force citizens to eat at their establishments. Perry commented about her district, "This is an area with a high level of childhood obesity and diabetes", and went on to state "This is NOT just about banning fast food; it is about offering choices to people - choices of healthy food from restaurants & markets". Once again, a Democratic elected official shows just how little they understand simple economics. Assuming that most of her constituents have some mode of transportation, does Perry believe they are going to stay within her district and wait for a Soup Plantation to open in their neighborhood? Or are they going to make a short trip over to neighboring Compton, Lynwood, Inglewood and other cities that will see an increase in sales tax revenue collected from their fast food franchises?

Republicans know the answer because we continue to see that situation manifest itself.

But Councilmember Perry made another comment that may have revealed her true motivation. The Daily Breeze article quoted her as saying "It's across the country where I have heard the most negative comments...I've been called a Nazi, a fascist, a Stalinist, and fat. The only one that hurt was the fat one." So because Councilmember Perry allowed a few hecklers find the soft portion of her think political skin, the southern districts of Los Angeles have to all go on a "forced diet".

(What "hurts" for most of us is that Perry was not bothered by the other three comments. One would think that negative socialist labels like the three she cites would be far more hurtful. I suspect the difference in the four comments is that most of our socialist city councilmembers cannot quickly determine whether the first three comments are complements until they figure out the source.)

As someone who is currently struggling with his weight as well, the last thing I plan to do is blame the restaurants that I CHOOSE to eat at for my former weight gains. When I made the personal decision about 4 weeks ago to start eating better, lowering my carbs and to increase my physical activity, I have dropped over 10 pounds and continue to get into better shape. I was recently able to "shop in my closet" and start wearing clothes I had earlier outgrown. As Republicans, we understand the power of positive motivation and encouragements through incentives. If Councilmember Perry has acted like a Republican, how would she have reacted?

First, she would have shown more positive self-esteem and not let political hecklers get to her. Next, she would have made her own personal changes to improve where she could, and accepted whatever improvements came. Finally, if she truly felt that it was her constituents (and not herself) that needed the "rescuing" from the evil fast-food chains, she would have proposed incentives for restaurants (including fast-food chains) that offer enough smart meal choices in their menu for constituents to choose from.

Of course, that would go against the Victo-Crat mentality of blaming everyone else for their own personal problems. Businesses should have to pay for making people fat, just like property owners should have to pay more in parcel taxes because the city-funded gang programs haven't been effective enough. But that's for another posting soon...

(From the CRP) New York Times: REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

2008-07-22T16:16:00.002-07:00

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.' [Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...

The DRUDGE REPORT presented the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Interim Posting: Why I (now) support the Ponte Vista project

2008-07-05T22:18:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, I have not been aligned with the supporters of the Ponte Vista development project nor the opposition group "R Neighborhoods Are 1" created specifically to thwart the project. I wanted to remain an open objectice critic of both sides, consistently holding both accountable for answering specific questions and concerns I had or were brought to my attention by stakeholders in San Pedro. I have met many intelligent people on both sides, as well as others who shared my skepticism of the selective information disseminated by both sides. When there have been forums, rather than pick a side and join the "rally", I have often spoke about my concerns with both sides, often meaning that neither side of supporters gave very much applause.

At the latest forum held last Thursday at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, I honestly believe I was the only objective speaker out of the hundreds that pulled a speaker card. I say so based on a simple observation: I was the only person I saw in the room with a "Neutral" speaker card, which was white. Those speaking For or Against were given Blue & Pink colored cards, respectively. When I spoke, I gave each side something to address that would show me that they were truly considering the interests of the community, and not their own self-serving ones.

For the Ponte Vista developers, I have been impressed with their willingness to redesign the complex to reduce the number of occupants and address the traffic issues. I have always been a proponent of public transit as the biggest opportunity to take cars off the road. My challenge for the development was to ensure the design of the complex allowed for the pick-up and unloading of passengers for the Dash system, as well as the Max Transit, the route that goes from Western Avenue up through Torrance to all of the major aerospace companies.

For the R-1 opposition group, I have two issues that have yet to be addressed: 1) The R-1 group has been unable to produce a counter-design for councilmembers and neighborhood council members to consider that meets the R-1 zoning and would still be a viable project. One-way studies have been paid for to basically support pre-answered hypotheses, but no one has shown that the R-1 zoning supports viable development of the site. Therefore, my conclusion is that no such design can be produced; and 2) With the current real estate market already being flooded with devalued homes, causing many of us to lose a significant amount of equity in the past year, why would it be economically feasible to support a development project that adds another 500+ single-family residences to the San Pedro / East RPV market? Many of the R-1 activists bought into their homes many years ago, or inherited their San Pedro homes from family. Equity drops are a small concern for them. For those of us who bought homes in the last 10 years, we stand to lose a significant amount of equity from an additional flood of homes on the market driving prices down further. Again, the R-1 group has no answers for this concern.

So after having my concerns addressed, if not resolved, by the Ponte Vista development staff and supporters, and having the R-1 activist group members basically downgrade my concerns about their position. I have decided to go on the record (via this blog post and future letters to come) and announce my support for the Ponte Vista project.

I have always been supportive of the project's primary benefits, including senior housing units & services, mid-range housing for working families, and the development of the property overall as an asthetic improvement to what is currently there. I am pleased that the developer renewed their previous commitment to the Eastview Little League to provide fields for use; I still believe that the original recision by the developer to produce the fields was the root cause for the whole fiasco last year that resulted in the dog park being taken away. I look forward to my friends of Eastview having a more permament location, and hopefully having time in the future to attend more than one game a year.

I still have concerns with traffic and environmental impact of a development on the property, but believe, based on my experience living in both condo complexes and SFR neighborhoods, that an R-1 development will also have the same impact issues. I suspect that the R-1 group does not want R-1 development on the site any more than the proposed project itself. My belief is that they are are hoping to stall development efforts indefinitely, and hope that the developer will eventually sell the property to the city for some community project, like a park or homeless facility. (In many parts of San Pedro and the City of Los Angeles, parks become homeless camps fairly quickly anyway.) I have always stated that the "no development" solution is the worst one; the property needs to be developed, and if the R-1 group is unable to generate a viable R-1 design for the site, then the City Council should realize that one does not exist.

So, in summary, I have spent over two years weighing the arguments of both sides, and have decided that the Ponte Vista project should go forward as it has now been designed. The project will generate jobs, mid-range housing for younger couples, and a senior living community that will make all of us want to become "55 and up" much faster. You are welcome to either post your public comments or e-mail me your private comments.

Term Extensions: Which is worse – "Bush" or Karnette? (Part I)

2008-07-03T16:47:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal ran a very interesting op-ed on Tuesday titled “Bush’s Third Term”. Most of us have heard that slogan used by the Democratic spin doctors to describe Senator McCain’s campaign, but the Journal was talking about the other candidate: Senator Obama. The op-ed points out Senator Obama’s quick re-direction away from the far left agenda to the center by suddenly adopting many of President Bush’s policies & positions. Examples include NAFTA, Nuclear Power, faith-based programs and even support for General Petreaus.

This is proof of acknowledgement by even the Democrat’s top of the ticket that in order to win on issues, candidates need to be centered, and maybe even close to the moderate right. After all, even Democratic voters tend to seek honesty, integrity, family values & fiscal responsibility in their elected representatives. The issue of which candidate’s platform more closely resembles President Bush’s gave me two thoughts: 1) Even Senator Obama has had to acknowledge that not all of President Bush’s policies are bad for the country; and 2) more locally, are we content with extensions of our state and local representation by electing those that would carry on the same policies and voting records as those they are replacing?

In our own district, the two termed-out incumbents are 25th District State Senator Ed Vincent and the 54th District State Assemblymember Betty Karnette. Because most of those in the overlap between the 25th Senate District and the 54th Assembly District are from the Palos Verdes Peninsula and have not been strong areas for Senator Vincent anyway, I will instead focus on the Assembly race that involved all of us here in the 54th AD. Long Beach Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal is running to (literally) replace Assemblymember Karnette, and we need to decide if we as voters are content with 6 more years of the same representation. To do so, we need to see how Karnette has voted on important legislation and decide how they align with the goals of Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

To start, voters throughout the 54th AD had a chance to extend the assembly terms of Karnette through last February’s Proposition 93, the deceptively-named “Term Limit Reduction” measure that would have allowed Karnette another 6 years in the Assembly. The measure tried to assert that it was reducing the terms of the current legislative membership, but most voters knew that voting for the measure would extend the number of terms of their respective legislator. The measure was expected to pass because it was assumed that on both Democratic and Republican districts, voters liked their representative and would vote to extend each of their careers. What Speaker Nunez and his political advisers failed to realize is that most voters do not have a favorable opinion of the state (or federal) legislative branch, and are willing to remove their own representative if it means removing all of the other do-nothing legislators faster as well. Combine that with most of our Republican leadership standing behind the Republican platform of term limits, the measure failed across the state. What is interesting to note is that the measure also failed in key regions where it should have passed, according to the Democratic strategy, including within Los Angeles County, and most importantly, within our own 54th Assembly District.

It seems district voters in February decided that Karnette was not worth saving and that new leadership was desired.

So the next logical question is: If voters did not choose to extend Karnette’s representation in the Assembly, do they want a “new” assembly member who will most likely continue to vote & perform the same way that Karnette did?

This is the question I will dive into in Part II of this series by comparing both Bonnie Lowenthal’s platform and Republican Assembly nominee Gabriella Holt’s platform to that of Betty Karnette’s to see whether either candidate can be given the label “Karnette’s Third Term”.

In Part III, I will tie in the Journal’s or-ed about Senator Obama by discuss whether his run to the center, and specifically his embracing of key Republican positions, will help or hinder legislative candidates at the federal, state and local levels, and how the Democratic Party will need to reconcile its messages to have both credibility to the centrists & moderates, as well as maintaining the interest if it’s far-left base to turn out in November.

Drill now...or $8 per gallon gas? What is your choice?

2008-06-23T22:31:00.000-07:00

Like many of you, I've been listening to the daily talk shows on both the radio and on cable discuss the oil crisis. I believe that unless the Democratic Congress figures out how to get gasoline back down under $4 per gallon, the energy crisis will be a much bigger factor on the November election than the Iraq War or anything else Democrats can stir up. Let's face it: the Iraq War has not been the primary factor in the November elections since 2002 (yes, BEFORE we went in!) when Republicans (and Democrats) campaigned on a strong forceful approach to Iraq. In 2004, Senator Kerry had plenty of skeletons in his closet that our Swift Boat friends were happy to enlighten us about. In 2006, the Republican Party had both entangled itself with various scandals and Democrats did a good job of exposing the wasteful government spending of Republicans. In 2008, I believe the issue that will eclipse the Iraq War will be the cost of gasoline and what each candidate (at all levels) proposed to do about it.

This is where we have a HUGE advantage! Regardless of your income level, political affiliation, or other concern, everyone is affected by the price of gasoline. Even my mass transit friends who still ride the MAX bus from San Pedro to El Segundo (and hence do not commute in a car) have to purchase groceries and other things that are becoming more expensive due to the cost of transportation. Lower income families are affected the most, as they are seeing a higher percentage of their disposable income having to go to the rising cost of gasoline and related expenses. So...our new leaders HAVE to have viable solutions to this growing problem.

The ideas coming from the Democrats center around this basic premise: We have to find someone to BLAME! It's either the speculators, or the naughty SUV drivers (like me) or maybe even the greedy oil companies that want to (heaven forbid) actually make a profit doing business. The latter two "causes" have recently become less promoted by Democrats, likely because most of their fellow voters are also driving SUV's, and voters are starting to see that adding taxes to businesses like oil companies will simply raise the prices at the pump. (Remember - businesses don't pay ANY taxes! Consumers do when the increase costs are flowed into the prices of goods and services.) I particularly like the recent emphasis on blaming the speculators, particularly because Democrats won't admit that the solutions proposed by Republicans would actually address the issue of speculation.

Republicans have been leading the fight to declare now as the time to consider drilling oil domestically. Presidential candidate John McCain has recently acknowledged that high prices combined with our dependency on foreign oil have re-prioritized our need to explore and utilize our natural resources while our technological advances are busy working to strengthen viable energy alternatives. While I hope that all states with oil resources will choose to tap into them, I think McCain has the proper position that gives states the right to decide whether they will drill. (This is one of the basic tenets of the Republican Party - states' rights over federal rights as much as possible). All three states with the most oil reserves, Alaska, California and Florida, are experiencing recent increases in their unemployment rates. Opening the opportunities for oil companies to invest in drilling operations in each of those states will almost assuredly increase employment. What else will it do? Increase supply, of course!

But Democrats claim that we would not see any significant amounts of oil from these operations for 10+ yuears. Thought more credible engineers state that we wold see significant amounts within 3 years, wouldn't forecasts of higher oil amounts (even later than sooner) have a significant impact on the speculation of oil volume? So wouldn't increasing the oil supply take away the alleged "power" of the speculators?

This is more of the Democrats' need to have issues with parties to blame, rather than viable solutions that could dry up an issue. Such is the case with the homeless, the state education system and affirmative action. If any of these issues were to suddenly be declared resolved, activists of these issues would be without purpose. Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the will of their allies, the far-left environmentalists, to drive the price of gasoline so high.

Even Senator Obama has been quotes as saying that he thinks prices should be this high, but that he wishes it hadn't risen so fast. I guess he was hoping that we'd all have to wait for him to be elected before paying so much for gas.

Don't worry Senator! With your party in control of Congress, we're on a pace to see $8 a gallon gasoline by October. What will Americans do then?

Much Ado about Laura Richardson

2008-06-18T20:29:00.000-07:00

If you're even half as interested in the political scene as I am, you've no doubt read about the financial problems of Democratic Congresswoman Laura Richardson. Being a homeowner and one who had enough "fun" as it was securing one home loan, I was bewildered that Richardson somehow managed to get financed for multiple home loans with a salary that, while not a small one, was far too small to justify the amounts extended to her. Of course, now we're hearing about the sweetheart deal extended to Senator Dodd, but I want to keep the focus locally. Because the issue isn't about having loans extended; what we're starting to learn now is that 1) Richardson may not have been forthright when applying for all of these loans; and 2) she had multiple debts across Long Beach and commitments left unattended to for extended periods of time.

Here's the latest from the Long Beach Press Telegram:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9624807

But the issue I want to focus on is the "$64 question" everyone is asking: Why didn't the Republican Party run someone against her, and even now, why isn't the GOP engaged in a more active campaign to have her recalled? In answering this question, I often think back to last year around the same time, when we nominated Army Colonel and Iraqi War Hero John Kanaley to take on the upset victor on the Democrat side, Assemblymember Laura Richardson. (Remember she beat a well-funded Jenny Oropeza, rising up the Black Caucus to "defend" the former Miller-MacDonald seat from the Hispanic Caucus). I watched some of my close friends work extremely hard on the Kanaley campaign, and despite having this role model candidate, they watched the 37th Congressional District elect an inexperienced "professional politician" based primarily on her party membership. Based on observing this last year, my assessment of the politics of the 37th district is simple. If you win the Democratic nomination, you've won the seat.

Many have called me or e-mailed me lately to rally supporters to a recall cause. While I would love to see the recall of a fiscally-irresponsible Democratic politician succeed, I am cautious about allocating resources and time in a heavy election year already filled with great candidates I've talked about in earlier posts this year. We need to be careful in spreading our efforts too thin, and in doing so not placing enough effort into winning identified opportunities. Those that have asked me what they should do this year have been directed to one of the local campaigns in our district, which will also help our presidential nominee Senator John McCain.

Another reason why I'm not jumping feet first into the "Recall Laura" endeavors is that I honestly feel that objective investigative forces, including the Long Beach Press Telegram, have done a great job of digging into Richardson's financial history. The last thing we need is for Richardson to be able to use the excuse that all of the reporting of her financial ignorance is simply a "right-wing conspiracy" out to get her. I recommend that we continue to stay objective in our personal analysis of her situation, let the media continue digging, and remind voters that we are not really THAT surprised that a Democratic politician is having trouble balancing her accrued expenses with her income.

After all, doesn't the word "Democrat" automatically imply "fiscally irresponsible"?

June 3rd: Thank you so much...

2008-06-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

Now that the dust has settled on the June 3rd Primary Election, it's time for the dust to settle and for us to get to the real tasks at hand: Winning back the 54th AD & securing the White house for another 4 years. But first, I have to thank you all for your phenomenal support and turnout.

Many of you not only voted for me and my slate of "Can-do" candidates, you spread the word extremely well. And the results show it. The "Can-do" slate of seven candidates finished in the top seven, sweeping the central committee election and ensuring a solid team of operationally-minded members for the 2008-2010 term. This new group takes over in November, and I am extremely excited for our local campaign strategy for 2009 and 2010. It takes more than just a few members to make a difference, and the next committee will be committed toward helping local Republicans running for city councils, school boards and other local seats get the support they need to start making gains in the 54th Assembly District.

The list at the top of the left column will be your new central committee. First and foremost are the two legislative nominees, Gabriella Holt & Lydia Gutierrez, that we must now dedicate our local resources and efforts to get elected. They are both phenomenal candidates that bring us a new opportunity to take key seats that previous nominees did not, and not just because they represent the significant trend of Republican women taking control. Each has unique traits and skills that they bring to our Party that will enable us to openly discuss the most important issues with Democrats, Independents and fellow Republicans alike.

Lydia Gutierrez will compete well against Democratic nominee Rod Wright for the 25th Senate District seat. Her upbringing and experience as a LBUSD school teacher, plus her activism for children and stronger family values will make many Democrats and Independents consider whether their current parties have represented their values and concerns like Lydia will if given the opportunity to be their state senator.

Gabriella Holt, our Republican nominee for the 54th Assembly District, brings a solid background of experience in the fields of health care, business and education, the three big issues Democrats are hoping to use against our party. Unlike the campaign events prior to the Democratic Primary, the Democratic nominee, Bonnie Lowenthal, will not be able to simply give short, pithy answers and watch her opponent talk herself into a liberal frenzy, like former Democratic candidate Tonia Reyes Uranga did. Gabriella will force Bonnie to either campaign on the issues, or watch as Long Beach figures out what most of us in San Pedro know: It takes more than podium speeches to win the public. This committee will be dedicated foremost to its pledged mission to win elections in the 54th AD, and its primary one has always been and will continue to be this one.

For information on their campaigns, please see my website list in the left column or e-mail me at stammiam@yahoo.com. Your continued support and involvement will be essential in helping our two 2008 nominees win their campaigns.

Thank you again, for your wonderful support. I pledge to continue representing you in the Republican Party and listening to your concerns, locally, in the state and nationally. We have a lot of work to do after a horrible 2006 performance. But this is when we see who has the strength and persistence to rise again and fight for our principles and values.

I look forward to working with all of you this summer and fall to elect our great candidates: Holt, Gutierrez, and McCain!

California now a "Battleground State", thanks to the CA Supreme Court

2008-05-22T05:36:00.000-07:00

No doubt many of your have already heard about the California Supreme Court decision last week to overturn the will of the voters in declaring marriage as being between a man and a woman to be "unconstitutional". This is despite the fact that California voters have been very open to the opportunities of domestic partnerships, including child adoption, partner benefits and other laws protecting members of the homosexual community. Rather than accept California as the role model state for others looking for the middle ground to satisfy large majorities on this issue, activist groups like Freedom to Marry and others are challenging California with an "All or Nothing" attitude.

Because of this irrational persistence, there is an increasing tide of conservatives and moderates who just may ensure that the latter is the case.

I have been in Washington, DC this past week, and I read this editorial in USA Today this morning that makes this same assertion. (You know there's problems on the far left when conservatives like me start agreeing with media outlets like USA Today.) Here are the opening paragraphs from the editorial:

"Our view on same-sex marriage: California ruling invites backlash against gay rights
Civil unions, the best solution, are jeopardized by court decision.
Last week, when California became the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, same-sex couples celebrated and began planning June weddings. Good for them. But the unfortunate and unnecessary impact of the California Supreme Court ruling might well have been to set back the cause of gay rights more broadly.

"The judges ruled 4-3 that gays' inability to get married amounts to discrimination under California's constitution, even though the state's domestic partnership laws give them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

"In other words, pragmatic political compromise on the intensely controversial issue is not allowed in California. It's all or nothing, and recent political history leaves little doubt about what will follow.

"In the three years after Massachusetts' top court legalized gay marriage in 2004, 23 states rushed to adopt constitutional bans on gay marriage. This presidential election year is likely to bring more of the same.

"In effect, California's high court fixed something that wasn't broken. The state's domestic partnership laws have been a model for other states searching for the needed middle ground that addresses the deep-felt national division over gay marriage."

The full editorial, plus opposing views from both sides of the issue, are located here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/our-view-on-sam.html#more

My take on the ramifications of this ruling is this: the California Republican Party now has a November issue to motivate ultra-conservatives to turn out (and vote for the full Republican ticket), and for moderates (who accepted the domestic partnership middle-ground) to hold Democratic politicians responsible for risking California's status as the original middle-ground state. In my opinion, the persistence of the ultra-left wing activists in the gay-rights community has made California a potential battleground state for McCain.

Why do I believe this?

First, did you notice how quickly Senator McCain scheduled a trip to Stockton after the ruling? Second, have you heard a press release from either Democratic Presidential campaign since the ruling? Senator McCain has already gone on the record as being a defender of the sanctity of marriage between a man & woman, which is still supported by 56% of voters nationwide, according to the Gallup Poll cited in the USA Today editorial. Finally, the right-wing groups that had been pushing for a constitutional amendment about marriage have been given new life, and are now collecting more signatures at a feverish pace.

In our own assembly district, the issue of homosexual marriage will be a volatile one. With Long Beach being a stand-out city on gay-rights issues and activism, no doubt the ruling has been the topic of many local conversations and speeches. But with the heavy concentration of Catholic/Christian Democrats in both East Long Beach and San Pedro who will not be comfortable sacrificing their religious tenants in favor of a secular movement, the 54th Assembly District is going to have plenty of debates and discussions on this topic. Especially after the constitutional amendment measure is confirmed for the November ballot.

If Republicans claim the established middle-ground on this issue by accepting the premise of domestic partnerships while holding the line and protecting the sanctity of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, I believe we will see moderate districts, including our own 54th AD, lean heavily toward McCain and our other great Republican candidates.

Let's hope the far-left Democrat candidates running this fall feel the pressure from the gay-rights special interest groups to keep leaning even more left. The irrational insistence to claim the "M" word (marriage) for themselves has re-opened a Pandora's Box that conservatives and moderates can work together to close in the best interests of all voters.

Special Guest Poster: RPV Council Member Tom Long

2008-05-16T18:10:00.000-07:00

While I was beginning to gather information to address the horrific ruling by our CA Supreme Court and our need to rally behind the November ballot measure to make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, I received a very welcome surprise posting from none other than RPV City Council Member and former Mayor Tom Long, the primary Democratic troublemaker on the Peninsula.

Those that volunteered at our PV Farmer's Market table last year remember Tom Long always trying to set up his little table right next to ours, always borrowing pens and voter registration forms, and most importantly...trying to make the feeble argument that we should not be there because we were making the RPV City Council race partisan.

I've brought forward both his posting and my reply and would love to get more postings regarding your thoughts about Mr. Long's assertions.

Enjoy!

Tom Long said...: Turning disputes on local issues into a partisan debate is really unfortunate and does nothing to help address the issues. Those who know my history know that I have endorsed a number of Republicans for local office and that I have not acted in a partisan way on the RPV council. The votes on the issues are rarely divided by party registration.

Sadly the Republican Party 54th District Organization and some of the candidates it has supported have made a mockery of the California Constitution's requirement that local elections be non-partisan.
As for the rest of the blogger's comments, people should not judge issues such as these on party affiliation. I encourage you to get the facts. Most of the facts are available (from different perspectives) on my webpage www.palosverdes.com/tomlong and on www.pvpwatch.com

Tom Long
Councilmember, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com
John S said...: Dear RPV Councilmember Tom Long,

Thank you for finding my blog and reading it!

I'd like to address your two main assertions from your posting, which I published without edits for the mutual benefit of ourselves and my readers.

To start, we know that both you and Doug Stern endorsed Steve Wolowicz last fall in your re-election campaigns because you both knew that:
a) Steve has a very high base of supporters that would not have voted for either you nor Doug if you hadn't endorsed him. You chose a wise tactic of giving voters a complete slate to vote for, and making sure that the strongest candidate on the ballot was a part of it.

b) You and Doug needed a 3rd person to complete your slate or else risk Paul Wright getting more votes than one of you two. If Steve Wolowicz had NOT been on your slate card, Paul Wright would have easily closed the 80-vote gap and beat Doug Stern.

So your strategy worked and I would have done the same; but your claim of endorsing Republicans is purely for survival, and not proof of any claim of being bi-partisan. When you're willing to look at Republicans over Democrats for key non-partisan races, like say judicial races, then you'll get some credibility. As for me, ask judicial candidate Kathleen Blanchard, a Democrat running against two Republicans, if I'm willing to look objectively and endorse the best candidate regardless of party.

Next, you continue to cite a CA constitutional requirement that local elections MUST be non-partisan and alluding to our November 2007 involvement in the RPV elections as somehow being unconstitutional. This is both sad and mistaken, and your constant harassment of our volunteers at the PV Farmer's Market about this will continue to be challenged by both me and the Republican leadership at the county and state level. For over 30 years, your own Democratic party has been significantly MORE active in local elections throughout the state and throughout Los Angeles County than Republicans until just recently. When you're willing to call out your own party for making elections throughout the state partisan, maybe then I'll give you some credibility. Until then, you're simply another Democratic hypocrite that only complains about something when it doesn't serve your own purpose.

I published both your comments and these because I want my readers to get a chance to respond with comments of their own.

Thank you for affirming what I've been telling my supporters throughout Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon, Signal Hill & the Palos Verdes Peninsula! We are having an effect, and the tide is shifting!

We know it, and we now know that YOU know it!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

SWEET! I live for this stuff! I hope Mr. Long is ready. Just so he is, I will promise to him that we will be again involved in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council race in November 2009. And for the other cities in the 54th AD, I promise you we will be there as well when Republican candidates call on us.; It'll all start in Signal Hill in February 2009...

John

Judicial Endorsements for June Primary

2008-05-10T21:29:00.000-07:00

Fellow conservatives,

In keeping with my commitment to getting out the word on all of the races for June 3rd, I wanted to talk a little about a friend of mine running for Superior Judge. Even better, I'll let her talk to you herself. She sent out a posting for me to use, and I've included most of it below.

Of note, Kathleen Blanchard has joined with superior judge candidates of multiple parties to create a true crime-fighting team of conservative judiciary candidates. Kathleen received the endorsement of the Lincoln Clubs of Los Angeles County, which is a true sign of a conservative candidate. Here is most of her message below, including the team of candidates I am endorsing for June 3rd. (The list includes both judiciary candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County - Michael O'Gara & Michael Jesic.)

"Hi everyone! As you know, I am running for judge in the June 3rd election (seat 123). I am writing to solicit your help in getting the word out about the election. There are 11 superior court seats on the ballot, and not much else, so I fear that voter turn-out will be extremely low. What that means is that every vote counts A LOT.

I am asking that each of you send a mass e-mail to everyone you know in Los Angeles County, asking them to VOTE on June 3rd, and to vote for the best caandidate in each of the judicial races.

...(T)ell them about me (a career prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Division, prosecuting gang-related homicides, endorsed by virtually every police officer organization in LA County, the LA Times, Antonovich, Knabe, Cooley, Baca, & more than 30 Superior Court Judges) and/or about my opponents (both of whom were rated "not qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association), or you can simply refer them to my website at www.blanchard4judge.com where they can learn everything they need to know about my race.

In addition to my own race, I have some suggestions about whom to vote for in the other seats. These aren't just friends of mine; they are great prosecutors who have dedicated their careers to public service. Each of them would make an excellent judge. But, again, you don't have to believe me. Each has a campaign website where you can go to see their qualifications for yourself:

seat 69 Serena Murrillo www.murilloforjudge.com
seat 72 Hilleri Merritt www.merrittforjudge.com
seat 82 Thomas Rubinson www.tomrubinson4judge.com/
seat 94 Michael O'Gara ogara4judge.com
seat 95 Lance Winters www.wintersforjudge.com
seat 119 Jared Moses www.mosesforjudge.com
Seat 123 Kathleen Blanchard www.blanchard4judge.com
seat 154 Michael Jesic www.jesicforjudge.com

If you would please pass this information along to everyone you know, wherever they live in L.A. County, and ask them to do the same, I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible, so that people can just print out the list & take it with them to the polls. Thank you so much for all of your help! Please let me know if you have any questions."

I plan to compile all of my endorsements into one easy handout that I will send out, and will also try to set it up on this site to download it. This way, you'll have what you need for the polls.

Why the Central Committee elections matter...

2008-04-28T21:33:00.000-07:00

Until I moved to San Pedro and got more involved with the County Party, I had never heard of County Central Committees. When I worked campaigns for gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, Bush 2000, and congressional candidate Tim Escobar in 2002 and 2004, I never once heard of the central committee structure or how they were "supposed" to be working to get out the Republican vote. I have some theories why, but I think more importantly than why past committees have been pretty much irrelevant in the campaigns I have worked over the past 10 years, I want to instill in everyone that reads this why we need stronger and more effective central committees.

I was introduced to the central committee organization in 2006 working for Michael A. Jackson's campaign. My first impression was that the central committee's purpose was to give seven people plus ex-officios a status as being the "Republican authority" of their respective district. They were supposed to meet once a month and discuss opportunities to recruit more Republicans for office. What I saw throughout Los Angeles County were a few members in each district trying to do just that; but I also noticed those that ran for central committee strictly for their own agendas. They assumed that a position on the committee meant coffers of money would open up, and that they were "entitled" to support from every Republican in their district, if not through donations at least every Republican vote in the district. What they failed to do was reach out and ask voters and locally-elected leaders HOW they could earn their support.

My biggest priority for my first term was to learn HOW to earn the support of the local leaders and learn from them how to win elections in their parts of the district. The biggest lesson I have learned is that voters do NOT want activists as legislators, so much as they want leaders that have shown action in their activism. They also want intelligent legislators who work their way up through their local councils, school boards and community organizations. If you look at the Democratic leaders who have been successful, they all came from local elections; so have most of the Republican elected legislators. So it makes sense that we need to get more active in electing more Republicans to our local offices in the district.

So long as we play the Democrats game of "non-partisan" elections, they will continue to win majorities on our city councils. No where is this more evident than in our three primary parts of the 54th Assembly District. In Long Beach, the Democratic Party has engaged in a 12-year effort to maintain an ultra-high majority. They have done this through the unions & special interest organizations, and I have to commend one of my counterparts, Sergio Carrillo, for keeping the "non-partisan" message resonating well. Not only have local Democratic candidates been able to hide behind this, they've even been able to convince Republican voters that local elections are somehow non-partisan. So let me ask a few questions about "local issues" to see if we could afford a little partisanship:

1) Do you like paying MORE property taxes or LESS property taxes?
2) Do you prefer MORE social welfare programs or LESS programs?
3) Do you prefer MORE local government regulations on small businesses, or LESS?
4) Do you prefer MORE crime (through ignoring increasing crime trends), or LESS crime by getting tougher on criminals and gangs (think City of Los Angeles vs. City of Torrance)
5) Do you prefer MORE local government spending or LESS government spending?

I hope now you can see why promoting Republican principles and values in local races is essential. But who should be taking on the responsibility to promote these by finding and supporting local Republicans throughout each district? THIS is the official mission of your local Republican Central Committee, and one that I take very seriously.

So long as I am chairman of the 54th AD Republican Central Committee, local Republicans who seek to make a difference in their city, be it Long Beach, Signal Hill, Avalon, Los Angeles, Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes, will have a group of Republican leaders behind them. This is why I am running for another term on the committee; because we have work to do in 2009 & 2010.

To close, I have learned of an effort by a few candidates to divide Long Beach (& Avalon) Republicans from those in Palos Verdes & San Pedro by marginalizing the importance of a cross-district level of support. These "Greater Long Beach" candidates are missing a key component in their campaign: Support from ANY Long Beach elected Republican. Meanwhile, I am pleased to state that two of our best Long Beach Republican leaders, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and LBUSD Board member Jon Meyer, have endorsed me, as well as my friend Davina Keiser, for election on June 3rd. I have received numerous other endorsements from across the district, and I have posted them at the top of the left column. Many of these leaders have expressed a desire for our central committee members to work together across the district and help each other when each local race comes up. Those I have endorsed understand this purpose, and voting for these seven will increase the strength of our committee to seek out good Republican candidates and give them the necessary volunteer and operational support to win local election.

I hope you will make sure to vote on June 3rd for myself and my six friends, and spread the word to all of your Republican friends in Long Beach, Avalon, Signal Hill, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We have a lot of work to do, and a divided committee will have the same problems in 2 years that past committees did. A united committee will be able to effectively take on the unions and special interests battling to take over our local governments and our local schools.

Your vote matters on June 3rd!

When Democrats run the RPV City Council...

2008-04-20T21:56:00.000-07:00

Many of you have been reading about the issues within the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, ranging from the increase in personal crime to the lack of fiscal accountability of its budget process. You've also read about the petty attacks by Council member Tom Long, including those of you among the more than 4,000 residents e-mailed from Long accusing fellow Council member Peter Gardiner of cronyism and acting on personal vendettas. Gardiner has been a voice of accountability, and has been a thorn in Long's side as Long tries to impress enough Democratic leaders for higher office, including a possible judgeship if the Democrats win the governor's race in 2010.

For those who worked with me on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council elections in 2007, you'll recall former Mayor Tom Long trying to tell us that the Republican Party being involved in a local, non-partisan race, in his words, "violated the state constitution". He was, and still is, a political bully who tries to intimidate anyone who disagrees with his motives and plans. The verbal attacks on Council member Gardiner have been what I would expect from Long, who STILL has not given any accountability to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes regarding the frivolous IT budget spending or the improper and unethical use of the "PV on the Net" resources that the Daily Breeze confirmed is not permitted for campaign purposes, even if, as Long puts it, it's available to everyone.

But this type of hypocrisy is not something that Council member Long holds an exclusive claim to; this is the same types we hear all of the time from Democratic leaders throughout the state. So it's no wonder that the majority of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has issues presenting its residents with honest accountability and fiscal responsibility; the majority of the RPV City Council is Democrat.

Now while I agree that not all Democrats have issues like this, I believe that Council member Tom Long has serious issues with accountability to the residents he has been charged to serve; worse, Long also has issues with humility when confronted with situations that conflict with his motives and plans, and will verbally attack anyone who challenges him.

I look forward to challenging him and anyone who aligns themselves with him. Bullies have always been my primary peeve, and I take a personal stake in finding those that bully others, especially politically, and will always seek opportunities to remove them from office, regardless of their political registration. We have a few in our party, including a couple I've mentioned in earlier posts. Council member Long is an exceptional one, using his knowledge of the law to twist it and take advantage of those that he thinks know less than him.

When the next RPV election approaches in 2009, I plan to be there to help swing the RPV City Council back to the Republican majority, and in the process return fiscal responsibility & resident accountability to my former hometown.

Another young, promising life gunned down by gangs,...another podium speech!

2008-04-14T13:50:00.000-07:00

Last week, I was moved significantly by the story of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. and angered at the lack of caring and support from the Los Angeles City Council to address illegal alien gang members preying on our inner-city youth. One of the initial supporters actually had to request ALL of the council members to quit their side-bar discussions to pay attention. Residents throughout Los Angeles are connecting through the Shaw family, including myself, to say enough is enough. When Cheryl Green was killed by gang members, out came the podium with all of our elected leaders, including the Mayor and our councilmember, stating that something must be done. When Christopher Ash was targeted and killed by the same gang members last December, out came the podium again. Something must be done! Less than a month later, Demetrius Perry, a 23-yr-old black man working with middle school youth, was gunned down by three Latino gang members identified later as Mexican Mafia in the school gymnasium. Out came the podium!

Now we have Jamiel Shaw, Jr.: a role-model student who stayed away from gangs, worked hard in school, two-time high-school football MVP, and being recruited by Stanford & Rutgers. His parents are also role-model citizens; his mother serving our country overseas as an Army soldier in Iraq. Imagine being in the middle of Baghdad, where you’d expect the risk of danger to be very high, and getting the call. “Your son was shot and killed three doors down home, by a gang member that authorities had released less than 24 hours prior.”

Special Order 40 prevents the LAPD from stopping or detaining a person solely based on their legal status. This order had the intention of relieving the issue of an illegal resident coming forward to report a crime by protecting them from being asked their legal status and possibly being deported. But the practice of this order has been to prohibit law enforcement from EVER inquiring about the legal status of a detainee, and gangs throughout Los Angeles have been allowed to thrive and grow. Many of our surrounding jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriffs, have informally adopted Special Order 40 due to the pressure to align with the LAPD as the largest police department in the county. This is not solely helping Latino gangs, but Asian gangs and Black gangs have also been able to use this interpretation to not only prey upon our inner city youth like Cheryl Green and Jamiel Shaw, Jr., but it also gave them access to Pedro Espinoza, the 19-yr-old gang member who killed Jamiel Shaw, Jr.

Mayor Villariagosa said "He was gunned down by someone who was close in age but who took a different path," In my opinion, the reason that “different path” exists is due to how our previous police chiefs, Mayors and City Council members have required Special Order 40 be applied. Because we have not given our law enforcement both the support and the incentive to go after gang members here illegally, they were able to recruit Pedro Espinoza.

Pedro Espinoza was brought to this country illegally at the age of 4. His parents came seeking a better life, and worked very hard like most parents do. Because these gangs rely upon illegal immigrants and recruit them regularly, our immigrant youth population see these illegal alien gang members coming back and forth across a porous border, and they see the police “walking on eggshells” when questioning these thugs because of political correctness. They see the gangs as strong and the police as weak!

Special Order 40 creates that environment because of how it is applied; this approach has been supported by both Chief Bratton and Mayor Villariagosa. Jamiel's Law will modify Special Order 40 to direct the LAPD to use the gang intervention database already available to the LAPD to look up gang members and determine their legal status, and turn over any that are either in this country illegally or cannot confirm their citizenship to Immigration & Customs Enforcement for further disposition, including possible deportation.
Councilmember Hahn wants us to consider a $30M anti-gang initiative measure this November - if she does not support this immediate NO-COST action to get rid of illegal alien gang members coming to our city to prey on our children by recruiting them or killing them, how can she ask us to be taxed on "anti-gang" programs that do much less? It's not our responsibility to give these gang members a place to play basketball or congregate so they can plan their next crime! It's our job to weaken these gangs as much as possible by deporting as many of those that want to harm our families and our children as we can! Regardless of how you feel about immigration in general, I hope we can ALL agree that gang members who come to this country are not doing so to become law-abiding citizens! Please keep the Shaw family in your thoughts and prayers, especially Jamiel Jr's mother, Anita, who returned to Iraq last week to complete her Army tour of duty. Despite this heavy burden that she now has to bear. Anita Shaw values her service to our country so high that she believes that Jamiel Jr. wanted her to return. I sincerely hope she does not give up hope in the good people of this city, this state and this country who benefit every day because she puts her life on the line. But...Anita is RIGHT when she said last Tuesday to our City Council “This does not make sense!” Jamiel Jr. should have been safe, and we failed in our duty to protect and to serve. There is no excuse, and we must now do everything we can to make sure his tragic sacrifice is not fruitless. We must take our L.A. communities back from these illegal gang members and give them back to the good residents & neighbors like the Shaws who so courageously stood up to the semi-attentive and later politically-correct city council last Tuesday!I cannot think of a more deserving young man, God-loving family, and especially one that has already given so much to this country and to their community. It is our job, now, to give them the support they deserve. It’s time to put away the podiums and start taking action!

San Pedro H.S. Seniors get it...why don't Democrats?

2008-04-03T22:36:00.001-07:00

I had the opportunity to join 54th Assembly Republican candidate Gabriella Holt at San Pedro High School yesterday to talk to the senior class about the 54th AD campaign and opportunities to get involved. Also attending the day-long session were the two Democratic candidates, Long Beach Vice-Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal & Long Beach City Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga. All three candidates, and their campaign reps, were very cordial & we enjoyed a day of listening to each other speak to six separate government classes about the 54th Assembly seat race.

What impressed me the most about the sessions were the great questions that the seniors asked the candidates. My assessment of the three candidates' performance could be summarized as this: The Democrat candidates talked to the students like they were 8th graders; Gabriella & I talked to them like they were adults. Not that we talked over their heads; I think both Democrats did that at times, especially Ms. Lowenthal. Our focus when we talked to them were on issues that they could relate to & would affect them directly. I'll give an example.

We made sure that the primary topic of discussion was the state budget. We did not shy away from talking about the education portion of the budget, and we pointed out to the students that the Democrats have had the last 12 years in charge of both houses of the Legislature to spend wisely, and have chosen not to. We used two analogies to make our point: First, we talked about their own budgets. We asked them how many would be able to go ask their parents for more money simply because they had spent all of theirs. Knowing how San Pedrans raise their children to be accountable and independent, we knew the answer would be none. Second, we asked them how much businesses like Starbucks pay in taxes. (Any fan of Tom McClintock knows this answer...NONE.) When I asked them why businesses don't pay taxes, most of them knew the answer...that businesses flow their tax increases to consumers in the price of products, like that cup of coffee. We then drew the relationship to the jobs they will be looking for in the very near future, and it made sense.

When it was Mrs. Uranga's turn to speak, she focused on Air Quality issues and the education budget as well. For the Air Quality discussion, she talked about "little particles" in the air, using her fingers like she was plucking them out of the air. She made a few good points about the need to be cleaner, but then she talked about how those "mean Republicans" wanted to take money away from schools. She talked about the Governor cutting the budget, but had no answer for fixing the budget besides raising taxes. Gabriella was able to talk about how her school district had the same problem in 2002, and found wasteful spending that resulted in saving EVERY teacher's salary. Among these was over $60,000 a year for bottled water for the administration. This is a teacher's salary saved from just this one savings action. Democrats are not willing to cut their wasteful spending in order to save teacher salaries. But they're willing to tax you more instead!

Ms. Lowenthal's discussion points kept changing during each of the six sessions. She was extremely defensive each time, and seemed to be trying to anticipate what Tonia and especially Gabriella were going to say. She would often turn around to Gabriella and state to the current group one of the points she thought Gabriella wold make, and then try to refute it pro-actively. Of course, because Democrats are used to misrepresenting Republican positions even to each other, Ms. Lowenthal often got the point wrong. This opened the opportunity for Gabriella to quickly re-introduce the topic (correctly) and then use a different example to prove the same point. Bonnie grossly underestimated the scope of the event, originally showing up with only a handful of fliers by herself. When she noticed that the other two candidates had more material and support, she made a quick phone call and got her campaign manager over there. When she talked, she listed all of her endorsements (people and groups these students never heard of) and
then tried to convince them how "greedy luxury boat owners and recreational vehicle owners needed to pay their fair share." Easy enough, but more proof that Bonnie does not know much about San Pedro. Boating and Sport Fishing are big with San Pedrans, and many of these students own their own ATV's or Sea-Doos. So when we got a chance to talk about these, it was simple. When these get taxed higher, fewer get sold, which means fewer get built. This means fewer people employed to build them.

Overall, the students who paid attention were smart and analytical. Questions like "If you don't cut the Education part of the budget, what part DO you cut?" and "How do you plan to deal with the gang violence in L.A.?" showed me that they were thinking extremely logical. Another question I liked was " What are you going to do to ensure people get off of welfare?". I watched as each Democrat candidate fumbled around in their head, probably searching for which talking point was appropriate. Meanwhile, Gabriella and I stood back and smiled as we waited so Gabriella could complement the students asking the questions and give them the intelligent answers they deserved.

In the end, we signed up a huge number of volunteers who are excited to get their volunteer hours working for Gabriella Holt. Despite the presence of two Democrat candidates (meaning there was twice as much time for the Democratic platform to be pitched), these students were able to sort out the truth from the talking points. We even received interesting comments from the Democratic candidates; both confessed that they did not expect a Republican candidate to come to the school. Both have been underestimating the Republican chances because of our past history in the district. If there's one thing Gabriella Holt did on Wednesday, it was to put a little fear in both Democrat candidates that the election for this seat will not nearly be over after June 3rd.

If you want to learn more about the Republican candidate making her two Democrat challengers squirm nervously when they're together, go to http://www.gabriellaholt.com/.

Green Energy available NOW, but Democrats do not support

2008-03-21T14:53:00.000-07:00

Growing a bit lazy this week, I wanted to share with you the efforts of the great California crusader who is working to bring safe, nuclear power plants to California, just as the rest of the world is doing. Assemblymember Chuck DeVore has been putting it all out there for all legislators to address, and finally, Governor Schwarzenegger understands how nuclear power will help save us "billion & billions of oil".

Here's a copy of his e-mail to subscribers. (If you don't subscribe to his e-mails yet, I highly recommend them.)

The Honorable Chuck DeVore:
I had a long conversation with a member of the O.C. Register editorial board yesterday about modern nuclear power. He was very interested in Gov. Schwarzenegger's public embrace of nuclear power. This is the editorial that came out of that conversation and recent events.

Chuck DeVore, California State Assemblyman, 70th Districtwww.ChuckDeVore.com

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nuclear-power-energy-2001597-percent-california

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Editorial: Nuke the energy crisis
Gov. Schwarzenegger endorses a nuclear future
An Orange County Register editorial

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have signaled a new era of common sense for California regarding energy matters by announcing last week that nuclear power has "a great future" and should be considered, rather than "just looking the other way and living in denial."
We hope this points to a change in attitude among policy-makers, and to overturning a statewide ban on nuclear power plants imposed in 1976. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who last year unsuccessfully authored a nuclear energy bill, is encouraged by Mr. Schwarzenegger's endorsement of the concept.
"I'm delighted to see Gov. Schwarzenegger now out front on this vital issue," Mr. DeVore said. The Irvine Republican again has introduced two bills in the current session to repeal the nuclear power-plant prohibition.
Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. DeVore are joined by public opinion that increasingly looks favorably on nuclear energy. A 2006 poll of likely voters, for example, showed those favoring nuclear power to be equal to those opposed, each drawing 46 percent of responders. That's an impressive increase from just one year before when opponents were 55 percent and those in favor only 37 percent. That's all on the plus side.
On the negative side, the usual suspects are in opposition. "Nuclear power has no future in California's new energy era because of its monumental dangers to the health and welfare of Californians," declared Democrat Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, chairman of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee.
Contrary to Mr. Levine's assertion, there are at least 434 operating nuclear reactors worldwide meeting electrical needs of a billion-plus people, according to a report by the National Center for Policy Analysis. If those have resulted in "monumental" dangers, we must have missed that story.
Nuclear power provides about 75 percent of France's energy, and even 20 percent of U.S. power from 103 nuclear plants, including two California plants in San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. China plans 30 new nuclear reactors in the next five years. For 30 years there were no applications processed for nuclear plants in California, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received seven applications in the last year alone and expects another dozen by year's end, representing a total of 22 reactors, according to the Sacramento Bee.
A single, quarter-ounce pellet of uranium creates as much energy as three and a half barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 1,780 pounds of coal – without CO2 emissions, according to the NCPA. The nuclear option is a perfect opportunity for Democrat obstructionists and radical environmentalists to support clean power generation without burning fossil fuels that generate the dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2.
Or will Democratic and radical environmental interests keep California in the dark while the rest of the world taps this reasonable, economical and environmentally clean option?

Central Committee Endorsements...and WHY

2008-03-17T15:55:00.001-07:00

In my earlier post on central committees, I laid out the basics of its mission and objectives. Today, I will lay out for you the six other candidates you NEED to vote for (along with me, of course) this June in order to maintain the momentum of involvement and support for electeds and future electeds throughout the 54th Assembly District. (I have listed them at the top left, and will maintain this list through the June Election.)

Prior to my election to the central committee, the level of involvement by both this district's committee and others throughout Los Angeles County was sporadic at best. Personally, I had worked two congressional campaigns in Los Angeles County and had never HEARD of the central committees. To this, I give due credit to Mr. Jackson, who promoted the need for increased involvement by the district committees. At the time (February 2006), we were primarily concerned about his own race for Assembly, but he was correct to call out the lack of participation by these committees. In my opinion, the primary reason for the lack of involvement by these committees was the primary reason most people ran for these committees: Their own personal agendas.

I decided to be a candidate that was going to engage differently. It was time for a committee of members that had no specific campaign or candidate in mind, but wanted to get more Republicans elected throughout the district. Others that filed shared this vision, including James Crean (who is taking time away next term to focus more on family & business). James has been a phenomenal mentor of mine, and I hope I can continue working with him in future years to further the principles and values throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

We have some great candidates who are eager to get involved from Palos Verdes to Long Beach, and I'll talk about each one now.

First, I hope that my fellow board member Davina Keiser is elected to the next central committee. Davina has been serving as an alternate, and also stepped up to serve as our committee Secretary. Employed as a teacher in LBUSD, Davina has been this committee's best resource for providing information about the political scene throughout Long Beach. While we have members from Long Beach, Davina has dove deeper into both the LBUSD races and the City Council races, and been a positive point-of-contact for Republican electeds there. I expect Davina to continue building her network within Long Beach, and make this committee's networking event stronger.

Two central committee members that have weathered the storms of the past and I hope will continue to be appreciated and supported throughout the district are Nancy Comaford and Al Han. Both are veterans of past AD campaigns, as well as critical races throughout Los Angeles County. Nancy has been a positive role-model for fellow Republican Women's Federated (RWF) groups throughout the county, and I have benefited much from her knowledge & experiences during meaningful telephone conversations. I very much hope I will continue to benefit from this, and the district will reap those benefits as well. Al has been a critical member of key election campaigns throughout the county, including the LA Community College District race last year and the Victory '06 campaign. Serving as the 2nd Vice-Chair to the County Party, Al has been able to bring increased attention to our district and continues to work hard to get campaign donations to key candidates. Al has also been a critical resource for me as I continue building relationships throughout the county in the best interests of this district.

For new members, I am endorsing a candidate from each of the three primary cities in this district: Chuck Michel from Palos Verdes, John Cozza from San Pedro, and Kevin Kunkle from Long Beach. Each brings a unique background and set of experiences that should help this committee take advantage of lessons learned from a diverse group. Chuck Michel is an attorney who brings contacts and connections throughout the district, including his representation of the American Flag flying at Trump National Golf Course. John Cozza has been involved in both local San Pedran business issues and those within the City of Los Angeles. He was the Legislative Analyst for Former Council member Rudy Svorinich, and has a deep understanding of the 15th Council District of Los Angeles, which is primarily located within the 54th AD. Kevin Kunkle was recently on the local leadership team for Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, and brings with him experiences and lessons from his campaign. Kevin was very active in Get-Out-The-Vote efforts throughout Long Beach, and brings a lot of operational experience and motivation to this committee. Though I worked for a different candidate in the primary, I have a deep level of both respect and admiration for fellow Republicans that supported Ron Paul's high-energy campaign, and I hope we can take some valuable advice from Kevin and others on how to energize our other 2008 races.

Finally, I (John Stammreich) sincerely hope that I have proven to be a valuable player in the local politics throughout the 54th AD. From my neighborhood council election in San Pedro to chairing this committee (when no one else wanted to), I have worked hard to grow this committee back into a viable & credible committee that our Republican leadership has recognized as a key political force in the district again. Knowledgeable local candidates used to skip this committee and proceed directly to the county meetings when seeking endorsements, and many local candidates did not know about the capabilities and support that this committee can offer. Since December 2006, I have risen both the visibility and credibility of our committee, with the help of some great supporters mentioned earlier, and I ask for your vote for myself and the six candidates I have endorsed for the June 2008 Central Committee elections.

Please e-mail me at stammiam@yahoo.com if you have any questions about myself or those I look forward to serving with for the next 2 years.

Why Jenny Oropeza is NOT a businesswoman

2008-02-29T20:26:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the week off. I enjoyed a weekend at the California Republican Party Convention in San Francisco, and was planning to write about the results. But I HAD to respond to the editorial in the Thursday Daily Breeze by State Senator Oropeza, who believes that your mortgage tax deduction is a "loophole" that needs to be filled.

In other works, you STILL don't pay enough taxes!

Senator Oropeza states in her editorial that "Leadership means solving problems." She continues..." government leaders must make difficult public service funding decisions with a fixed amount of revenue, and single parents must balance food, clothing and housing needs within the limits of their paychecks. Leaders of all kinds cannot afford to ignore reality; instead, they must make hard decisions with the information at hand." When I first read the editorial, I thought she had literally switched parties, or at least had a VERY good dinner meeting with fellow Senator Tom McClintock. But then she goes on to state "Beyond a few small fee increases, the governor has not proposed new or higher taxes to help balance revenues - echoing the party line issued by legislative Republicans." Thank you, Governor Schwarzenneger!

Democrats continue to miss the basic point of Senator McClintock: The business community does not pay taxes! Furthermore, rich individuals and families are not the most hurt by increased taxes; the poor and missle class are! For businesses, sales tax and other expenses are collected through the price of their products. Any increase of either are readily transferred to the consumer through increased prices. As for the rich, the costs of increased taxes are paid through less spending, whether it's eating out, traveling, purchasing nicer clothes, etc. Those employed in these industries that are dependent upon rich spenders are the hardest hit. This means restaurants, hotels, retail stores & other employers of low and middle class Americans.

The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported it better today: "With the state still facing a massive budget deficit, lawmakers have launched an effort to examine how many of the estimated $50 billion in tax credits and deductions they can reduce or eliminate to help balance the books. Those credits - sometimes called 'loopholes' by critics - range from the mortgage interest deduction to research credits for business to enterprise zones in the inner city. Many of them represent politically popular benefits that analysts say will be very difficult to eliminate when a two-thirds vote is required."

I'm surprised that those in Senator Oropeza's district, which includes Carson, El Segundo, Torrance, the Beach Cities and my portion of San Pedro, have tolerated someone who believes that her constituents need to sacrifice their tax deductions, which I'm sure are used primarily on essentials & retail (aka, economic stimulus). Jenny had a cake walk to get elected her first term; with these types of comments and liberal opinions, she needs to have a true challenge in 2010. Maybe something for the 53rd and 54th AD committees to work on together.

I may know someone interested...

Why John McCain can help us win the 54th AD

2008-02-15T19:58:00.000-08:00

The past two weeks have proved to be both unpredictable and opportunistic. As most of you know, I was the CD 46 chair for Rudy Guliani, whom I believe would have given voters of all demographics someone to consider. We also saw the biggest flaw in the "big state" strategy during his campaign: the early primaries offer free media coverage that literally feeds one's campaign. McCain, Romney & Huckabee figured this out, and were hence the three that survived to Super Tuesday. (I don't consider Ron Paul a serious candidate; send me a comment if you'd like me to debate this on a future posting.)

After Super Tuesday's performance by Senator McCain, I noticed something that may have been lost on most ultra-conservatives of our Party. Despite our state Party's exclusion of non-Republicans from our primary, McCain took an overwhelming majority of California's delegates. The hypothesis of the state leadership was having solely Republican votes in the presidential primary would yield a more conservative presidential nominee. I believe that California Republicans know what the state Republican activists haven't comprehended yet; that having a moderately conservative candidate gives us the best chance of not only winning the White House, but also many of our closer legislative battles by competing for independent voters.

Our Congressional, State Senatorial, and Assembly candidates will appear on their respective November ballots directly after the presidential candidates, meaning that a voter's choice for President will be immediately followed by their choices for the state-level races. Because of this, our nominees will have a significant portion of their vote intertwined with that of our presidential nominee within their districts. If our nominee does well in a district, so will our state-level nominees there. If our nominee cannot lure the independent vote, currently estimated at 22% in our own 54th Assembly District, then our district and others currently held by Democrats will have little chance of changing hands.

The one thing John McCain brings over all else is his ability to attract the growing number of independent and third-party candidates throughout California, as well as traditional Democrats (aka. JFK/Reagan Democrats) that have turned away from the MoveOn.org activists controlling their party. In the 54th AD, the Democratic registration advantage is still close to an 8% gap at 43%-35%. This means that with even split of independents, our nominee still loses in the 54th 54%-46%. Where we stand a chance to win is by winning more independents & some Democratic voters. This requires both a presidential nominee able to capture independents, and an assembly nominee who can hold on to those independents when they reach the assembly member portion of the ballot.

The liberal press will continue to "report" that Senator McCain needs to focus on patching up the conservative voters and making his platform more appealing to our own Party members. I think most of us would attest that neither Clinton nor Obama will be luring many Republican voters to their camp; what they can do is lure more independent and moderate voters if McCain is forced to make his platform ultra-conservative to the point where he alienates most of the independent vote. The Democrats are relying on the far-right activists within our party to create dissention within it. Because of their current situation with Obama & Clinton both garnering 49% of their delegates, they can only hope that Republicans also continue to battle within. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has gone on record as being concerned about their eventual nominee only having 8 short weeks to campaign for the independent vote due to having no clear nominee until their convention. If we are foolish enough to wait until then to ally ourselves around one nominee as well, then we've taken away the opportunity to start talking to the independent 22% in our district, as well as the independent 30% state-wide.

I hope our party leaders have realized the opportunity we now have; not only to keep the White House in safe Republican hands, but a genuine opportunity to take batteground legislative districts, like our own 54th AD, by giving 22% of our district a presidential candidate worth voting for. Issues like the economy, taxes & national defense are those we've been successful at luring independent voters; issues such as abortion, gay rights and illegal immigration will only keep our candidates pinned down in a quagmire of debates that will take moderate voters away. There's a difference between "staying true to all of one's principles" & having to live in a world where any of those principles cease to exist. Senator McCain may not have been the most ultimate conservative in the past few years; but this may be the very characteristic that keeps our country out of the hands of the Democratic Party.

And having a nominee who can get independent voters gives us the opportunity to have them continue down the ballot to our other fine candidates.

California Voters choose wisely...Los Angeles Voters fall for "Phony Phone Tax"

2008-02-08T16:38:00.000-08:00

This week's Super Tuesday showed us that a majority of statewide voters saw behind the deceptive wording of Proposition 93. Unfortunately, two-thirds of voters in the City of Los Angeles showed all of us that they could be convinced that a tax preservation was actually a tax reduction simply because they can be told that police & fire departments would be affected. It is a shame that Police Chief Bratton & Fire Chief Barry, both dedicated to serving their departments, could be politically naive in serving the interests of the tax-and-spend liberals of the Los Angeles City Council.

Did they honestly feel that the Mayor & members of the city council would actually make budget cuts to the police force & the fire department before looking at their boon-doggling programs and lavish travel expenses? Because of the deceptive measure of 2007, Measure R, most of the city council members are going to run for re-election in 2009; how many of them would have been so bold as to tell voters that because Measure S failed, they had to cut police and fire departments?

Neighborhood councils throughout the City of Los Angeles tried to get the word out to voters about this deceptive measure. I found myself working side-by-side with San Pedro Democrats who understood it wasn't that we were being asked to preserve (or rescue) a tax that had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts; it was how the City Council and the Mayor wrote the measure to be something that it wasn't. We were all burned by how deceptively Measure R was written as "Lobbying Activity Resitrictions", and, oh by the way, an extension of term limits from two terms to three. (shhhh!)

So I assume that Councilwoman Janice Hahn's $30 million anti-gang tax measure will be on the November 2008 ballot for voters in Los Angeles to consider, probaly as "Measure T". I'm curious to see how it is written to ensure it plays on our heart strings and shared conservative principles to vote for it. Don't be surprised to see a "Support the Troops" clause added to it or, even more appealing to the Randon Lengths crows in San Pedro, a "Get us out of Iraq now" clause. (Should we start a pool now?)

I am extremely thankful, though, for the voters throughout the state who saw through the similar deception going on with Proposition 93, the "Nunez/Perata Preservation Proposition" (oh, I mean "term limit reduction"), and voted to end the terms of these two horrible politicians. Thanks to the leadership of these two, our state budget is far worse than it was when they were elected, nanny legislation has run rampant & our Legislature has become the laughing stock of the country. Voters in both parties saw the opportunity to get rid of them and 42 other ineffective politicians, including our own assemblymember Betty Karnette, and replace them with some fresh members who will hopefully bring fresh ideas and energy to solving problems that have lingered on as unimportant to either Nunez or Perata.

A special thank you must go out to our Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who saw the need to step in and provide both organizational and financial leadership in defeating Proposition 93. Steve Poizner brought the same drive and vigor that he has shown in going after individuals & companies submitting fraudulent claims since being elected, and we are very blessed to have him in Sacramento.

So congratulations to the great state of California, who will have new members in both the State Senate and the Assembly in 2009! Our objective now is to ensure we work hard to get new leadership in these houses, including Gabriella Holt in our own 54th AD & Thomas Vidal in the 53rd AD. Let's take advantage of our progress to ensure we send members who will truly work for a balanced budget and a successful California.

2007-2008 Accomplishments & Objectives

2008-02-02T22:29:00.001-08:00

In an earlier posting, I introduced the general purpose of the Republican Central Committee. But I'd like to do a quick run-down of the accomplishments of the current committee and the remaining objectives for this term. The current membership of this committee has done more to get involved in local elections than in recent history, and has built opportunities for the next committees to build upon.

Shortly after being sworn in at the December 2006 RPLAC meeting, we quickly got involved in the Signal Hill city council elections, particularly the campaign to elect Nancy Long, a Signal Hill activist working to get more transparancy from the current council. Thanks to efforts by this committee in both phone banking & walking precincts, we helped Nancy quickly become more competitive; Nancy was actually leading by 23 votes for the final seat prior to provisional ballot counts. Of course, this margin never holds for a Republican candidate like it does for a Democratic one. By the time the provisionals were done, Nancy had fallen short of election. After consulting with my San-Pedran raised friend Steve Baric, president of the CA Republican Lawyers Association, Nancy decided not to pursue a lengthy recount or lawsuit, and will instead hopefully run for one of the three open seats in 2009. I've saved my yard sign from her campaign, and look forward to working as soon as she files to add a Republican to the Signal Hill City Council.

In February, I had to make a decision to work with a local friend & conservative Democrat Richard (Dick) Vladovic in his election bid for the local LAUSD seat. No Republican filed for this seat, but two far-left Democrats, UTLA activist Jesus Escandon & Progressive (aka Cindy Sheehan) Neal Kleiner, had filed to challenge Vladovic. I made the decision that it was more important for Republicans to step up and have an effect on every local election, rather than have Republicans stay home & hope that local Democrats will choose the most conservative candidate. Dick Vladovic won election in May, and has been a great leader for the community. Because I worked closely to help him win election, we now have a connection that will help us in future elections. This is the "big picture" in furthering our principles and values.

In August 2007, this committee stepped up its commitment to the state party's mission of getting more involved in local races by supporting four Palos Verdes Republicans in the November elections for Rancho Palos Verdes City Council & the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, my former hometown & high school district, respectively. A critical mistake we made was underestimating the influence of the local teacher's union (PVFA) & the Democrat incumbents. While Republican RPV City Councilmember Steve Wolowicz received the most votes of any candidate, our Republican challenger for the 2nd seat, RPV Traffic Commissioner Paul Wright came 80 votes short of the third and final seat. Paul ran a great campaign, and has already been encouraged by many, including myself, to run in 2009. In the PVPUSD race, we were unsuccessful in defending incumbent Dave Tomblin's seat and electing challenger Paul Neights. Both candidates were ironically painted as "union candidates" by the local union activists themselves, and unlike the City of Los Angeles, Palos Verdes residents do not exactly endorse the "union label". I learned a lot by participating in these races, and am still proud to have supported all four. I am already looking forward to the opportunities for both RPV City Council and the PVPUSD board for 2009.

For Tuesday's election, I have personally been working with San Pedro activists to fight Propositions S & 93, including ironically the local Democratic club. Most of their members also see the problems with these measures and worked with my local neighborhood council to hold a local information forum on Proposition S, the communications tax "preservation" measure. The forum was great for our side, and we recruited about 40 volunteers who walked their neighborhhods this past weekend to encourage voters to vote "NO". San Pedro is a great town, and has a lot of conservative Democrats that know "when to say when" to higher taxes.

We are currently engaged in the Long Beach Unified School District elections by encouraging Republicans to get involved in the campaigns for both incumbents Jon Meyer & Felton Williams. We'll continue to do so through their April re-election. We also support the recall effort of LBUSD Board member and TALB loyalist Michael Ellis, and will continue gathering signatures.

For the remainder of this year, once the Long Beach local elections are completed, our primary focus will be on winning the Assembly seat currently held by termed-out Assemblywoman Betty Karnette. We need to ensure our strongest candidate emerges to take on the strong Democratic candidate, likely LB City Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal. Bonnie is going to have a "machine" similar in structure to the Clinton one, and our nominee will need to be ready to spend and do what it takes to win. Bonnie will be a full-time candidate, so our nominee must be as well. This is primarily why I am asking ALL Republicans to get behind two-term PVPUSD Board Member Gabriella Holt, who has dedicated herself full-time to building the strongest campaign now to take on the Democrat nominee.

I'll go into a more detailed analysis of Gabriella Holt in a future posting.

For now, I encourage everyone to learn more about this committee and how to get involved in local elections, including Gabriella Holt's. 2008 offers numeroud opportunities for Republicans to make a difference; I hope we all find at least one and get involved.

The Battle for Long Beach's Youth - Meyer & Williams vs. TALB & Ellis

2008-01-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

My last post discussed the issue we have with finding more Republicans to take on the special interests of Long Beach, such as the SEIU and the teacher's union, or TALB. On Thursday, your local central committee got together at Francelli's Restaurant on 4th Street in Long Beach to discuss these issues, endorsement recommendations & long-term strategies for sparking the Republican resurgence. The foundation is there with both LBARP & the LB Lincoln Club, but the responsibility for getting more Republicans into office in Long Beach still rests with this committee.

Our meeting kicked off with an introduction to these issues by Long Beach City Council member Gary DeLong from the 3rd District, which has historically been the standard bearers of Republican activity in Long Beach. Mr. DeLong gave a thorough and straight-forward analysis of the current political climate in Long Beach, including the challenges that the Long Beach Unified School District board is facing from TALB. The three primary recommendations from our committee were: 1) Forwarding an endorsement recommendation for incumbent Jon Meyer to the County Executive Committee; 2) Recommending non-partisan support for incumbent Felton Williams; and 3) Encouraging all local Republicans to get involved with the recall effort of TALB loyalist Michael Ellis. Currently, the composition of the LBUSD board includes 2 of the 5 members loyal and devoted to the TALB agenda. One of these members is censured board member Michael Ellis, who has been asked publicly by the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Long Beach Press-Telegram and by both incumbent board members up for re-election to resign. Despite the public outcry from parents, teachers and civic leaders for Ellis' resignation, TALB has not yet (as of this post) concurred with the desires of the citizens of Long Beach. My analysis of the reason that follows is purely my own, but I think most of you will agree it a solid one.

Both incumbents up for re-election, Mr. Jon Meyer (Republican) & Dr. Felton Williams (Democrat), have joined with fellow board member Mary Stanton in holding back the liberal influence of TALB, and have been targeted in April's election by two candidates that have proven to be TALB puppets, "mediator" TALB lawyer Paul Crost & "teacher" TALB activist Rosa E. Diaz. Both were recruited by TALB to specifically go after Meyer & Williams in order to hopefully take over the LBUSD board. With TALB loyalist David Barton safely in place for two more years, TALB needs one of two things to happen: 1) Both TALB candidates defeat their incumbent opponents; or 2) if only one does, they need to defend Ellis' seat. So if both TALB candidates become strong contenders, they can then join the popular movement to call for Ellis' resignation and preserve their image. If only one of the candidates mounts a strong challenger, then they need to sugar-coat the Ellis situation in hopes of still achieving their majority.

But what if...both LBUSD incumbents mount strong campaigns and defend their seats well? THIS poses a great challenge for TALB that I hope motivates Republicans throughout Long Beach, regardless of their district, to action.

If the TALB is unable to gather traction for either of their candidates, they will then have to decide how to defend their hold on the LBUSD 5th District seat. Do they continue supporting Ellis to keep the vote but possibly damage their chances of defending either of their two seats in 2010? Do they quickly urge Ellis to resign, or join the recall effort, in hopes of finding a new TALB loyalist to fill the vacancy before parents & free-thinking teachers do? Even TALB loyalist board member Barton joined with the other three members in the vote supporting the censure motion against Ellis, indicating that even TALB will soon have to cut ties if they stand any chance of gaining its desired majority.

Rumors have already surfaced about possible candidates to run for Ellis' seat, but I'd like to table that posting until the rumors become a little more viable. For now, the best news about the recall effort has been the great support that recall signature gatherers have been getting within the 5th District. There's no doubt in my mind that the minimum number of signatures will be exceeded by a solid 15%-20%, ensuring this makes the November ballot for Long Beach residents of the LBUSD 5th district. Then TALB will definitely have their political hands full trying to decide what to do.

I've got a recommendation for TALB: How about starting a new practice of representing what's best for the students & parents of Long Beach? How about finding better representatives of your organization than drunk-driving, money-hiding candidates like Ellis. So what happens when Meyer and Williams are re-elected and Michael "Shane" Ellis is recalled (or finally wises up and resigns)?

It's up to all of us to make sure that TALB has to deal with that very question. Links to the two election campaigns & the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, leading the recall effort, are in my "Relevant Websites" column at left. Please get involved where you can!

The hearts & minds of the youth of Long Beach are at stake - we can't let them down!

Long Beach Republican candidates...where are you?

2008-01-18T20:55:00.000-08:00

With the exception of the 4th seat on the Long Beach Unified School District, not one Republican filed for ANY of the elected seats for the three Long Beach government bodies. Five of the incumbents were able to file for re-election without any challenger, including the 2nd, 4th & 8th Districts of the City Council, and both open seats on the Long Beach Community College District board. The only three races with challengers were the Long Beach City Council 6th District, and both open seats on the school board. I understand the issues of party registrations in Long Beach districts, but this never stops Republicans in other tough cities and legislative districts from at least filing and challenging incumbents. What happened to reduce Republican activism in Long Beach? Who is leading the charge to restart the political motivations in districts throughout Long Beach? I think I know this answer, and want to point out some key local Republicans who have recently stepped up to take on this challenge.

At last night's Long Beach GOP Straw Poll event at the Reef restaurant, co-sponsored by the Long Beach Area Republican Party (LBARP) club and the Long Beach Lincoln Club, I witnessed the revitalization of both organizations that have worked hard for years but have been mostly dormant; almost as dormant as the previous central committees prior to the current term. The electricity in the room and the interest by attendees to get involved in local upcoming races was a true testament to the new leadership that has become involved to work for the benefit of all of Long Beach. The new LBARP chairman, Hilary Poochigian, has worked hard to get the club's activities reorganized and staffed with local volunteers. The new chapter chair for the Long Beach Lincoln Club, former council member Frank Colonna, has led the efforts to bring Long Beach Republican donors and supporters together and to provide a much-needed forum for Republican leadership, discussion and cooperation. I encourage all Long Beach Republicans to get involved with one or both organizations. (Links to both organizations are in the "Relevant Websites" section to the left.)

Another motivated volunteer that I expect to watch take a stronger and more profound leadership role in Long Beach Republican efforts is Randy Terrell. Randy has brought enthusiasm and dedication by researching Long Beach politics, and has been getting the word out throughout Long Beach for the need for Republican locals to get involved. The online newspaper, LBPost.com, has given Randy a dedicated column, and I go to it regularly. (The link is also in the left margin.) I look forward to more young Republicans joining Randy in helping take back the great city of Long Beach.

Before I conclude, I wanted to give a quick snapshot of the one race where Republicans actually filed. Incumbent LBUSD board member Jon Meyer is being challenged by fellow Republican Karen Hilburn, liberal Democrat lawyer and TALB (LB teacher's union) supporter Paul Crost and Linda Sanchez Democrat congressional aide Patrick Rodriguez. The primary concern for this race, which was very openly discussed at last night's event, was that Republicans would split our voter base, likely allowing the TALB loyalist to take the seat. Both Republicans in this race bring strong credentials to their campaigns, but we must do everything we can to not turn over this seat, the only Republican opportunity in April's election. This is where the local Republican Central Committee must step up and do its job...even if a few Republicans do not agree. Our committee will be listening to both candidates and evaluating both their platform & their strength to win the seat. We will discuss and debate who should be recommended for endorsement to the county party executive committee. Republicans are always encouraged to support whichever candidate they feel they want to support, but we also want to ensure we hold this important seat.

As for the other two races, I will evaluate each in a future post and give a recommendation regarding which candidate would do more to promote our principles and values, and possibly be a coalition builder with us on future races, including the assembly race later this year. I believe each race offers such an opportunity. However, I would much rather prefer to have encouraged fellow Republicans that live in and understand these Long Beach districts. But building networks and foundations like that take time; we'll have to continue working within these districts to promote the party principles and how their implementation helps residents of all income levels.

I believe both Republican support organizations in Long Beach are on a solid path toward future victories and gains, and I look forward to supporting and contributing to these. I hope all of you are as well. Success in Long Beach is critical toward the success of our party throughout the 54th Assembly District.

Misrepresented Voter Propositions on February 5th Ballot

2008-01-13T20:59:00.000-08:00

One of the things that really burns me up is when legislators create horrible propositions and rely on misrepresentation to fool ignorant voters to vote for them. On the February 5th ballot, there are two such propositions that are being misrepresented to voters, Proposition 93 the "Term Limit Reduction Measure") statewide and Proposition S (the "Communication Tax Reduction Act") in the City of Los Angeles. I do take solace in the fact that these Democratic legislators at both the state level and in the Los Angeles City Council realized that they need to market their schemes as conservative practices. Term Limits and Tax Reductions...what conservative voter wouldn't vote for those?

The issue with both of these is each ballot measure does the exact opposite of what their titles state. To start, Proposition 93 on the statewide ballot markets itself as a Term Limit Reduction measure. It does reduce the OVERALL length of a state legislator (going forward) from 14 years to 12 years, but allows the legislators to serve all 12 years in either the Assembly or the State Senate. Here are the two things that Assembly Leader Nunez and State Senate Leader Perata (the two primary sponsors of this measure) do not want you to know:

1) The measure will allow all of the current legislators to start their 12 years "now" (as in 2008), as opposed to counting the number of years they have already served toward the twelve. Proposition 93 will lock most of them in until 2020due to the inherent strength of incumbents. When's the last time a CA state legislator was voted out of office or had their seat switch parties? So if you favor the gross overspending by our state Legislature and its consistent performance of passing nanny legislation, passing this measure will lock in twelve more years of just that!

2) The current requirement is that legislators can only serve 8 years in the State Senate and only 6 years in the Assembly. This measure extends the number of years legislators can serve in each, which also retains incumbents. Termed-out assembly members and state senators usually have to decide whether to compete against each other for an overlapping district in order to "stay employed". This is one of the few incentives for legislators to appeal to a broader base. If they can't, then they'll be limited to the 6 to 8 years that their limited agenda can support.

The latest television ads for Proposition 93 talk about how important "experience" is, and that our current legislators can't gain the necessary experience in less than 6 years. Boy, I wish my employers had been open to giving me 6-8 years to become "experienced" before I could solve any problems! Our current legislators sure have found ways to run up our state spending beyond its revenues over the past 6 years! Why should we reward them with 4-6 more years of job security? Do you really think that these current legislators are now going to use their renewed term extensions to suddenly solve the financial problems they created? What indication do any of us have that the current legislators have learned "the error of their spending ways", and are now going to work with the Governor to reduce their spend-happy ways? If Proposition 93 passes, get ready for a HUGE tax hike! This is the only solution that Assembly Leader Nunez is considering to fix the state budget crisis.

I urge everyone to vote NO on Proposition 93!

(If you're not a voter in the City of Los Angeles, the next proposition will not be on your ballot. But it's still important to see what kind of misleading ballot measures exist on a local level as well as the state level.)

In 2007, the State Court of Appeals affirmed a Superior Court decision that found the current Communications Tax in Los Angeles to be constitutionally illegal. It was never submitted to the voters of Los Angeles for approval, and the heavily-Democratic Los Angeles City Council continued to ignore advice to place the tax on a measure for the voters to approve. (Maybe because they know that even Democrats have a threshold of the number of taxes they want to pay.) Villaraigosa’s so-called tax “reduction" from 10% of current phone services to 9% is actually a tax hike. Even though the Superior Court threw out the tax hike in July 2005, over two years ago, the City kept collecting it anyway, about $162 million per year. What the Mayor and the City Council don't want voters to know is that if you vote “no,” you don’t pay the tax at all, because the court threw it out. If you vote “yes,” the tax comes back, and not only will we continue to pay the tax on our phone services, but it will add Internet, DSL, wireless services, text messaging, instant messaging, VoIP, PCS and other similar services at the "reduced" 9% tax rate.

But this is not necessarily why voters need to vote NO on this proposition. The issue of this measure is the misrepresentation of the measure to voters. The Mayor's office and the Democratic City Council members are calling this measure a "tax reduction", when it is in fact a "Tax Preservation".

Lately they have been trying to appeal to social liberals by talking about the government services that will be cut if the measure fails. And there will have to be cuts, as the City will lose about $270 million. The City will have to ask the tough questions about its spending, such as why it allows the contractor for the new LAPD Headquarters downtown (a friend of the Mayor's) to run over budget by over $140 million without any accountability. They'll also have to reconsider the $285 million in pay raises to the public service employees. The list goes on and on, and my opinion is that the City Council should be able to tighten its belt. Those that cannot propose such fiscal responsibility should be voted out next year; I'll be holding my council member, Janice Hahn, to just such a standard.

There MUST be more conservative voters in both the State of California & within the City of Los Angeles than I have recently assumed! To have to market these propositions in such a manner as to try and attract naive conservative voters shows that even liberal legislators understand that basic human nature favors conservative principles and values. But of course...most of those reading this posting could have told them that!

Central Committee...what the heck is that?

2008-01-05T23:21:00.000-08:00

So the first question I get from friends when I tell them my position is "what the heck is a central committee?" Each assembly district in California has a Republican Central committee comprised of seven elected members plus ex-oficios who are either partisan elected officials or party nominees for legislative offices and reside within the district. The primary purpose of these committees is to win elections for Republicans within the district. In the case of our district, it is our job to work within the cities of Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon, Signal Hill & the cities of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to increase Republican representation on city councils, school boards & other local positions.

Elections are held every two years in conjunction with the June primaries. Many who run for this committee do so because they somehow feels that being on this committee will help them in their follow-on campaigns for other positions. My personal opinion is that these types of members have contributed to the lack of satisfactory performance & activity of this committee prior to my election to this committee. How can a committee member dedicate time, resources & motivation to local races throughout the district when they're focused solely on their own? I'll talk more about my issues with these types of members in future posts.

Membership in the Central Committee should be for those who are Republican activists/political junkies who are willing to continuosly be working on political campaigns. For example, in 2007, we started in January supporting Nancy Long for Signal Hill City Council, then some of us worked on Dick Vladovic for LAUSD between February & May, as well as the Republican slate for LA Community College Board. With the special elections this year, we spent time this summer on COL John Kanaley's campaign for the 37th CD, and then had to quickly prepare for the Palos Verdes elections for RPV City Council and the PVPUSD board for November. Finally, we're already researching the candidates who have filed for the Long Beach elections in early 2008. And oh yea, all of us have presidential candidates we're supporting and participating with. (I'm the 46th CD Chair for Rudy Guiliani!)

Now, not every member is as politically active as that; a few are even more active than that. My point here is that those considering being a member, an alternate or otherwise participating need to understand the expectations. They will definitely be this high (or higher) for 2008 and I will be seeking out and working to get six other future members for the 2008-2010 term that feel as passionate as I am & are going to put in the amount of time needed.

My golf game has suffered, but it's for a greater good.

More to follow on the central committee and political events going on in San Pedro & Long Beach this month.

Kick-off of the 54th AD Republican Blog

2008-01-02T13:23:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the first posting of my New Year's resolution - communicating as openly as possible to the many dedicated Republicans working hard throughout the 54th Assembly District to get our local candidates elected. I look forward to continuing the great strides we made in 2007 to begin implementing the state-wide strategy of getting our party central committee involved in local races and local issues. Many will question this "amking partisan what has been non-partisan", but my simple answer is that the Democratic Party has been doing it for over 25 years. It's about time they had some true political competition, and we plan to take it to the next level here in this assembly district.

From election to the local neighborhood council to involvement in numerous campaigns over the past ten years, I look forward to continuing my proactive approach to community involvement and conservative activism through the 54th Republican Central Committee. I believe in getting past closed-minded positions and getting to the real issues of the district's concerns. Bad attitudes, false impressions and closed minds have no place in our communities or our party, and often result in special interests and our local officials ignoring the will of its citizens when creating their plans.

For example, I believe in good, smart development that contributes to and provides benefits for the surrounding community. Long Beach, Palos Verdes & San Pedro are ripe with opportunities for new business & new residences, but these should not add unnecessary burdens to those that came to this great district first. I'm also unsatisfied with the performance of our public schools in preparing our children for both college and their future careers. A pet peeve of mine is long-time residents of a community telling me "that's the way it's always been" about an issue or concern. I refuse to believe that when good neighbors like you believe issues impacting our community need to be addressed, and I want to make sure they are addressed.

In Los Angeles, the Mayor of Los Angeles discussed the fiscal dilemma of property tax revenues going down and the "need" to continue the illegally-created Telephone User's Tax. With a lack of fiscal discipline by most Los Angeles City Councilmembers, it's no wonder why. How many feel-good programs can be placed on the backs of Los Angeles taxpayers? Instead, our misguided City Council has taken a position to continue increasing taxes on the current tax base (and pray, I guess, that the existing base of taxpayers won't migrate their businesses and residential spending to neighboring cities.) Regardless of your political affiliation, are you more prone to buy your gas, groceries & clothing where you can save money? Don't you think this will extend to telephone and internet users as well? Why aren'y elected city council members required to complete an economics course that truly studies the affects of localized taxation?
I wanted to kick off this blog with some rantings on my mind, and to let you know that I look forward to flowing out information about opportunities to get politically involved & make a difference in 2008. Let me know if there are specific issues in our district that I need to focus on. It's all about bringing to light issues that the current group of "career politicians" hope we'll ignore. With your help, we'll continue to make them address these issues or ensure they are voted out of office!

Stamm I Am