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.
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Why the Dems are killing California, but no one cares...
I have been asked often the past few weeks why the Republican leadership in the California State Legislature are catching more blame for the state propositions on the May ballot that threaten to take away tax credits like the dependent child credit and double your vehicle license fee, and their Democratic counterparts and their special interest pandering is going relatively unchecked. I'd like to use an example from my childhood that I think will explain the logic.
I am the oldest of three, and my younger sisters and I are the best of friends. We each have families now, and we stay in frequent contact. When we were growing up, we would do what kids did: argue, fight, do crazy things. But it always seemed like I was getting a little more blame than my sisters. The reason: "I was older and I was supposed to know better!"
When the Democrats continued to increase spending every year with reckless abandon, the citizens of California had one line of defense that was supposed to keep that at bay: The Republicans. Now the voters have to take responsibility for some of the damage that the Democratic leaders have caused. After all, they elected the Democrats to be the majority party. Democrats run on "feel good" campaigns that do not take fiscal or managerial responsibility into account. Democrats appeal to people's sensical urges that make them feel better, and hide from voters the responsibility aspects of their legislation. For years, they have been able to increase budget handouts and earmarks to their special interests without having to substantially increase taxes or fees. This year, the well is much drier, and they had to negotiate what you now see as the six state propositions, 1A through 1F, in order to salvage the financial interests of their true constituents: the special interests and unions that fed their election campaigns.
What the Republicans in both the State Senate and the Assembly were supposed to do this year is finally show the Democrats the results of what they had been preaching all these years. They are supposed to be showing voters that they will do "their job" in being the more responsible party; the "oldest child" that is supposed to know better. Because most of our Republican leaders did not perform their role and teach their Democratic counterparts the error of their ways, conservative voters throughout the state joined others throughout the country in saying "enough's enough!" If the Republican electeds are not going to do their job, then the voters will do it for them! This is why you are seeing much of the tax revolt and tea party activity directed against elected Republicans.
My personal belief is that if our electeds acted more like Congressman (former State Senator) Tom McClintock, the activity would all be directed at the state Democrats. But this is not to mean that the State Democrats are off the hook. The protests taking place throughout the state are taking place in Democratic strongholds like Santa Monica, Pasadena and Hermosa Beach. Most of the attendees are decline-to-state voters that are realizing just how bad the state spending has become. They're learning more about the contract deals strangling the state budget, including those by the teachers union (CTA) and the service employees union (SEIU). (I always like pointing out these two groups because they are the first to complain about how their performance will drop if they don't get funding. Have you seen graduation rates in the LAUSD, as well as the state? Under 50% for both! And have you experienced the "high performance" at the DMV? "Nuff said!)
So the first wave of protest and resentment is against those that Republicans and other conservatives were counting on to support them. Once this wave has had it's effect, including the defeat of the state ballot propositions, the focus will definitely shift to the tax-and-spend Democrats that are the prime movers behind everyone's increased sales tax, increased income tax, and the reduction in the child tax credit. As voters see their spending power go down, and then experience their first adjusted income tax return under the new taxes, they will know who is to blame, and will hold those who take away income from struggling families and redistribute it to their union friends.
The next wave of Republican candidates will have the wave of this momentum behind them. The Democrats will have their usual special interest groups, losing popularity every month as voters learn how these groups are stealing their money!
So stand by, my Democratic friends and electeds! Your time of political reckoning is coming!
I am the oldest of three, and my younger sisters and I are the best of friends. We each have families now, and we stay in frequent contact. When we were growing up, we would do what kids did: argue, fight, do crazy things. But it always seemed like I was getting a little more blame than my sisters. The reason: "I was older and I was supposed to know better!"
When the Democrats continued to increase spending every year with reckless abandon, the citizens of California had one line of defense that was supposed to keep that at bay: The Republicans. Now the voters have to take responsibility for some of the damage that the Democratic leaders have caused. After all, they elected the Democrats to be the majority party. Democrats run on "feel good" campaigns that do not take fiscal or managerial responsibility into account. Democrats appeal to people's sensical urges that make them feel better, and hide from voters the responsibility aspects of their legislation. For years, they have been able to increase budget handouts and earmarks to their special interests without having to substantially increase taxes or fees. This year, the well is much drier, and they had to negotiate what you now see as the six state propositions, 1A through 1F, in order to salvage the financial interests of their true constituents: the special interests and unions that fed their election campaigns.
What the Republicans in both the State Senate and the Assembly were supposed to do this year is finally show the Democrats the results of what they had been preaching all these years. They are supposed to be showing voters that they will do "their job" in being the more responsible party; the "oldest child" that is supposed to know better. Because most of our Republican leaders did not perform their role and teach their Democratic counterparts the error of their ways, conservative voters throughout the state joined others throughout the country in saying "enough's enough!" If the Republican electeds are not going to do their job, then the voters will do it for them! This is why you are seeing much of the tax revolt and tea party activity directed against elected Republicans.
My personal belief is that if our electeds acted more like Congressman (former State Senator) Tom McClintock, the activity would all be directed at the state Democrats. But this is not to mean that the State Democrats are off the hook. The protests taking place throughout the state are taking place in Democratic strongholds like Santa Monica, Pasadena and Hermosa Beach. Most of the attendees are decline-to-state voters that are realizing just how bad the state spending has become. They're learning more about the contract deals strangling the state budget, including those by the teachers union (CTA) and the service employees union (SEIU). (I always like pointing out these two groups because they are the first to complain about how their performance will drop if they don't get funding. Have you seen graduation rates in the LAUSD, as well as the state? Under 50% for both! And have you experienced the "high performance" at the DMV? "Nuff said!)
So the first wave of protest and resentment is against those that Republicans and other conservatives were counting on to support them. Once this wave has had it's effect, including the defeat of the state ballot propositions, the focus will definitely shift to the tax-and-spend Democrats that are the prime movers behind everyone's increased sales tax, increased income tax, and the reduction in the child tax credit. As voters see their spending power go down, and then experience their first adjusted income tax return under the new taxes, they will know who is to blame, and will hold those who take away income from struggling families and redistribute it to their union friends.
The next wave of Republican candidates will have the wave of this momentum behind them. The Democrats will have their usual special interest groups, losing popularity every month as voters learn how these groups are stealing their money!
So stand by, my Democratic friends and electeds! Your time of political reckoning is coming!
Monday, February 23, 2009
State Budget Resentment Electrifies GOP Convention
Thanks to my good friend and 56th AD GOP ex-oficio, Roger Garrett, I was once again able to participate as a delegate at the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento this past weekend. As expected, the primary topic of discussion, debate, outrage and concern for most delegates was the defeat of Republican principles and values in the approval of the increased tax-and-spend budget bill by the state Legislature. I could spent most of this blog post talking about how angry people were, and I was even quoted in the Contra Costa Times on Saturday about that I called "very confusing times". "We have to figure out what our party stands for if it's not for less of a tax burden for Californians."
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
Monday, September 1, 2008
FLASH, FLASH, FLASH: Republican lawmakers unveil a no-tax budget at Sacramento press conference - CA
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."
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."
Sunday, August 31, 2008
California State Propositions 2008 - Part 1
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.
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.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
NEWS FLASH - Local Assemblywoman says "Drill now"...sort of
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...
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...
Monday, June 23, 2008
Drill now...or $8 per gallon gas? What is your choice?
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?
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?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
San Pedro H.S. Seniors get it...why don't Democrats?
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/.
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/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
