Hermosa Beach business tax increase measure postponed

(Modified from the original posting on my campaign website, www.Stammreich4Senate.org )

Hermosa Beach is one of the cities that sit in the heart of the South Bay, and I remember many a Saturday afternoon at the boardwalk trying to keep up with the volleyball studs that ruled the section of beach just north of the pier.

As many of you read, last Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting agenda was highlighted by an attempt by Hermosa Beach City Council member (and city business-killer) Michael Keegan to raise the business license fees within the city he resides in order to be more comparable with the city he does business in, namely Manhattan Beach. Keegan, like many misguided far-left liberals, still hold on to the notion that raising taxes during a recession actually increases revenues, despite what the State of California is beginning to learn about the ineffective April tax hikes this year.

Of course, the lobbying tactic for convincing three of the remaining four city council members to place this tax measure on the November ballot was the same as many of us saw earlier this year by Los Angeles City Council members when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure placed on the March 2009 ballot. Many city council members, including our own Los Angeles member Janice Hahn, stated that they were “undecided” on the measure themselves and were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!

Tuesday night, a coalition of South Bay conservatives descended on the Hermosa Beach City Council to bring forth what placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot to raise the business license fees by as much as 800% would do to businesses both in Hermosa Beach and throughout the South Bay. The process in Hermosa Beach required 4 of 5 members’ approval to place it on the ballot. Keegan was in full support; Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, was already openly opposed.

And so it began.

Speakers against the measure included myself, residents & business owners, including the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Carla Merriman, who specifically pointed out that the finance committee that was forwarding the proposed tax measure to the city council had not only failed to contact business representatives for their input, the members of this committee had actually refused requests by both the Chamber and other local business owners to participate in the discussion. After this stunning revelation and a few others, Council member Peter Tucker and Mayor Pro Tem Michael DiVirgilio realized that the proper discussions with all of the appropriate stakeholders had not been properly conducted, and voiced their opposition to a November tax measure without that discussion being held. A supplemental motion was made and unanimously approved to hold that discussion after the November 2009 election.

This delay should have been seen as a blessing to Council Member Keegan, who is up for re-election this November. Keeping a controversial measure that could be used to rally conservative voters similar to May 19th would have helped Keegan by keeping the voter base somewhat moderate to liberal. However, not leaving well enough alone, most of the city council gallery was shocked when Keegan exclaimed that "I'm working for the residents, not for the businesses. That's right, I work for the residents. I get elected by them, and that's who I represent here."

Expectations are that Keegan will be reminded of these comments throughout his re-election campaign when he solicits contributions and window-space from local businesses, as well as has to explain to residents who do not like to drive out of town to go shopping why their purchases cost more.

Putting questionable ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting questionable food in front of a guest & letting them decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? A professional and responsible chef always knows what they are serving to guests, and stands behind everything they prepare and serve.

State legislators and City Council members throughout California and the South Bay, respectively, must be held to this same standard. It is up to us as voters and friends of voters in cities like Hermosa Beach to ensure that they are.

Call our local state Legislators today

Forwarded from Jon Fleischman, CRP Vice Chairman for the Southern Region and publisher of Flash Report (www.flashreport.com)

We sent a message to Sacramento on May 19th! What is it going to take for them to properly receive it?

I think it's going to take November 2010 to truly shake up Sacramento. It's going to take an overhaul in both how the Legislature performs and, because they refuse to change, those performing the overhaul. Honestly, do you see Senator Jenny Oropeza suddenly "getting it" and becoming fiscally conservative? Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal is still fairly new, but her latest e-blast to us here in the 54th tells us that she's been fully assimilated into the "borg" that is Assembly Speaker Karen Bass' mandatory rhetoric for all Democratic legislators.

Great post by Jon follows. Let's heed his action and heat up the phone lines!

Bonnie's Office # is 310-548-6420 (I already talked to her in person on Saturday. Her response was the typical "protect the children...blah, blah, blah)

Jenny's office # is 310-318-6944 (I don't expect her back in town until the per-diem budget runs dry. Gabriella Holt's group is going to change all that by making the per-diem run out much faster! The union grip will be weakened considerably when this happens!)

Light up the lines!

John

Subject: Have You Contacted GOP State Legislators?

GOP Legislators: Stand Firm And Don't "Kick The Can" -- Your State Is Counting On You

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher

Today is the last day of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, and it is the final opportunity for the State Legislature to place on the Governor's desk a comprehensive fix to next fiscal year's way-out-out-whack budget before we are actually IN that fiscal year. By "comprehensive fix" -- I mean a package of cuts and reforms that ensures that state government will be able to make it all of the way to June 30, 2010 without having yet another "fiscal crisis" where we are back at the cliff, again.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been 100% on message since the May 19th Special Election -- we need a complete fix for the budget situation -- one that does so taking into account that the voters overwhelmingly rejected tax increases to do so.

Legislative Democrats, unbelievably Sunday (in the Assembly) and yesterday (in the Senate) rammed through billions of dollars in illegal majority-vote tax increases for what appears to be the sole purpose of sticking the legislative "middle finger" up at California voters -- especially since the Governor has and continues to make it clear that any legislation that hits his desk with tax increases will be vetoed -- look for that to happen today.

Republican legislators need to keep the pressure on Democrat lawmakers who, understanding the world of politics, are under immense pressure internally. The public employee unions don't just wield a big stick -- they are swinging a multi-million dollar PAC baseball bat, and are prepared to make a pinata out of any Democrat who votes for comprehensive cuts. That said, they probably don't have to bother swinging that bat because the liberal ideologues in the Democrat caucus are probably prepared to drive off of the proverbial cliff before they make the kinds of cuts that are needed.

I have written several times already about the inherent and perilous danger of "partial solutions" to the budget crisis -- where some cuts are adopted, but cuts that fall far short of what is needed to make it all the way through the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Passing these kinds of cuts is a recipe for another show-down well into the new fiscal year, when the case will be made that the shorter time window make it far more difficult to make and implement cuts to state spending. Which is really the goal of the Democrats -- partial cuts now -- and then push for tax increases after the Summer. And why not? They've already seen Republicans who spent years vocalizing anti-tax sentiments cave in last February to massive increases in sales, income and car taxes. Why shouldn't they hold out hope?

Republicans hold the strategic advantage right now. It is right now at this time and in this place that the argument has flipped from February, where it was whether Republicans will support taxes to avoid insolvency -- to whether or not the Democrats will make enough cuts to do so. And believe me, the Democrats will do anything to "kick the can" into next fiscal year.

Which brings into play this issue of around $3 billion in available cuts to eduction in the fiscal year ending today that the Democrats, and at least as of three days ago, Assembly Republicans want to implement. I have spoken to many legislators who have said to me, "If we don't take those cuts now, before the fiscal year ends, we'll never be able to take them."

To those folks I have responded that there is always a reason to delay needed, comprehensive reforms. Today it is some education cuts, tomorrow it will be something else. Let us consider the effect of pushing through those cuts today (in a wonderful, happy show of bipartisan love). First and foremost, we will have "kicked the can" probably into the Fall on having to make cuts to avoid insolvency and the issuance of IOU's. Understand that without this back pressure, the Democrats in the legislature WILL NOT produce comprehensive cuts. Also not that while $3 billion in cuts will have been achieved, what is the "opportunity cost" of pushing out the pressure for a real solution (the one that protects taxpayers)?

The biggest financial cost is that if the Democrats get even nine weeks of a breather, than means that over 1/5th of the call-in $17 billion in cuts that the Governor has proposed for FY 2009-2010 will have been lost. That's around $2.5 billion in lost cuts -- or nearly the entire amount "saved" by rushing into a deal today. Also, as I mentioned above, as we get into the fall, it becomes that much harder for cuts to be implemented in time to impact this fiscal year (nothing happens quickly in government -- except implementing tax increases).

A number of the GOP legislators that I spoke or emailed with told me that it would be folly not to take the $3 billion in education cuts on the table today -- "Cuts without strings? How can I vote against that? The next time I see cuts like this, they may be attached to tax increases!"

Mark my words, making partial cuts today, that do not solve the state's entire FY 2009-2010 problem do come with "strings" -- they come with emboldening the Democrats in Sacramento, and in moving the debate time and circumstances.

Every Republican legislator needs to remember what the political atmosphere was like in the State Capitol this past January and February. That is what you are inviting back into the process if you don't hold the line against partial fixes and short-term "kick the can" cuts.

Unlike last February, we now have an opportunity to face this budget crisis with all Republicans united -- legislators and the Governor. Let's take that opportunity to accomplish a complete victory. We do this by keeping the pressure on for a comprehensive and total solution.

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!

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!

Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B

I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".

During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.

The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.

As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:

"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.

"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.

"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."

Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.

As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."

Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.

The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.

One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:

12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months

At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.

Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.

This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.

So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.

It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.

Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!