Latest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three August 31, 2009
CA Political News
Barack Obama may not be willing to tell all Americans the truth, but he is loyal to his donors, I mean, friends.
The unions gave him money and manpower to get elected President. In return, the UAW was given control of Chrysler and General Motors--no mean capitalists to control them anymore. Of course, their health care plans, which the unions own and control are belly up. "So the union's supporters added language to the House's gargantuan health care bill that requires the federal government to pick up most of the cost of catastrophic claims for union retirees age 55 to 64. The biggest beneficiary would be the UAW, which got $60 billion from the Big Three in exchange for taking on the obligation for retiree health care." Now, after taking $60 billion from the bankrupt car companies (could this is why they are bankrupt?--the Feds gave a total of $74 billion to take over the car companies), they want $10 billion from you--now. No idea how much they will want or get next year. So, Barack Obama will bail them out--isn't that nice that he has the resources, your tax dollars, to give his friends? Taxpayers shouldn't pay for
UAW's rich health care benefits Detroit News editorial, 8/25/09 One reason the public so distrusts the health care plan being considered by Congress is that so many troublesome details keep bubbling out of the massive legislation. The latest example is the $10 billion taxpayers will be asked to shell out to prop up the United Auto Workers' retiree health insurance program. That provision is tucked deep into the bill passed by the House. In effect, it would ask every taxpayer, regardless of whether they'll have health insurance coverage themselves after they retire -- and most won't -- to chip in to maintain the UAW's coverage, which even after the union's givebacks is still better than what the average American worker receives. The helping hand is a recognition by Congress that the union's volunteer employee benefit association, or VEBA, can't possibly stay solvent if it is asked to cover all of the union workers taking early buyouts from the Detroit automakers. So the union's supporters added language to the House's gargantuan health care bill that requires the federal government to pick up most of the cost of catastrophic claims for union retirees age 55 to 64. The biggest beneficiary would be the UAW, which got $60 billion from the Big Three in exchange for taking on the obligation for retiree health care. But the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler forced the UAW and President Ron Gettelfinger to swap $24 billion of the VEBA payments for stock of uncertain value, and now a fund that was supposed to last for 80 years is projected to be depleted in 12 years. Unless, of course, the union sharply trims retiree benefits. That's a step it ought to take, but doesn't have to as long as it has friends in Congress. But even the $10 billion giveaway in the health care bill won't be enough to keep the VEBA solvent. Benefit cuts are inevitable. As Congress works to hammer out a health care reform bill that everyone can live with, payoffs like this one to a key Democratic constituency shouldn't survive. Taxpayers should not be stuck paying for union benefits they didn't negotiate and, for the most part, don't enjoy themselves. Litl Bits, Wiccanwolf, Richard Ahern, …
4
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
What to find corruption? Find a Democrat in
Rangel should resign Pat, Barbara Dumler, Connie, …
7
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
The OC Register is going to file for bankruptcy this week. Is this the start of the snowball effect, closing up to ten California newspapers in the next 12 months? Revenues and subscribers for the Times, Chronicle and Bee (any variety) are down significantly. All together, in the past year they have fired close to 1,000 employees--with more layoffs to do announced soon.
Is this a trend or not? In reality, it is only a matter of time before the bankruptcy courts get crowded with newspapers looking for protection. Paper Owner Freedom Plans to File For Chapter 11
By PETER LATTMAN and RUSSELL ADAMS, Wall Street Journal, 8/31/09 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB125166593642570507-lMyQjAxMDI5NTMxMDYzNjA1Wj.html Freedom Communications Inc., the owner of the Orange County Register, is expected to declare bankruptcy this week, according to people familiar with the situation, the latest in a string of Chapter 11 filings in the battered newspaper business. The company, majority owned for more than 70 years by the Hoiles family, has reached agreements with its lenders to restructure its debts, according to these people. With annual revenue of about $700 million, Freedom owns the Register and more than 30 other daily papers and eight TV stations. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization -- a popular measurement for leveraged companies -- have declined about 75% over the past five years to about $50 million. Freedom was founded in the 1930s by R. C. Hoiles, a former printer's apprentice who used his publications in part to spread his libertarian views. The Orange County Register continues the libertarian approach but, like other newspapers across the country, has had to confront the question of its survival. "We are continuing to work with our lenders to address our balance sheet," said a Freedom spokesman. Freedom's lenders, which hold roughly $770 million in debt, are expected to take control of the company as it operates under bankruptcy protection. They include J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., SunTrust Banks and Union Bank of California. The filing is a blow to private-equity firms Blackstone Group and Providence Equity Partners, which acquired a 40% equity stake in the company in 2004 for about $460 million. The deal, which used a relatively small amount of debt compared to later deals in the buyout boom, already has been written down to zero by both firms. The Hoiles family has been divided for years about what to do with the Irvine, Calif., company. Family members representing about one half of the Hoiles clan sold their stake in the company as part of the recapitalization more than five years ago. The stake of the remaining half likely would be wiped out by a bankruptcy filing. The 2004 deal with Blackstone and Providence allowed the company to remain under family control. For a while after the recapitalization, Freedom posted steady earnings growth as the housing boom fueled profits. But the housing slump that has eroded advertising at most U.S. newspapers struck early in many of Freedom's markets. Struggling with its debt, Freedom about a year ago suspended its dividend, which was the primary source of income for members of the family's fourth generation, many of whom don't have jobs. For the most part, members of the clan who cashed out no longer have contact with relatives who stuck with the company, according to two family members. "Nobody is going to be destitute," said one family member. But the filing is bound to force some family members to work, said people close to the situation. -
0
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
Should the Governor and the legislature gets it way, the cost of Workers Compensation will skyrocket--causing more jobs to be lost and businesses to leave the State. The cost of Workers Comp is capped in Nevada, and currently is a minimum of 30% less than the cost in California.
The system works--leave it alone. Oh, this phony sale was put into the budget to create the illusion that we would get $1 billion for the sale. First, there may not be someone to purchase it. Second, if not sold, our deficit goes up yet another billion dollars. Stop the phony budgets--when will we get adult leadership in Sacramento? Editorial: Selling State Fund assets is stupid, and worth a fight
Mercury News Editorial, 8/31/09 http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13225787 While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is right about the need for prison reform, his budget strategy this summer also included one of the stupidest ideas imaginable: trying to sell $1 billion worth of workers' compensation policies owned by State Fund, a government agency whose whole purpose is to provide workers' compensation insurance where it is not as profitable for the private sector. Insurance Commissioner and fellow Republican Steve Poizner says this is not only a terrible idea but also illegal, so he sued Friday to block the sale, saying the law specifies that the assets belong to State Fund. If he wins, so does California business. Selling State Fund's least risky policies would force it to raise rates on the rest to remain solvent. And because State Fund still has the largest share of workers' comp business in the state, at 20 percent, it would lead to private insurers also raising rates at the worst possible time for business. It threatens to undo one of the real successes of the Schwarzenegger administration, which was to pull the workers' compensation system out of crisis and stabilize it. Selling part of this fund is just plain wrong. We hope it's illegal, too, so the lawsuit stops it. the California Redneck
1
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
Another newspaper is supporting vicious criminals over the safety of the public and its readers. The Mercury News calls the Assembly "gutless" for dragging its feet in the release of the criminals.
The gutless ones here are the editors of the newspaper--this paper opposes you from owning guns, yet wants to flood our communities with known criminals. That is not only gutless, it is reckless. Mercury News Editorial, 8/31/09 The "gutless" California Assembly that's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's word, but it's spot on is about to gut the prison reform bill that the governor and a majority in the state Senate have agreed upon. Terrified of being seen as soft on crime, the Assembly today is expected to vote on a plan that keeps some elements of reform but abandons obvious changes, such as letting aged or dying inmates serve out their time at home at dramatically reduced public cost. It even rejects a sentencing commission to re-examine policies. God forbid a group of experts should come up with sensible ideas and force the gutless wonders to face up to change. The Assembly's failure to step up, under Speaker Karen Bass, will squander the leadership of Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, whose house did the right thing. Republicans in both houses are a lost cause for problem-solving, but we had higher hopes for the Democrats. If the Assembly wants a different plan, then make it an honest alternative. Keep the same reduction in inmates, 27,000, and the same $525 million in annual cost-saving, but accomplish it differently. Simply doing less invites federal intervention and squanders money the California Redneck
1
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
Democrats know they can not get rid of the protections of the taxpayers built into the State Constitution--like Prop. 13 that causes the need for a 2/3 vote to raise taxes.
"The scope of the convention could be limited in the measures. Some proponents want everything on the table, from a reconsideration of last year's Proposition 8 marriage restriction to Proposition 13 to pretty much anything else. The approach carries some appeal; what's the point, after all, of a citizens' convention if citizens are limited in what they can do? But including subjects as diverse and as divisive as taxes and marriage rights invites the same kind of emotional turmoil that has plagued the initiative process and has gummed up the Constitution." The Times is, of course, supporting this, claiming the public wants to go further in debt. "Our prediction: These measures would find a receptive public. Voters baffled and dismayed by Sacramento's paralysis are ready for a new approach." The Time is not supporting a new approach--just the same old higher taxes and more government. That is why fewer people are buying the LA Times, it is in its own world, thinking Cuba may not be all that bad. This will not happen, but this shows how desperate the Democrats are to control us. Long road to a constitutional convention
Can Californians scrap their Constitution? Yes, but it will be a complicated process. LA Times, 8/31/09 The first barrier to Californians calling a convention to draft a new state Constitution: Doing so may be unconstitutional. The current document, adopted in 1879 and amended hundreds of times since, protects itself by outlining the single way it can be scrapped. Voters can call a convention, but only after two-thirds of the members of each house of the Legislature put the question on the ballot. Two lawmakers introduced bills late last year to call for a convention, but they are unlikely to get anywhere because many members of the Legislature correctly see in the move a wrenching change in the way they currently do business. Voters can amend the Constitution, but only a piece at a time because of yet another provision known as the "single subject rule." They can limit the terms of elected officials, for example, but they can't adopt a package that deals simultaneously with term limits, redistricting, political contributions, the vote threshold for adopting a budget and raising taxes, and a spending cap. But special interests that might accept comprehensive reform, in which each provision balances the others, tend to defeat piecemeal initiatives. So if the Legislature holds the sole key to a convention, are Californians stuck? No. Repair California, the coalition now pushing for a convention in 2012, has mapped a way forward. It requires several steps. First up is an initiative -- to amend the Constitution to allow the people to call a convention without the Legislature. Repair California is aiming for the November 2010 ballot, when voters elect a new governor to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger. That election is right around the corner, and the secretary of state is recommending Sept. 25 as a target date to file applications with the attorney general for the required ballot title and summary. The attorney general has until Nov. 17 to return the title and summary, and then Repair California has 150 days to gather nearly 700,000 valid signatures. There would have to be a parallel "Proposition 2" to actually call the convention. The same title, summary, signature and deadline rules apply. Our prediction: These measures would find a receptive public. Voters baffled and dismayed by Sacramento's paralysis are ready for a new approach. The scope of the convention could be limited in the measures. Some proponents want everything on the table, from a reconsideration of last year's Proposition 8 marriage restriction to Proposition 13 to pretty much anything else. The approach carries some appeal; what's the point, after all, of a citizens' convention if citizens are limited in what they can do? But including subjects as diverse and as divisive as taxes and marriage rights invites the same kind of emotional turmoil that has plagued the initiative process and has gummed up the Constitution. Repair California has not finalized its plan, but it has been promoting a limited agenda that includes only four broad topics: governance, including how the Legislature and state agencies and commissions are structured and operate; elections, including initiatives, campaign finance and term limits; the budget, including the threshold (two-thirds, simple majority, or something else) for the Legislature to adopt a budget, plus spending limits and requirements; and revenue distribution, especially how tax money is allocated among state and local governments. The thorniest question, which also must be decided next month to make next year's general election ballot, is who will be the delegates. Countless efforts at redistricting commissions have crashed and burned because various interests could not agree on how to pick members. Do you want democracy? Elect the members. But then delegate selection becomes mired in the same political partisanship, the same special- interest string-pulling and commitment-extracting that a convention is, in part, intended to curtail. Do you want to avoid all that? Appoint the delegates. But who does the appointing? The same problems arise: The powers of the status quo, and the special interests, insert their hand into the process. Repair California is also studying a citizens assembly approach, modeled on a Canadian system, in which citizens are summoned, perhaps from each county or Assembly district, using voter rolls. Up to 200 people would meet, confer and then pick perhaps three people from among them to be convention delegates. They would be paid for their time, perhaps an amount equal to what Assembly members get paid. Other ideas are worth considering and blending: County boards of supervisors could nominate some delegates, state officials could name others, some could secure positions by election. No method is perfect. The question of how best to select delegates is vital, and we'll explore it more fully in forthcoming editorials. Repair California expects a convention process to move at a fairly fast clip for such a large job. Californians would vote next year to convene a convention, it would meet over the next 12 to 18 months, and the final product would go on the ballot in 2012. Some critics say that's too long to wait; we need reform now to address severe problems with our budget process, our prisons, our infrastructure, our confidence in government. That may be so, but government has failed so far to make the necessary reforms, and there is little prospect of it doing so any time soon. Fixing California can proceed on multiple tracks. Efforts in the Legislature, or at the ballot box, are welcome. But plans for a convention should go forward to give lawmakers some sense of urgency, and to allow Californians to take charge of their own destiny should their representatives, once again, fall short. the California Redneck
1
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
Government loves to control families and business. The Left that promotes these policies truly love the poor because their polices make many of us poor.
"The latest cheerleader for higher prices is Ellen Ruppel Shell, a professor of science journalism at Boston University who has just published a book titled "Cheap." It's not a guide to bargain-hunting. The theme of Shell's book, subtitled "The High Cost of Discount Culture," is "America's dangerous liaison with Cheap." Shell's argument goes like this: Shopping at discount stores, factory outlets and, of course, Wal-Mart (no work of social criticism is complete without a drive-by shooting aimed at that chain) exploits Chinese factory workers (who would much rather be back on the collective farm wearing their Mao suits) and degrades the environment because much of the low-price junk wears out and ends up in landfills." The concept here is to lower the quality of life, make us dependent on government for the basics of life and to tell us we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. These are Elitist Snobs--period. Tell them to get lost, that discounts, Wal Mart and living free is your goal. Laugh at them--they are funny. By demanding we all pay more to fund their agendas in these harsh economic times, foodie snobs and lefty social critics may as well tell us to eat artisanal cake. By Charlotte Allen, LA Times, 8/30/09 Just in time for the worst economic downturn since the Depression, here comes a new crop of social critics to inform us that we're actually spending too little for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the furniture we sit on and the gasoline that runs our automobiles. Never mind that U.S. job losses these days range from 200,000 to 500,000 a month, that foreclosures are up 32% over this time last year and that people are re-learning how to clip newspaper coupons so as to save at the supermarket. Dire economic circumstances don't seem to faze these spending enthusiasts, who scold us for shopping at supermarkets instead of at farmer's markets, where a loaf of "artisanal" (and also "sustainable") rye bread sells for $8, ice cream for $6 a cup and organic tomatoes go for $4 a pound. The latest cheerleader for higher prices is Ellen Ruppel Shell, a professor of science journalism at Shell's argument goes like this: Shopping at discount stores, factory outlets and, of course, Wal-Mart (no work of social criticism is complete without a drive-by shooting aimed at that chain) exploits Chinese factory workers (who would much rather be back on the collective farm wearing their Mao suits) and degrades the environment because much of the low-price junk wears out and ends up in landfills. Even IKEA comes in for a drubbing in Shell's book. Yes, the Swedish chain's inexpensive, assemble-yourself furniture may look tasteful, but behind every Billy bookcase lies a gruesome tale (in Shell's view) of Siberian forests ravaged for all that pine veneer and gallons of fossil fuel burned by couples motoring to IKEA's remote store locations, strategically chosen for their rock-bottom land values. Most damaging of all, says Shell, is the cost to "The economics of Cheap cramps innovation, contributes to the decline of once flourishing industries, and threatens our proud heritage of craftsmanship," she writes. In her view, we should all save up for "responsibly made quality goods," preferably from shops attainable by "public transit." Maybe it's because I've got IKEA furniture in every room in my house (although my husband did finally lay down his Allen wrench and declare a permanent strike against "assemble-yourself," forcing us to move up the socio-furniture-nomic scale to Crate & Barrel), but I ask: What's wrong with low prices? If you don't care for the quality, well, as my mother always says, you get what you pay for. In an online debate with the Atlantic's economics writer, Megan McArdle, Shell observes with disapproval that, when prices are adjusted for inflation, Americans today spend "40% less on clothes, 20% less on food, more than 50% less on appliances, about 25% less on owning and maintaining a car" than they did during the early 1970s. Over that same period, Census Bureau tables show, U.S. median household income rose by at least 18% in constant dollars -- despite the much-lamented (by Shell and others) decampment of "once flourishing" manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere. That's why even Yet a significant number of social critics wish they couldn't. Robert Pollin, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst -- cited approvingly by Shell -- has argued for higher clothing prices and steep taxes on fossil fuels in the name of various social and green causes, even though, as he conceded in a January article in the Nation, the latter measure would "impose higher energy prices on businesses and individuals." The most zealous of the spend-more crowd, however, are the food intellectuals who salivated, as it were, at a steep rise in the cost of groceries earlier this year, including such basics as milk and eggs. Some people might worry about the effect on recession-hit families of a 17% increase in the price of milk, but not Alice Waters, the food-activist owner of Berkeley's Chez Panisse restaurant, who shudders at the thought of sampling so much as a strawberry that hasn't been nourished by organic compost and picked that morning at a nearby farm -- and thinks everyone else in America should shudder too. "Make a sacrifice on the cellphone or the third pair of Nike shoes," Waters airily informed the New York Times in April. Echoing Waters was her fellow Pollan also hoped that rising prices might constitute another weapon in his ongoing war against his agribusiness villain of choice: corn. Corn is a plant, of course, and thus should theoretically rank high on Pollan's list of permissible edibles. But it is also the basis of such dubious items as snack chips, Coca-Cola (high-fructose corn syrup, godfather of obesity) and suspiciously plentiful beef (corn-fed). Pollan is a "locavore," one of those people who believe that in order to be truly ethical, you should eat only foods grown or killed within your line of sight (for me, that would be my neighbor's cat). He once described a meal he made consisting of a wild boar shot by him in the hills near his Bay Area home and laboriously turned into pate, plus bread leavened by yeast spores foraged from his backyard. Lately, Pollan has set his sights on H䡧en-Dazs ice cream, not because it contains corn syrup (it doesn't) but because it's a commercially made product, and if there's one thing Pollan hates, it's commerce. His latest pronunciamento: "Don't buy any food you've ever seen advertised." Demanding that other people impoverish themselves, especially these days, in the name of your pet cause -- fostering craftsmanship, feeling "connected" to the land, "living more lightly on the planet" or whatever -- goes way beyond Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake." It's more like Marie Antoinette dressing up in her shepherdess costume and holding court in a fake rustic cottage at the Petit Trianon. Those who think that there is something wrong with owning more than two pairs of sneakers or that exquisite fastidiousness about what you put into your mouth equals virtue need to be tele-transported back to, say, the Depression itself, when privation was in earnest and few people had telephones, much less cellphones. Read some 1930s memoirs: Back then, people who couldn't afford "quality" furniture slept on mattresses on the floor and hammered together makeshift tables out of orange crates. They went barefoot during the summer and sewed their children's clothes out of (non-organic) flour sacks. That was what "cheap" meant then -- not today's plethora of affordable goods that the social critics would like to take away from us. Meanwhile, Professor Pollan, eat all the "plants" you like -- but don't try to pry me from my H䡧en-Dazs dark chocolate ice cream. I bought it at Safeway, and it's sitting on my IKEA kitchen table. Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute. -
0
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
After almost 43 years--the voters created a full time legislature in 1966--looks like the damage has been done and we are about to end the nightmare.
"When Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner added the call for a part-time legislature to his speech in San Diego recently, it got the biggest applause of the night. State Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, a lieutenant governor candidate, has introduced a constitutional amendment for a part-time legislature." We now know that as long as the legislature is in session they will continue to pass bills, whether we need it or not. We should look at the Texas model. They have two year budgets, with the budget being the main topic of one session. Then the legislators take off, and return for a short session to deal with policy. My guess is that the public would support this overwhelmingly. What do you think? Part-time legislature idea gains momentum
By Jim Boren, Freesno Bee, 8/30/09 There was a time when my columns advocating returning to a part-time legislature in California would generate letters and e-mails suggesting that my idea was part of the loony fringe. But it seems this wacky idea is now taking off, and some California politicians are making it a part of their stump speeches. When Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner added the call for a part-time legislature to his speech in San Diego recently, it got the biggest applause of the night. State Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, a lieutenant governor candidate, has introduced a constitutional amendment for a part-time legislature. But here's how you really know the idea is getting traction. Defenders of the status quo in Sacramento are so worried about a part-time legislature that they're enlisting critics in a campaign to punch holes in the proposal. They wouldn't do that if people weren't taking it seriously. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown wrote a column in the San Francisco Chronicle saying a part-time legislature is bad for many reasons, including giving more power to the governor. He says just get better people in office and all will be good in California. If only we could. Does he think we're trying to elect people who will bankrupt the state? I've watched California government operate for four decades in my many roles at the newspaper, and I've tried not to be a government basher. But you can't make an objective assessment of the California Legislature without noting the many policy failings of California lawmakers. Let's start with an inability to get a balanced budget on time. This occurred during good economic times and just got worse during the latest financial meltdown. State lawmakers have ducked the toughest issues, including solving the state water crisis, fixing an out-of-date transportation system and improving our underperforming public schools. They can't even fix a state law so California schools will be eligible for millions of dollars in federal education funding. Now this was all done by a full-time legislature. This model has been a massive failure, and it's time to return to part-time status. That would put lawmakers more in touch with real-world California. I agree that this restructuring of the California Legislature appears to have a gimmicky quality that is embraced by those who don't like anything government does. Those who hate government are wrong. Unfortunately, California lawmakers have given them many reasons to believe government doesn't work. My call for a part-time legislature is as much about shaking up California politics as it is about finding the right government structure for the state. Lawmakers think they are untouchable, and changing their status would make them a bit more attentive to public policy. So while a part-time legislature may be seen as a gimmick, the symbolism of the public actually making a change would be huge. Getting the attention of representatives and the special interests who fund them can have a positive impact on policy. There are other needed reforms, including dumping the two-house legislature and going to a unicameral system. We don't need a redundant Assembly and Senate. One gridlocked house is fine, thank you. And once the redistricting changes are in place, let's do away with the term limits that have given us inept lawmakers. We also need to reduce the requirement to pass a state budget from two-thirds of the legislators to 55%. But first, let's start with a part-time legislature. the California Redneck, the California Redneck
2
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
The cynical Left may have lost--looks like true believers in same-sex marriage will be on the November, 2010 ballot.
Courage Campaign leader Rick Jacobs, who will be at the SF confab Saturday, hasn't given up on 2010. "We're going to do the work right now, the really hard, intense research that needs to be done," he told us. "And if there is a clear path to victory in 2010, then we will share that information with the community." If they truly believe in this, they should go forward--if they are using this as a "wedge" issue, they can wait, then lose again. To many in this cause it is about politics, not principle. Same sex marriage could still be on ballot in 2010 - big meeting in SF this weekend
SF Chronicle, 8/28/09 You've heard that Equality California and other same-sex marriage groups suggest waiting until 2012 to ask California voters to approve same sex marriage. But don't sleep on seeing a ballot measure in 2010 just yet. As we speak, the 700,000-member Courage Campaign is pumping more than $200,000 into researching and focus-grouping possible ballot language around California. Leading this effort is Steve Hildebrand, the Obama confidante and gay rights advocate who told us a while back that he's ready to go back to the ballot ASAP. This is an unprecedented effort to do some hard-core research about voter attitudes toward marriage ballot language -- and about what the fallout certain language could have. One key provision in some of the language being tested: It specifies that no religious institution would be required to perform a marriage. During the Prop 8 fight, some conservative religious leaders spread fear -- falsely -- that a gay marriage law could be used to force congregations to perform gay marriages. But winning gay marriage back at the ballot box is going to take more than convincing ballot language. Gay rights leaders and advocates say it's going to take a cohesive, inclusive statewide organization that stitches together groups large and small walking in lockstep on the issue. And it's going to take a leadership structure that is respected across that wide array of organizations. That issue is being addressed Saturday in San Francisco, when leaders from gay rights organizations from around the state will meet to try to create an organizational structure. Or, as they put it: "Establish an interim administrative body, elected by the attendees, which will form the PAC necessary to raise funds for the upcoming campaign." Upcoming? Hmmm. Courage Campaign leader Rick Jacobs, who will be at the SF confab Saturday, hasn't given up on 2010. "We're going to do the work right now, the really hard, intense research that needs to be done," he told us. "And if there is a clear path to victory in 2010, then we will share that information with the community." But, he adds, the Courage crew doesn't intend to go it alone "or lead the community off a cliff." How loud is the clock ticking for those who want to go for it it 2010? While the Secretary of State's office suggests submitting ballot language by Sept. 25 in order to have enough time to gather enough petition signatures, Jacobs says that's only a suggestion. Supporters could wait until "late October or early November" -- as the hard work of signature-gathering won't begin until after the New Year. But, that would make signature-gathering a bit more of a sprint. In the meantime, you can hear Hildebrand talk about the issue live and in person: He's speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco Sept. 28. Check it out here. -
0
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
AB 32 is a job killer--but it is not the first. We have been killing jobs in California since 2001.
How about a special session of the legislature, we could call it "The Job Creation Session" We could find at least 100 bills and thousands of regulations and repeal them--maybe we could become a job creator rather than a family and business killer? Got Manufacturing?: 'We've lost 8 to 10 NUMMI's a year in CA'
Gino DiCaro, CMTA, 8/28/09 Unfortunately, the Toyota portion of NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.) will follow GM's path and vacate their Fremont, California manufacturing facility, despite broad support from the Assembly Jobs Committee's at a Tuesday hearing. NUMMI's decision shows what is certain to materialize for other companies and their suppliers if state policymakers don't produce a competitive manufacturing environment: California facilities will be the first to go when tough economic decisions are made. Uncertainty, regulatory costs and taxes are simply too high in California. CMTA President Jack Stewart offered this salient point in his testimony on the overall picture in the state: "Since the dawn of this century we've been losing eight to ten NUMMI's in California every year." With 580,000 lost manufacturing jobs since 2001, this statement rings true. We are losing manufacturing jobs at a faster clip than the rest of the nation, both before and during the current national recession. Because the overall losses have been more incremental in nature (as they always are), and not under the lights and attention that a NUMMI or Buck Knives received, these job losses have been widely ignored. It's important to note that in December 2008, before the recessionary job losses shifted into high gear, the state was bleeding 474,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. These losses cannot be blamed solely on the recession. Our problems started long before the country's mortgage and stock market meltdowns. And in the collective reality check of our nation and state, California must not deny where so much of our wealth begins -- on the new age factory floors and in the hands of our manufacturing workers. Comments out of the Jobs committee indicate that the tide may be turning. There appears to be interest by some to reinvigorate our manufacturing community, halt California's slide to a low wage service economy, and bolster our government bank account. Remember the 'Got Milk' ad campaign? The simplicity of the message was brilliant. With two words, they got the whole country to ponder whether we had enough milk in our system and how dim-witted we were for ignoring such a necessity. With the past dismissive legislative attitudes, the current employment and economic slide, and now the growing call for manufacturing policies, it's as if you can hear California's new campaign emerging, 'Got Manufacturing?'. California just can't survive by losing the segment of the economy most responsible for creating California wealth. Many California family dreams and success stories were built on NUMMI's innovative factory floor. Let's not lose eight to ten more NUMMI's in 2010. -
0
August 31, 2009
CA Political News
A tiny portion of government red tape has ended. This points out that government is mostly the cause of delays, high costs and anger.
"Current law allows the insurance company to obtain and share a copy of the police and/or accident report with the insured person - but not the insured's lawyer." Talk about stupid and silly. We need a Special Session of the legislature to get rid of 1,000 of these laws. That would be a good start. Can you name other laws that need to be repealed? Schwarzenegger signs bill aimed at reducing lawsuits
BY KATHY WOODS, Legal newsline, 8/28/09 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that allows insurance settlements to proceed faster and reduce the amount of cases brought through the California court system, a tort reform group said. The bill, which was sponsored by Civil Justice Association of California, allows an insurance company to give a copy of the accident report to the insured person's attorney. Current law allows the insurance company to obtain and share a copy of the police and/or accident report with the insured person - but not the insured's lawyer. Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, authored the legislation, outlined in Assembly Bill 470. On his Web site, Niello said: "By allowing the insurance company to furnish a copy of the police or accident report directly, settlements of insurance claims can proceed more quickly, and there is less likely to be the kind of delay and confusion that will lead to a lawsuit." CJAC, the state's leading tort reform organization, commended the Republican lawmaker for carrying the bill. "Our association commends Assemblyman Niello for authoring a bill that will, in these difficult economic times, help carve out a piece of lawsuit bureaucracy and facilitate settlements," said CJAC President John Sullivan. -
0
August 29, 2009
CA Political News
What is it about San Francisco Democrats--why don't they like babies? Here we have an analysis of the ObamaCare plan to use tax dollars to allow abortions. Yes, the plan does not directly fund abortions. It takes a few extra steps of washing the money before the abortions are allowed. What is really interesting is that this Democrat plan for abortion was created by Democrat Congresswoman Lois Capps. Before she served in Congress, she was a nurse. Glad I was not one of her patients.
"AP admitted that the Capps amendment "would allow the public plan to cover abortion" with "dollars from beneficiary premiums." It added, "Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion." Later, the nonpartisan FactCheck web site confirmed that the health care bills in Congress allow taxpayer-funded abortions. Then, Time magazine also confirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying. "The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions," Time explained." While this is just one example of why Obamacare is bad, there are dozens of other provisions that would, on their own, deserve defeat of this monstrosity. For instance, ObamaCare would mandate the IRS give your tax returns to thousands of civil servants and dozens of agencies, to determine the level of "afford ability" for your payments or rebates. some joker just out of high school in Milwaukee will be allowed access to your financial records--including your bank accounts, stock holdings and more. This is still a killer for those over 65. In fact, under this plan Ted Kennedy would not have received ANY health care coverage, no procedures that might have saved his life--all he would be allowed is painkillers. Oh, that is right, he was a Senator, they had exempted themselves from this killer plan. Nancy Pelosi lied about the abortion coverage--what else is she lying about? Imagine, the Democrats, knowingly, have a liar as the Speaker of the House--talk about an immoral majority. by Steven Ertelt, Lifenews.com, 8/28/09 Pelosi issued a factsheet that, ironically, contains few facts about HR 3200 and the various ways in which the bill will allow government-funded abortions. According to Pelosi, the bill clearly spells out that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions. However, the Capps amendment the House Energy and Commerce Committee adopted specifically authorizes the government-run public plan to pay for elective abortions. The public plan collects premiums from taxpayers that are, in turn, used to pay for abortions. Pelosi also says, referring to the Hyde amendment that prohibits abortion funding in Medicare, that the bill preserves the status quo in abortion policy. "The latest version of the House bill continues longstanding federal policy, which currently bars federal funding for paying for abortions ," she says. While the Hyde amendment is not overturned by the health care restructuring bill, it only applies to Medicare and would not limit abortion funding in any aspect of the government-run health care system. The current status quo is that the federal government is not authorized to pay for abortions in numerous instances yet, under the Capps amendment, the public plan is authorized to issue checks to abortionists to pay for abortion on demand. The Capps amendment breaks with the status quo and establishes an accounting mechanism by which government subsidies (affordability credits) will be allowed to fund insurance policies that cover abortion. The abortion funding in the health care "reform" bill is so clear that the Wall St. Journal yesterday became the latest mainstream media outlet to confirm what pro-life advocates have been saying for months. The WSJ confirms the Capps amendment, paves the way for making taxpayers fund abortions with the money they contribute to the government-run system. "An amendment approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would allow coverage of abortion," the respected financial newspaper reported. WSJ added that the taxpayer money paying for abortions would "come from the portion of the premiums that are paid by the individuals." "A sliver of those monthly premiums would be segregated and abortion services would be reimbursed from that separate account," the Journal indicated. "The amendment also says there would have to be at least one plan that covers abortion and one that doesn't in every part of the country," the Journal adds. The confirmation from the Journal follows an Associated Press report with the headline, "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion." "Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue," AP indicated earlier this month. AP admitted that the Capps amendment "would allow the public plan to cover abortion" with "dollars from beneficiary premiums." It added, "Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion." Later, the nonpartisan FactCheck web site confirmed that the health care bills in Congress allow taxpayer-funded abortions. Then, Time magazine also confirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying. "The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions," Time explained. The main House bill, HR 3200, "does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program the so-called public option." Finally, the Washington Times jumped in the discussion this week and acknowledged that taxpayer-funding of abortion and insurance coverage mandates appear in the government-run health care bills. "President Obama isn't being straight when he says current health care proposals don't provide government funding for abortion. They do," the Times newspaper said Monday. "If Democratic plans are passed, your taxes will pay for abortions." Lynne Verdi, Wiccanwolf, the California Redneck, …
7
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
Obama is looking for ways to end talk radio through the "fairness doctrine", localism or diversity--anything that sounds good to the multitudes
Now he is looking to taking over the Internet as well. His idols Fidel and Hugo must be very proud. Under the plan, all Obama needs to do is declare a cyberspace emergency--does not really have to exist--and he will be able to shut down all web sites privately run, like Fox News, Townhall, Newsmax, the NY Times and others. That is what Chavez has done. To reopen the Internet, lawsuits will have to be filed and it could take days or weeks before freedom returns. Is this what we want? Then we have to speak up now. Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 8/28/09 Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill." Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday. A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said. The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do. Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete. The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says. Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.) "The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it." Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network. The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective." Fred, John, Otis R. Needleman, …
8
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
To balance the budget, the Governor and legislature decided to steal money from the injured workers of Poizner Seeks to Block State Fund Sale
By HOWARD FINE, Los Angeles Business Journal Staff, 8/27/09 State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced Thursday he will file a lawsuit to block the sale of $1 billion worth of assets of State Compensation Insurance Fund designed to help close a mammoth budget deficit. As part of the budget package signed in June, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature agreed to attempt to sell part of State Compensation Insurance Fund vic dallari
1
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
Today, thousands will participate in a Tea Party on the Capitol steps in Sacramento. These are real people who because of Obama, the fiscal meltdown of California, AB 32 and other job killers, have decided to get involved in government.
These are not political operatives, these are folks who because of higher taxes have trouble paying their bills. These are people who because of AB 32 no longer have jobs. These are people who see three judges, with bodyguards, making our streets unsafe. These are people who see the cost of food going up and the loss of hundreds of farms, because some judges prefer fish to people. Finally, as the phrase from the classic movie, "Network" goes, "We are mad as hell and won't take it any more"--that is what the Tea Parties are about. Assemblyman Logue looks forward to 'tea party' -
0
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
We haves six juvenile facilities in California, but only need 2. We spend over $250,000 per year, per ward (actually it is closer to $300,000--if you include ALL the costs). A Folsom prisoner costs $47,000 per year, including $17,000 for health care.
California and Texas have about the same number of prisoners, but Texas has 10,000 administrators and California has 20,000. We have lots of waste in our system. Think about how much energy we would save if no TV's were allowed in prison--plus we would help save the planet. If we did not have this fiscal meltdown, the waste and corruption of the system would still be going on. Where are the adults in Sacramento? California to close its largest juvenile prison
The Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino will be converted into an adult prison. The move is part of a plan to 'right-size' staff at the Division of Juvenile Justice. By Michael Rothfeld, LA Times, 8/28/09 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prisons28-2009aug28,0,6189337,print.story The state is closing California's largest youth prison as the population of juvenile offenders in state custody continues to decline, corrections officials announced Thursday. The Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino will be converted into an adult prison, state officials said. The move is part of a plan to "right-size" staff at the Division of Juvenile Justice, which is reducing its workforce by 400 employees by the end of this year to save the state up to $40 million, said Bernard Warner, the chief deputy secretary for the division. The plan also is geared toward reducing the annual cost of incarcerating and caring for each ward from $252,000 to $175,000, state officials said. California's youth prisons have been troubled for years. The state five years ago settled a lawsuit brought on behalf of the juveniles, who said they were locked up for long periods in dirty, dim cells without the education, rehabilitation, healthcare and other treatment the state was supposed to provide. Last year, lawyers for the juveniles mounted an unsuccessful effort to have the system put under court control. Sue Burrell, a staff attorney at the Youth Law Center in San Francisco, said Stark had been "an especially horrible place" since the slaying of Ineasie Baker, a female officer there, in 1996. An inmate was convicted of her murder. "That sort of ushered in this repressive era," Burrell said. "It really never got better. The past [13] years have been filled with lockdowns, beatings and various sorts of cages." With the closure, the state will have five youth prisons, down from 11 in 2003. Three minimum-security fire camps for juveniles have also been closed. The number of juvenile offenders in state custody has declined to 1,700 over the last decade from a peak of nearly 10,000, the result of legislation that now puts most of the youths in county facilities where they can be closer to their families. The Chino facility opened in 1959 and now houses fewer than 400 juvenile inmates. They will be redirected to other youth prisons. An exact closure date has not yet been determined. Currently, the state has been using the youth prison, which has a capacity of 1,200, to house about 600 adult inmates displaced after a prison riot this month at the nearby California Institution for Men. To convert it into a full-time prison, it would have to be retrofitted to make it more secure, subject to approval from state lawmakers, prison officials said. Warner said the retrofitting would be cheaper -- about a third as much -- than the $500-million price tag for a new prison. An adult prison on the site could house sick or mentally ill inmates, said Scott Kernan, the state's undersecretary for operations. That could relieve some pressure from a panel of federal judges who have ordered the state to reduce the number of inmates in its overcrowded prisons by 40,000. A statewide coalition of human rights groups Thursday urged state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to devise a plan to comply with the court order rather than appeal it. "California's correctional system is in a tailspin that threatens public safety and raises the risk of fiscal disaster," said activists from the group Californians United for a Responsible Budget. Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have said they plan to appeal. -
0
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
Totalitarians are fearful of secret ballots--what if voters are not intimidated enough to vote for the union?
so, they want to get rid of the secret ballot. The union owned Democrat Party in Sacramento passed a bill that Castro, Chavez and Obama would be proud of--ending secret ballots for workers. Unions need the bribes (dues) to continue control of government and total control of workers. Worse the LA Times defames farm owners and uses a news story to demean honest people. "The measure, sponsored by the United Farm Workers and carried by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), is intended to circumvent drawn-out campaigns of intimidation by growers." Now you know why the Times is losing subscribers, it is a vicious propaganda piece for totalitarians. Hopefully the Governor will again veto this totalitarian measure. Another farmworker election bill sent to Schwarzenegger
The UFW-sponsored measure would provide an alternative to the traditional secret ballot in votes to unionize. The governor has vetoed similar bills in the past. By Eric Bailey, LA Times, 8/28/09 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union28-2009aug28,0,7086077,print.story For the third time in three years, state lawmakers have sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a proposal that would change the way farmworker elections have operated since the days of Cesar Chavez. The measure, sponsored by the United Farm Workers and carried by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), is intended to circumvent drawn-out campaigns of intimidation by growers. As an alternative to the traditional secret ballot, the bill would allow a union to conduct an election by signing up more than 50% of a farm's workers and then presenting ballots to the state labor board. If a grower protested, the board would be required to investigate any allegations that the election had been improperly conducted. The measure received final legislative approval in the Assembly on Thursday, with a partisan vote of 46 to 28. Republicans, who opposed the bill, argued that it would give the UFW a huge advantage in its bid to unionize workers -- and allow the union to pressure workers. "I don't want farmworkers on my ranch to be intimidated," said Assemblyman Bill Berryhill (R-Ceres), whose family farms in the San Joaquin Valley. "We are putting agriculture in California out of business," said Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville). "These are the types of bills that will crush our future." Democrats, who form the majority in Sacramento, countered that the measure helps level the playing field so workers can fairly decide whether they want representation. "This is the next step toward protecting the full democratic rights of farmworkers," said Assemblyman William Monning (D-Monterey). Mike Naple, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, said the governor will not take a position on Steinberg's bill until it reaches his desk. But in vetoing previous legislation, Schwarzenegger has said he sees such changes as compromising the privacy of workers that is guaranteed by secret-ballot elections and posing the potential for workers to be intimidated. Steinberg's proposal is similar to efforts being pushed on the federal level by the Service Employees International Union and other labor groups. But changes to federal labor rules would not affect the UFW because farmworkers are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act. -
0
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
Get real. Cal State Dominquez Hills is a commuter college. Kids come for their classes, maybe go to the library, then go to work or home. This is one of those schools where students actually go for an education, not to be part of a "family". Yes, a few do, but the thousands of other students really do not care to learn about the food in the cafeteria, that the junior varsity wrestling team is traveling to Northern California for an event.
To save money, so tuition doesn't have to go even higher, the Administration closed down the newspaper that most did not realize even existed. Seems like the LA Times is more interested in training students for jobs that will not exist, how many graduates will the Times hire? Colleges are to educate students for a life. Journalism is totally dying, why teach kids how to create a newspaper, when they will barely exist in the future. Again, the Times is showing its elitist attitude, at the expense of the students future. Cal State Dominguez Hills loses its newspaper, for now
A victim of state budget cuts, the paper at the commuter campus could be revived in the future, but for now it doesn't even have a presence online. It's a loss for the students. James Rainey, LA Times, 8/28/09 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-onthemedia28-2009aug28,0,6826346,print.column Cal State Dominguez Hills is the underdog university in Carson best known for not being best known. Joy Masha is the school's earnest student body president, intent on instilling campus pride. To that end, the student leader typed up her first "President's Corner" column for the campus newspaper and submitted it a few days ago, looking forward to delivering many future essays to the campus community. The problem: No one had told Masha that the Bulletin had been thrown on the state of California's ever-growing budget scrap heap. Dominguez Hills administrators shuttered the student newspaper to save $76,000, making it the only general education Cal State campus (the Maritime Academy has no paper) without a regular outlet for student journalism. With classes jammed to overflowing, instructors facing furloughs a couple of days a month and library hours reduced around the state university system, it's hard to make the case for the resurrection of a little paper produced by roughly a dozen students. But I'm going to argue for the Dominguez Bulletin anyway. The decline of dead-tree communication notwithstanding, the Bulletin has given striving students something more urgent than "Beowulf" to write about; it has trained young journalists how to work on deadline and provided a rallying point for a school that needs one. It's not clear how seriously administrators considered compromises that would have allowed the Bulletin to survive, perhaps as an Internet-only publication. "It's just kind of sad," said Masha, 23. "I just wish the university would have done a little more in seeking funding. Or maybe it's time for our newspaper to go online, before it's eliminated." Dominguez Hills had to absorb about $16.1 million in Cal State's most recent financial contraction. A campus spokeswoman told me that student fee increases (a 20% hike systemwide puts charges for undergraduates at $4,026 a year) and teacher pay reductions (via two days off a month) closed much of the gap. Next on the chopping block, spokeswoman Brenda Knepper told me, were classes that had low enrollment or that students didn't need to graduate. The elective journalism class taught by Cathy Risling fit into both of those categories, Knepper said. The university stands to save $76,000 by eliminating the paper -- a figure that includes printing costs, Risling's part-time salary and pay for two other part-timers -- one a journalist in residence and another who laid out the paper. University President Mildred Garcia was too busy in meetings to talk to me about the paper's demise, Knepper said. But the spokeswoman said the school views the loss of the paper as "a temporary situation." "We are looking for ways to bring the class back, and the newspaper back, in the spring," she said. That's all right, though it seems some alternatives could have been considered before the start of school (most students return Monday) and before the lights went out at the Bulletin. Wouldn't it have made more sense to move the paper online right now, possibly reducing the paid staff to one? By my calculation, that would cost $25,000 a year or less, while preserving the campus' principal communication channel. "I will work with the department and do everything I can to try to get a news outlet back on campus," said Risling, a former newspaper journalist who edits books when she isn't teaching at Dominguez Hills. "This isn't about my job, even though I do love my job and love my students. I just wholeheartedly believe a university should have a newspaper." The Bulletin is not the Harvard Crimson. It doesn't tout a list of graduates who have gone on to big-time journalism. But it has taught young people -- some of whom grew up in non-English-speaking homes -- to think critically and write clearly on deadline. And it has provided an identity and a purpose for student journalists. Rafael Guerrero grew up in South Los Angeles. His mom worked at a produce market. His dad was a cook at a Sizzler. He graduated last spring from Dominguez Hills, the first in his family with a college degree. Now he's working as an intern in the sports department of the Orange County Register, hoping -- despite the challenging times in the news business -- to find a full-time job covering sports. "There would have been no way to follow my dream if I didn't have my clips and my experience from the Bulletin," Guerrero said this week. "It would have been so much harder without that outlet to get the hands-on experience." In last spring's final edition of the Bulletin, readers learned about the impending threat of cutbacks, including the possible loss of a student tutoring program. They read about the campus' preparations for the swine flu and about workshops on how to prepare a resume. At a commuter school fighting to build a sense of community, the Bulletin, which came out every two weeks during the school year, deployed plenty of ink on its winners. When the men's soccer team won the NCAA Division II men's soccer title last year, the campus paper had detailed coverage, including a first-person journal from one of the players. If you've read the paper closely in recent years, you'd know that the school does have name graduates, like Karen Bass, the speaker of the California Assembly. And it's home to L.A.'s pro soccer mecca, the Home Depot Center. James Suldanik, a professor of communications about to begin his 30th year at the school, called the newspaper "the foundation for campus communication" and said its demise will be "a huge loss." Administration officials sound sincere about bringing the Bulletin back in short order. I'll take them at their word. But, lest anyone forget, we've got that pledge marked down right here, in black and white. S. Kimbrig
1
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
Van Nuys used to have a massive General Motors plant. Fremont, I believe, had a gigantic Ford plant. California had a few other auto plants.
Now, thanks to AB 32, Fabian Nunez, the Governor and the legislature, in March, 2010, California will no longer have any cars (except for a couple dozen cars subsidized by government made in Burbank) made in this State. Between the regulations, taxes and fees, it is no longer economical to build cars in this State. And, don't forget the union stranglehold on the car companies. In all, over the years, California has lost over 250,000 auto making and auto related jobs. Now you know why we are in an uncontrollable fiscal meltdown. We need adults in Sacramento. The end of the line for California automaking
Toyota will shut down the joint venture it operated with General Motors in Fremont in March, eliminating 4,700 jobs. Sagging sales and GM's bankruptcy are blamed. By Martin Zimmerman and Maura Dolan, LA Times, 8/28/09 Toyota Motor Corp.'s decision to abandon its assembly line in Fremont marks the end of large-scale auto manufacturing in California, which over the years boasted a dozen or more plants building vehicles ranging from Studebakers to Camaro muscle cars. The Japanese automaker said Thursday that it would end production at the plant March 31, throwing 4,700 people out of work, and return some production to Japan. It's another hard blow for California, a state already grappling with an 11.9% unemployment rate -- its highest since World War II and the fourth-worst in the nation. In addition to wiping out the jobs directly tied to the plant, closing the facility will send ripples through the web of suppliers that make components for the factory and through nearby stores, restaurants and bars that depend on its workers for business. Overall, closing the plant could cost more than 40,000 jobs, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has worked with other public officials to try to keep the plant open. But communications with Toyota eventually broke down, she said. Operated as a joint venture between Toyota and the former General Motors Corp. since 1984, the plant saw its future put in doubt last month when GM pulled out of the arrangement as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. Executives of the venture, New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., told union members Thursday morning about Toyota's decision. It is the first time that Toyota has ever closed a major auto assembly plant. Assembly line worker Jose Hernandez, 40, who commutes 75 miles to the plant from the Central Valley town of Ceres, said the news was a bit surprising because the plant had been busy since the government's "cash for clunkers" program jump-started auto sales this month. "What can I do, look for a job, which is going to be very difficult right now?" he asked. End of an era Shutting down the plant will be another milepost in the long erosion of California's once-thriving auto industry -- a decline that is being only partly offset by the rise of a new breed of start-up car companies specializing in such advanced technology as all-electric drivetrains. The old plants with their union payrolls provided a vital boost into the middle class for many Californians. "The auto industry was very important in this state," said Jack Kyser, economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "You could be a less-than-stellar student in high school and go to work on an assembly line, and pretty soon you were making good wages with good benefits." Many of the shuttered plants were either bulldozed or converted into shopping malls, where paychecks for retail clerks typically are much skimpier. The old GM plant in Van Nuys is now a shopping center anchored by Home Depot, for instance, and a Samson Tire & Rubber factory in City of Commerce was turned into the Citadel mall. Analysts say those better-paying union jobs, along with other costs of doing business in California, are big reasons that California's auto production has fled overseas or to other, lower-cost states. The Fremont plant, which makes Corolla compact cars and Tacoma pickups for Toyota and, until last week, Pontiac Vibe hatchbacks for GM, was the Japanese company's only U.S. auto plant with a union workforce. As Japanese and German automakers opened vehicle production to the U.S. beginning in the 1980s, they often have opted for states such as Kentucky, Texas and Alabama, where union shops are more rare. "It just made sense for Toyota to pull the plug," said Dennis Virag, president of the Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Mich. "When you look at states like Kentucky and Tennessee, California just isn't competitive in manufacturing with its taxes, regulations and overall cost of doing business." The costs apparently outweighed a package of incentives put together by state and local officials in an effort to persuade Toyota to stay in Fremont. The incentives included tax breaks, lower utility rates and publicly funded road and rail improvements around the plant, according to Feinstein. State Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks) said an executive from the Fremont plant had expressed concern to lawmakers about the state's workers' compensation system, overtime laws and employee leave requirements. Cutting production On Thursday, Toyota blamed the end of the joint venture on GM's decision to pull out of the arrangement. It also said that producing cars at Fremont wasn't "economically viable" given the current auto market, the worst in decades. The automaker, which reported its largest-ever annual loss this year, has been cutting production in Japan and elsewhere amid falling sales. Atsushi Niimi, a Toyota executive vice president, said the union presence didn't influence the decision to close the plant. But he acknowledged that "California's cost of living is relatively high, which leads to higher labor costs compared to other regions." Public officials who had lobbied Toyota said they were disappointed by the automaker's decision. Feinstein noted that she had spoken several times to the head of Toyota's U.S. operations and had written to Chief Executive Akio Toyoda, grandson of the company's founder, to offer help in keeping the plant open. "Yet as the days went on, the officials at Toyota grew more remote and less transparent," Feinstein said. "My calls were not returned, which gave me the distinct idea and view that they were going to withdraw from the venture." Public officials groused that the decision came just days after news that Toyota garnered the biggest share of the $3-billion, taxpayer-funded "cash for clunkers" program. The Corolla -- built in Fremont and a plant in Canada -- was the program's top-selling model. Assembly line worker Hernandez, who also is a United Auto Workers union coordinator, said that workers went from four-day shifts to five, with some overtime, during the clunkers program and that the line had been as busy as it was when GM was still producing. Toyota said Thursday that Fremont's Corolla production would be shifted to Canada and to plants in Japan, although the company said it would consider bringing overseas production back to North America "as soon as possible." The plant's Tacoma production will be moved to Toyota's pickup factory in San Antonio. Somber mood Around the headquarters of UAW Local 2244 near the plant, signs were posted Thursday in support of Nummi (pronounced NEW-me), as the plant is known locally. "Nummi 25 years of quality," said one sign. Another said: "Save Nummi jobs." "The mood is very somber. Some people are crying," said Leticia Quesada, 50, who has worked at the plant for 25 years. "At least we have seven months' notice. It's not like they locked us out." Plant officials provided no details on severance benefits, and Niimi said such packages would be negotiated between plant management and workers. He said Fremont workers could apply at other Toyota plants in the U.S. but would not be given preference over local applicants in those areas. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would work with government and corporate officials to ensure that unemployment and retraining funds were made available for workers and that economic aid would be offered for small businesses near the plant. Some business owners said the plant's closure would take a bite out of their profits and probably force them to trim payrolls. Savino Ruvalecaba, 32, general manager of Kirby's, a bar near the factory, said he expected that the closure would cost him 20% of his business. He said he would lay off a single mother who worked an early morning shift that caters to the plant's overnight shift, and he could lose two more employees. Plant managers appeared concerned that a disaffected workforce could result in a falloff in the quality of vehicles produced at the plant, said workers who attended the Thursday morning meeting. Dan Houle, 45, whose father worked at the plant when it was owned solely by GM, said he wouldn't advocate such payback. "It is not going to do any good to be angry because basically that plant put dinner on our family's plates since I was in diapers," Houle said. "As for the future, I am going to do a lot of fishing and a lot of praying." -
0
August 28, 2009
CA Political News
The last State water bonds gave funds to an aquarium in Fresno and built motel rooms in Lake Tahoe. Not a single dam or water storage facility was built. Why do we believe that if we put California another $23 billion in debt (principle and interest) we would be allowed to build storage facilities for water? This is a boondoggle to make Wall Street richer and California families poorer. This water bond, when available to be used for political payoffs, will provide more aquariums and motel rooms. Didn't we learn our lesson that Sacramento lied to us about the last two water bonds measures? Where are the adults? Major water bond proposed in the Capitol.
By John Howard, Capitol Weekly, 8/27/09 A plan to get voter approval on $11.7 billion in new water projects that include reservoirs, Delta environmental protections and even a massive canal is under consideration in the Capitol, the latest in a series of proposals targeting California's water problems. The plan - not yet in the form of a bill - would place a bond issue before voters in November 2010. It is being pushed by Assemblymember Anna Caballero, D-Salinas. Lawmakers in both parties and the governor have been attempting to negotiate a water package that includes new storage and greater deliveries of water into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta east of San Francisco and to the San Joaquin Valley and Central California. They also are considering the construction of a canal to carry water from the Sacramento River in the north around the Delta to the California Aqueduct, which would move the water southward. Some environmentalists oppose the proposal as harmful to the Delta, and Delta interests are fearful of being frozen out of the discussions. The Delta, a vast estuary under court-ordered environmental protections, is crucial to the negotiations because most of the state's drinking comes through the delta. The notion of going to the ballot for voter-approved borrowing is controversial, partly because the state's weak economy may not be conducive to a bond sale and partly because lawmakers are hesitant to take on more state debt. Supporters of the storage projects and canal, including the public water agencies, believe a fee schedule is more efficient and politically feasible than borrowing. -
0
|
Sign our PetitionsPoll of the dayCategories
Archives
|
