10.5.09

Whitman Vows to Suspend AB 32 if Elected, State lawyer finds language of bill ambiguous, you be the judge...

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/05/emissions-initiative-whitmans-cross-hairs/?uniontrib

__________________________________________________________________________________

Department of the Interior and State Leaders to Address
California Water Challenges at Public Meeting in Washington, D.C.
ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, other federal and state officials and members of the public will discuss strategies for addressing a range of water supply challenges facing California at a public forum at the South Interior Building in Washington, D.C. This is the second public meeting on California water challenges jointly held by Interior and California officials. The first was in Sacramento, California, on August 12.

Who: Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior
Nancy Sutley, Chair, President’s Council on Environmental Quality
David Hayes, Deputy Secretary, and other Interior officials
Lester Snow, Director of California Department of Water Resources, and other California officials
Members of Congress and state officials from California
What: Public meeting on California water challenges
When: Wednesday, September 30, 2009. Doors open at 7:15 a.m. Presentations will begin at 8:00 a.m. followed by the public comment time beginning at approximately 10:30 a.m.
Where: Department of the Interior, South Building, 1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20240.
Media: All credentialed media are invited to attend the event.
Listen-in: Dial 1-888-946-8386 and give passcode 8298364—listen-in only



AGENDA FOR FORUM ON CALIFORNIA WATER
September 30, 2009
U.S. Department of the Interior South Building
Washington, D.C.

7:15 a.m. Doors Open – South Interior Auditorium

8:00 a.m. Welcome – Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes

8:10 a.m. Update and Background Briefings
Ron Milligan, Bureau of Reclamation, Operations Manager
Jeff Mount, Professor, University of California-Davis
John Andrew, Executive Manager for Climate Change, CA Department of Water Resources
John McCamman, Chief Deputy Director, CA Department of Fish and Game

9:00 a.m. Remarks by Secretary Ken Salazar and Nancy Sutley, Chair, White House Council on Environmental Quality

9:15 a.m. Lester Snow, Director, CA Department of Water Resources

9:20 a.m. Statements/Remarks from Congressional representatives

10:00 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. Public Input Session (beginning with statements by State and local officials)

12:00 p.m. Meeting ends

-www.doi.gov-

WHY SOCALTRC WILL NOT SUPPORT THE TEA PARTY EXPRESS:

Not only is the Tea Party Express purely a fundraising mechanism for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, the Vice Chairman of that political action committee, Mark Williams posted a very hostile blog regarding the genuine grassroots Tea Party efforts here in California. We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our brothers and sisters throughout the state in saying that the Tea Party Express in not a representation of the Tea Party movement in California, nor do we support their strategy of using the Tea Party as a device to raise partisan campaign funds.

We are and will regain a non-partisan organization. We stand for the constitution, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and free market capitalism.

The following is the full story regarding Mark Williams' blog post regarding the 8.28 event in Sacramento the California Tea Party Movement:

September 19, 2009

California Organizers Answer Belligerent Blog

On September 11, 2009, Mark Williams, Vice Chairman for Our Country Deserves Better PAC, organizers of the Tea Party Express, http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com published a blog entitled, “Meckler Turns on Patriot’s Movement - Every Revolution has its Benedict Arnold, the Tea Party Patriots have Mark Meckler” http://www.marktalk.com/blog/blog/?p=7110 accusing California Tea Party organizers of collusion with “big business and government subsidized agriculture” surrounding the event in Sacramento on August 28, 2009. As all of you know, that was not the case. Our efforts on 8.28 were to help save real families from crushing ego-regulation.

This blog post contained a number of other falsehoods that need to be addressed due to the high profile nature of Tea Party Express and the public nature of the publication. The original post was removed a few days ago, but the copy, in it’s entirety is at the end of this note. http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=7110

This note is for you, the California organizers, to clarify the misstatements in William’s blog, and to give you a better understanding of why he would post something so hostile to our grassroots efforts here in this state.

On September 16th, 2009, Tea Party Patriots released a nationwide “correction” email to it’s membership, addressing some of the accusations, including misstatements regarding Mark Meckler and Amy Kremer’s relationship regarding 9.12 D.C. and her participation with the Tea Party Express (please see the end of this email for the full copy). As important as this correction was, a few issues still need clarification.

BACK STORY:

The August 28, 2009 Tea Party held in Sacramento was originally conceived when Tea Party organizers from across the state, independent of each other, started reaching out to Dawn Wildman and Mark Meckler asking if we, as a movement, were going to address the critical water issue in the Central Valley. It was ultimately decided that we would try to hold a state-wide event in Sacramento addressing not only the man-mad-drought, but ever-growing ego-regulation, including AB32. This way we could unite the overburdened industries throughout California.

Due to geography, Mark Meckler and his wife, Patty were in charge of the location and local logistics. Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association graciously offered to sponsor the event, on the condition that their contracted event coordinator, Jennifer Kerns of K Street Communications, would be in charge of equipment rentals, communication with the media, and would act as a liaison on permitting issues. Jennifer asked all of us that she also be in charge of press releases and recruiting big-name speakers. Mark and primarily Patty were naturally the primary contacts with Jennifer throughout event planning.

The planning committee was made up of California organizers:

• Dawn Wildman (San Diego) - coalition member and speaker recruitment
• Sarah Bond (San Diego) - graphic design, fliers, t-shirts, banners, bumper stickers, etc.
• Ben Bergquam and Brad Roltgen ( Central valley) - liaisons to the farmer and water activist groups, and coalition member and speaker recruitment.
• Laura Boatright (Inland Empire) - webmaster and coalition member recruitment
• Karen Kenney ( San Fernando Valley) - author of press releases
• ALL OF YOU: mobilizing grassroots attendance, and local publicity for the event

August 28th was chosen because the Tea Party Express already held a permit for the Capitol in Sacramento. Mark Meckler reached out to Our Country Deserves Better, and from what we were told, were thrilled with the idea of us bringing our tea party to their location, since no local tea party organizers were helping them in Sacramento. Jennifer was put in close communication with Our Country Deserves Better to facilitate logistics. The one condition of our affiliation on the same location was that the permit had to be turned over to Mark/Tea Party Patriots because we were holding our event until 5pm, and TPE was leaving at 2pm...permit holders are required to be ON-SITE for the entirety of an event. We also wanted to bring in farming equipment for this event and, and controlling the permit would make working with local authorities easier. As far as we knew, Our Country Deserves Better agreed to this.

During one of the organizational conference calls, we were told by Jennifer Kerns that , “we,” held the permit for the South steps of the Capitol for August 28, 2009 and we proceeded.

Shortly thereafter, legal council advised Mark Meckler, that due to the Tea Party Patriot 501 (c) 4 application for non-profit status, that the fundraising and candidate campaigning activities of the Tea Party Express Bus tour was going to be a violation of the application. During a conference call we were told by Patty and Jennifer that Our Country Deserves Better understood the situation and that they would separate their activities at the site as much as possible from ours. We accepted the information with good faith and proceeded with event planning.

We started to find speakers for our event, which we as organizers did ourselves, and we found Coalition members based on those industries being hit the hardest by the over regulation in the state. We each reached out to different industries and asked them to come on board and they did.

This is the original agenda for the event on August 22, as per Jennifer Kerns:

As you can see, Tea Party Express was not on the agenda and we were never told about any conflict regarding the permit as late as this date August 22, 2009. One week before the event. Jennifer Kerns never mentioned Tea Part Express Bus Tour in any of the press releases she authored or supervised for our event.

The last conference call we had on Wednesday before the event was over shadowed by Mark Meckler’s emergency hospitalization for a perceived “heart attack”. As Mark was in the hospital the other organizers and I got to work on putting the finishing touches to the event. It was at this stage that problems arose. This is the revised agenda we received from Jennifer Kerns just two days before the event which now included Tea Party Express spokesmen:

It was at this point that we learned from Jennifer and Jon Coupal that Our Country Deserves Better was not aware of the conflict with Tea Party Patriot’s non-profit application. It was on event day that we learned from the Highway Patrol permit officer that the permit was in the name of Our Country Deserves Better and Jennifer Kerns. Since the California Organizers never had direct contact with OCDB during the planning stage, we cannot with specificity explain where the miscommunication happened. On event day, both parties did their best to accommodate each other under the circumstances. Eric Hogue, the MC, deserves a special mention for gracefully rolling with a number of last minute changes.

To anyone simply attending the event, it was a huge success. And all organizers agreed that we learned a great deal from both the successes and mistakes that were made. The plan was to move on with new found experience and focus on formalizing the 8.28 coalition to capitalize on the momentum of the event.


OUR CORRECTIONS TO MARK WILLIAM’S STATEMENTS:

In addition to the corrections Tea Party Patriots makes in the note below, we offer the following: 

• The organizers of the Sac 8.28 event were legitimate grassroots tea party organizers from across California. 
• The coalition we brought together represented struggling businesses of all industries. For those of you who where there, you heard from family farmers, 4th generation trucking businesses, and independent loggers. None of these entities donated any funding to the event.
  
• The so called “non-English Speaking” migrant workers were people unemployed because of the man-made drought and their boss, a farmer, asked them to come to the event. And yes, they had signs made by a farmer who donated the printing expenses so they could have signs to represent their aspect of the event.
  
• We worked closely with Devin Nunes’ office to help us get geared up for the event and get the legislative and scientific facts in order for fliers and press releases.
  
• Farmers arrived with their tractors prior to set-up and inadvertently used parking spaces designated for the TPE bus. As soon as Jennifer Kerns arrived on the scene, this situation was corrected. The farmers solved this problem by paying for half of the parking permit ($150.00) which they paid to Debra Johns of TPE. There was no planned effort to move the TPE bus to an off location parking-spot.
  
• We cannot address the accusations that Mark and Patty “screamed” at organizers outside California for their involvement with TPE. But we can state that neither one of them behaved in that manner with any of us, despite a number of highly stressful scenarios.
  
• We cannot address the accusation of Patty attempting to assault a HJTA employee, since we did not witness that event. But neither can Mark Williams. He was not present and his statement is here-say. We can confirm that charges were NOT filed against Patty. And nothing in our experience with her during the planning process would lead us to believe her capable of such an act.
  

CONCLUSION:

We regret having to make this situation public in any way, but due to the nature of investigative reporting, we feel an obligation to the California organizers to arm you with information. If you have further concerns or questions please do not hesitate to call me. I am eager as are the other organizers to move forward with building our Coalition and prepare for this huge battle in California against AB 32 and other job killing legislation.

Thanks,
Dawn Wildman...

(From Tea Party Patriots, Sept, 16th 2009)

 TPP Corrections to Mark Williams Blog Post on 9/12

Dear Fellow Patriots: On the morning of 9/12, as we were gathering in DC for the tremendous March on Washington event, Mark Williams (http://www.marktalk.com/blog/ posted a blog item which has caused great concern and anger among the Tea Party Patriots community (the text of this post is no longer available since we have been threatened with legal action now ). So as to not distract from the 9/12 event, we have not commented on it until now, but I want to personally address some of the key misstatements in Williams' post now: 

Tea Party Patriots considers the 8/28 Sacramento event a huge success, and that for Williams to declare that he "can now report that at the Sac828 'Tea Party' event was anything but" is absurd, and an insult to the efforts of the genuine grassroots activists who worked so hard to put it together. Williams may believe that those who came together at the Sacramento event are simply "lobbyists and other representatives of big business" --- Tea Party Patriots does not, and celebrates their efforts and success. •

Neither Tea Party Patriots nor Mark Meckler personally ever tried to undermine the 9/12 March on Washington. Our own Jenny Beth Martin was one of the 9/12 Event Coordinators  and Mark Meckler, Rob Neppell, and I were nothing but supportive of her efforts and of the success of 9/12 generally. We believe Tea Party Patriots is and should always remain a true grassroots organization, but more established organizations like FreedomWorks (the primary sponsor of the 9/12 event) can and should play a productive role in supporting the grassroots of this movement. FreedomWorks demonstrated a true spirit of partnership and respect in their work with Tea Party Patriots and the entire grassroots movement: they didn't just say they would be partners, they actually acted like it, and in so doing provided a model for how traditional conservative organizations can effectively partner with the grassroots. Some purists may object and say that TPP should never work with any 'established' organizations; while this is an honorable view, we feel that so long as they are the right organizations acting in a true spirit of partnership, working with them on events like 9/12 makes sense and can be of great help to our cause. •

Williams statement that "Amy Kremer ignored the Meckler 'order' and traveled with the Tea Party Express to the march" is false: there was no 'order' for me to not travel with the Express either from Mark Meckler or from Tea Party Patriots. In fact, Tea Party Patriots purchased a digital video camera and still camera for me to use on the Express tour to capture images and video as a 'citizen journalist' for TPP. •

Williams statement that "She [Amy] has reportedly since been ousted from the 4-member Tea Party Patriot board..." is simply false. I was never removed from the Board, and remain one of the four national coordinators / Board members. •

"Concerned that removing Meckler would distract from the larger purpose (if not fracture the entire movement) the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots simply isolated Meckler and contained the damage to that single event". The Tea Party Express folks can speak for themselves, but Tea Party Patriots did not "isolate" Mark Meckler; William's statement is simply untrue and he does not speak for Tea Party Patriots. Williams posted an initial 'teaser' for his post on Friday 9/11 and published the entire contents included below the morning of Saturday 9/12. At some time since then, however --- Tuesday 9/15, we believe --- he took down the post, so the URL is no longer active. We are not aware of any explanation that has been given on why the post was removed.

The Tea Party movement has room for a wide spectrum of organizations and individuals, and we may well disagree at times. We felt Williams post left us no choice but to respond and correct the record, but we must stay focused on our fight for limited government and freedom. We have tremendous momentum coming off of one of the greatest events in American history. We must continue to move forward and build this grassroots army with other individuals and organizations. Together, we will win this battle.
On behalf of my fellow Tea Party Patriots Board members, I look forward to continuing to work with each and every one of you amazing Patriots going forward!

Amy Kremeramykremer@gmail.com678.495.8271

On behalf of the Tea Party Patriots National Coordinators:
Amy Kremer
Jenny Beth Martin
Mark Meckler
Rob Neppell 

 The Mark Williams Blog in Question:   We can longer post this blog as we have been threatened with legal action by Mr.Williams 10/2/09

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

As we all now know the Senate voted to end Federal funding to ACORN but there were 7 Senators who still haven’t gotten the message, here are their names and contact numbers so we may let them know how we feel about this!

Patrick Leahy –VT- (202) 224-4242, fax (202) 224-3479

Roland Burris-IL- (202) 224-2854, fax (202) 228-3333

Robert Casey- PA-Phone: (202) 224-6324, Toll Free: (866) 802-2833, Fax: (202) 228-0604

Kirsten Gillibrand-NY- Tel. (202) 224-4451,Fax (202) 228-0282

Dick Durbin- IL - Ph(202) 224-2152 – Fax (202) 228-0400

Sheldon Whitehouse- Ph(202)-224-2921 , fax (202)-228-6362

Bernard Sanders- VT-Phone (202) 224-5141,Fax (202) 228-0776

State fees on greenhouse gas output could be near
By Michael Gardner
U-T Sacramento Bureau
2:00 a.m. September 6, 2009
SACRAMENTO — State air-quality regulators appear back on track to impose the nation's first broad-based fee on greenhouse gas emissions, potentially costing Californians a little extra to fill their gas tanks, turn up the heat or go out to dinner.
Regulators estimate that overall, the average consumer will pay less than $1.50 a year more once the fee is passed down by energy providers and others that release greenhouse gasses linked to global warming.
“We are all aware that California's present economic environment is less than favorable and this is a difficult time to propose a fee,” said Jeannie Blakeslee, a state regulator who helped craft the plan.
“Yet we do not want to lose sight of our long-term goals. Staff has gone to great lengths to ensure that this fee will be reasonable and will not be overly burdensome on anyone.”
The fee will affect about 250 types of businesses, such as the energy and cement industries, that burn huge quantities of fossil fuels. Together, those account for 85 percent of California's emissions of carbon dioxide — the predominant greenhouse gas.
The fee is expected to initially raise about $50 million a year, starting in mid-2010. At first, industry would pay 12 cents for every ton of carbon dioxide released.
Annualized costs spread out among consumers and businesses seem small: 62 cents on utility bills and perhaps 65 cents at the gas pump for economy cars. A supermarket would pay $95, a family restaurant $14 and a 100-person office $7, according to state estimates.
But at 12 cents for every ton released, an oil refinery would pay about $1.3 million a year, and the average cement plant about $200,000.
“Every additional cost adds burden to our already very high cost of doing business in the state,” said Dorothy Rothrock, representing the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
The Air Resources Board proposed the fee to cover the administrative expensives of implementing its aggressive strategy to curb global warming, regulating a broad swath of society from big-rigs to landfills to air conditioners. There are about 175 employees working on climate change issues associated with the board's campaign.
The program has also been living on borrowed money for some time. Exercising authority granted by the Legislature, the board has tapped agriculture, recycling and energy agency accounts to tide it over until a permanent revenue stream can be adopted. Part of the fee — about $13.5 million — will be set aside annually until the money is repaid over the next three years.
Once the loans are repaid, the board plans to lower the fee to 9 cents per ton of greenhouse gases emitted, probably in 2014.
“The fee will eventually be paid by the consumer no matter who pays (upfront),” said Jon Costantino, manager of climate change programs for the air board.
For example, a chain restaurant can expect higher natural gas and electricity costs of about $14 a year, he said.
A wary Susie Berlin, an attorney representing the Northern California Power Agency, urged the board to cap the levy.
“There are no cost-containment measures,” she said. “Because the fee amount is uncapped and the proposed regulation has no termination provisions, the total obligation to affected entities can and likely will increase from year to year.”
Regulators agree limits are not included. However, they say, any increase would have to be approved by the Legislature and governor as part of the state budget.
Kristen Grenfell, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, urged the board to stay on track.
“This fee is a small price to pay for confronting global warming and transforming our energy economy,” she said.
The Air Resources Board seemed prepared to implement the fees three months ago, but was interrupted when electricity providers promised legal challenges. The original plan could have levied fees on power transmitted through the state but not used here — a possible violation of federal energy law.
Air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols urged a rewrite, noting that “this is one of those areas where we're blazing a trail. . . . We want to get it right.” However, Nichols was adamant that a legally defensible fee be imposed on imported electricity because much of it is generated using coal — a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The board's staff has subsequently reworked the plan, which is to be presented to the full board Sept. 24.
Under the new proposal, the fee on power providers will be assessed at the point of first delivery, when electricity is placed on the grid for delivery within California.
Most utilities were still assessing the latest collection plan and hadn't submitted public comments, but Southern California Edison has signaled its support.

September 3, 2009
Schwarzenegger wants answer from feds on water
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to the heads of two federal agencies asking them to reopen talks on federal water pumping restrictions meant to protect fish.

Schwarzenegger wants a response to letters he sent earlier this year asking agencies to reconsider federal regulations restricting water pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Critics of the restrictions, which are intended to protect different species of endangered fish, say they have exacerbated the impact drought conditions have on farming and the state economy.

"I am concerned that the catastrophic impacts of the current crisis on our economy and environment could take decades to reverse and significantly hamper any long-term solutions," the letter states.

Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said Wednesday that the department wants to address flaws it has identified in two separate biological opinions, one to protect the Delta Smelt and one to protect salmon and sturgeon. He said the opinions, issued by different agencies, are also conflicting on some levels.

"We have two aggressive opinions that don't quite match up with each other," he said.

A spokesman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the AP that the agency is reviewing the letter, which you can read after the jump.

In other water news flowing through the Capitol: The joint legislative water panel met for the first time. The Fresno Bee's E.J. Schultz has more on that meeting
here.

We posted the names of the legislators tapped for the committee here.

September 1, 2009

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

The Honorable Gary Locke
Secretary of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Salazar and Secretary Locke,

California's water crisis continues to grow. Three years of drought continue at serious cost to our farms, our people and our economy. As reservoirs remain low and water deliveries unreliable, those costs increase daily.

Water deliveries by the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project to the two-thirds of California's population south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are just 40 percent and 10 percent of normal, respectively. Sixty-four water agencies throughout the state have implemented mandatory rationing to respond to shortages and, on the agricultural front alone, we estimate that these reduced deliveries will result in a Central Valley farm revenue loss of as much as $710 million and cost 35,000 jobs.

This cannot and must not go on. For the past four years, my administration has been working on solutions to California's water supply and the environmental crisis in the Delta. However, I am concerned that the catastrophic impacts of the current crisis on our economy and environment could take decades to reverse and significantly hamper any long-term solutions.

The recent biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to protect threatened fish species in the Delta include overlapping and conflicting actions and restrictions that provide little or no fisheries benefit but do come at a high cost to the economy. The opinions cover both the state and federal water projects but were developed separately, by separate agencies. Ironically, these opinions work against each other, especially in wet years, which may lead to species conflict and devastating water shortages in following dry years.

It is clear that we are trapped in an outdated and rigid bureaucratic process that dictates fish protection actions one species at a time rather than evaluating the entire ecosystem and addressing its many stressors. State and federal water pumps clearly impact the Delta, but regulating as though they are the only influences ignores the complexity of the situation and creates new problems while failing to solve others.

On May 7 of this year, my Director of Water Resources, Lester Snow, wrote to the USFWS requesting re-consultation on Delta smelt and the operations of the state and federal water projects. On August 10, Director Snow sent a similar letter to the NMFS asking for re-consultation on salmon and green sturgeon. These letters remain unanswered. If the federal government believes that re-consultation is the wrong path, then we need to know how to proceed, and we need to know now. We have entered an endless cycle of consultation that is guaranteed to reduce water supplies and water supply reliability, but is not guaranteed to recover or even reduce damage to endangered species. This cyclic regulatory process is not working for people, and it has not worked for fish.

The Delta's water supply is of state and national significance, and the so-called "reasonable and prudent alternatives" included in the two biological opinions impose significant water supply and economic impacts without demonstrating assured benefits for the environment.

Thirty-eight million Californians stand waiting for your formal response.


Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

Legislators try to hammer out water plan
Published online on Tuesday, Sep. 01, 2009
By E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau
SACRAMENTO — The leader of the state Senate said today that his top goal in the final days of the session is passing legislation to overhaul the state’s water system.

“Water is the best opportunity we have right now to show that we can do something big,” Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told reporters. “Maybe we won’t get it done in the next 10 days,” he added. “But I’m sure going to do my darndest.”

The work will begin this afternoon, when a newly created 14-member Senate-Assembly committee will seek consensus on bills that could potentially lead to new canals, dams and restoration of the beleaguered Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Steinberg said he will lead the conference committee, which includes Valley lawmakers Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, and Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto. The Assembly had not yet named its members as of this morning.

The committee is tasked with completing a plan by Sept. 8 that would be sent straight to the Senate and Assembly floors for a vote. The session ends on Sept. 11. Republicans and Democrats still must overcome major differences.

Democrats, who will control the conference committee, are pushing for an independent council to oversee the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the source of farm and drinking water for much of the state.

Republicans are skeptical about creating such a council, which they fear would block a proposed canal that would pump water around the delta southward. Delta residents, who strongly oppose the canal, look at the council very differently — they worry its sole mission would be to build a canal.

The anti-canal coalition's biggest supporter in the Legislature is Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who was left off the conference committee.

The Schwarzenegger administration believes it has authority to build the canal — known in the water world as “conveyance” — but approval by the proposed council would give the project momentum.

Water users, including Valley farmers, have said they are willing to pick up the tab for the canal, which would cost billions of dollars. State water officials already are studying various alternatives, including a canal around the delta or a tunnel under it.

Steinberg said “conveyance must be a part of this package,” but “what the recommended method or mode of conveyance still remains to be seen.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he won't sign any bills that don't include a bond to pay for water projects such as dams, which have long been favored by Republicans but opposed by Democrats. Previous bond proposals have run near $10 billion. But Democrats — if they agree to a bond at all — will likely push for a smaller dollar amount.

Steinberg said he was “very open to a combination bond-fee structure that allows us to not only win broader political support but most importantly [allow the state] ... to pay for all the improvements.”

Still, he said the state cannot afford a bond in the range of $10 billion that Republicans have pursued.

Another key hurdle: Republicans want bond money appropriated continuously — without yearly legislative review — because they fear Democrats will never disburse money for dams. Democrats in past years have fought for the yearly oversight and negotiations have often fallen apart over the issue.

Other Senate members of the conference committee are: Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Penn Valley, and Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar.

8.26.09

More Politics As Usual

http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/joe-mathews/majority-vote-budget-and-23-taxes-the-worst-both-worlds

8.24.09

Business in California needs to fight against political dirty dealing..again

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/024927.html

State Money Grab Could Cost San Diego $75M

Local tax proceeds back on table in Sacramento budget battle

By GENE CUBBISON

Updated 3:00 PM PDT, Thu, Jul 2, 2009

Overall, the county and its 18 incorporated cities could lose as much as $250 million to Sacramento.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is bracing for the prospect of his city losing up to $75 million if an eventual state budget deal includes borrowing and impounding local tax revenues.

"We don't even know where it's coming from," Sanders said in an interview Thursday. "That's how bad the dysfunction [in Sacramento] is."

Sanders is outraged over indications that lawmakers who had previously rejected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call for using local tax monies to help balance the state's budget are now willing to consider it. Such a move would include borrowing local property taxes and appropriating city and county shares of the state's gasoline tax proceeds.

The League of California Cities has vowed to file a legal challenge over the gas tax issue, claiming the state constitution requires the state to reimburse the money to local governments. San Diego's gas tax revenues, worth about $24 million a year, account for a third of the city's budget for street and road repairs.

"You can't let the state start stealing this money that people in San Diego have paid their fare share of, that goes to local streets and roads," Sanders said. "It's unconscionable to think the state would just rip that money off."

Sanders noted that the city enacted $83 million in cuts in a $3 billion-plus budget for the fiscal year that began Wednesday, including a 6 percent payroll reduction to avoid service cuts.

The longer the governor and legislature wrangle over the state budget, Sanders said, "the debt goes even higher, and you've got to make more Draconian cuts. We don't want to be a part of that game."

The mayor is also disturbed that lawmakers are leaving the Capitol over the three-day July 4 holiday weekend -- many to take part in parades and picnics in their districts.

"It's absolute chaos up there [in Sacramento] right now," Sanders said. "There doesn't seem to be the sense of urgency that everybody around here feels at the city and county level."

Commission slashes lawmakers' cars, per diem, health insurance
By Susan Ferriss
sferriss@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Jun. 30, 2009 - 12:19 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Jun. 30, 2009 - 2:21 pm
The California Citizens Compensation Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to cut state legislators' monthly car allowances, fringe benefits and their per diem allowance by 18 percent.

The cuts will begin as of Dec. 1 -- a year earlier than pay cuts the panel recently imposed. The Department of Personnel Administration's Chief Counsel Bill Curtis warned the five-member commission that they did not have the authority to regulate members' per diem allowances, which are about $173 each day the Senate or Assembly meets.

The 18 percent cuts in benefits, per diem and cars also apply to constitutional officers of the state. The action follows and earlier vote to cut lawmakers' and state elected officials pay by 18 percent effective Dec. 1, 2010.

Kathy Sands, a former Auburn mayor, said the amount of per diem legislators are entitled to is "unjustifiable."

The daily sums can add up to between $30,000 and $35,000 a year, tax free. "I feel that this is a lot of money," Sands said.

"They don't have to fill out expense forms to justify anything," she added. She said she believes it's possible to get a room and meals in Sacramento for less than $173 a day.

John Stites, a Los Angeles County sheriff sergeant, recommended the cut of 18 percent for car leases after researching expenses.

Right now, he said, individual monthly leases can be no more than $350 for senators and $400 for Assembly members. Ten percent of that cost must be shouldered by the member to account for personal use. Stites said each member receives a gas card whose charges are not limited. But he said it would be too difficult to try to require detailed accounting of mileage.

"They have to have some allowances to do their jobs," he said.

Legally, it's unclear whether cars are a benefit that the commission can regulate. Curtis' staff opinion doesn't make that clear, but Commission Chairman Charles Murray said it's been suggested that only "insured benefits" -- which does not include cars -- are within the purview of the commission.

Murray said his research into the scope of the commission's authority tells him that the commission has the power to set salaries and benefit packages, including cars and per diem for legislators.

"In the private sector," employers negotiate with employees and say, "here's the package," Murray said. "In the public sector, I think it should be the same way."

Scott Somers, a "compensation expert" on the commission, researched health, disability, life insurance and other benefits packages for constitutional officers of the state and legislators. Lawmakers do not earn pension benefits.

The cut of 18 percent in such benefits is not meant to be a "punitive measure," he said. He said it's to save the state money, maybe about $475,000 a year.

June 23, 2009
UPDATE: Two senators out of 40 haven't taken pay cuts . . .
At the close of day Wednesday, one more state senator sent in official word that he's ready to take a 5 percent pay cut to do his part for the budget crisis.

That leaves just two senators left who haven't agreed to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's call last week to collegues to take a voluntary reduction.

A week ago, Sen. Sam Aanestad's spokesman said the Grass Valley Republican would take a cut if his caucus agreed to it.

Maybe the caucus agreed.

The state controller's office confirmed receipt Wednesday of Aanestad's request for the 5 percent salary cut "effective immediately."

Aanestad sits on the Senate Rules Committee, which during an executive session Wednesday approved cuts in health benefits and a 5 percent reduction in salary for all Senate staff earning over $50,000 a year.

The senators' pay cuts will kick in July 1.

Those who aren't on record yet requesting the cut are Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, and Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood.

Read the list of the senators who've put in their paperwork for the reduction after the jump:


Sam Aanestad - taking 5 percent reduction effective 7/1/2009

Elaine Alquist - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

John Benoit - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Ron Calderon - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Gilbert Cedillo - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Dave Cogdill - taking a 5 percent reduction effective 7/1/2009

Ellen Corbett - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Lou Correa - taking 10% reduction effective 5/20/2009

Dave Cox - taking 5% reduction effective 2/1/2009

Jeff Denham - reducing annual salary to $110,397 effective 7/1/2009

Mark DeSaulnier - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Denise Ducheny - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Robert Dutton -- taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Dean Florez - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Loni Hancock - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Tom Harman - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Dennis Hollingsworth - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Bob Huff - taking 5% reduction effective 6/8/2009

Christine Kehoe - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009, previously declined December 2007 2.75% salary increase effective 12/1/2007

Mark Leno -- taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Carol Liu - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Alan Lowenthal - taking 18% reduction effective 6/1/2009

Abel Maldonado - taking 18% reduction effective 6/1/2009

Gloria McLeod - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009, previously declined December 2007 salary increase effective 1/1/2008

Jenny Oropeza - taking 5 percent reduction effective 7/1/2009

Alex Padilla - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009 thru 6/30/2010

Fran Pavley - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Curren Price -- taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Gloria Romero - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

George Runner - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Joe Simitian - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Darrell Steinberg - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Tony Strickland -- taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Mimi Walters - taking 5% effective 7/1/2009

Patricia Wiggins - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Lois Wolk - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Mark Wyland - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009, previously declined December 2007 2.75% salary increase effective 12/1/2007

Leland Yee - taking 5% reduction effective 7/1/2009

Obama: Union Members Exempted from Health Benefits Tax
Written by CA Political News on June 23, 2009, 06:02 PM
Union Members Exempt from New Health Benefits Tax

by Jed Babbin, Human Events, 6/22/09

Union members and their families who receive healthcare benefits
paid for by their employers would be exempted from a new tax on
healthcare under one option being proposed by Sen. Max Baucus
(D-Mt), according to a report by the Fox Business Channel's Peter
Barnes.

Baucus's plan would tax health care benefits to raise from $161.9
billion to $418 billion over ten years to fund the nationalized
"government provider" of health care benefits President Obama and
Democrats want. Peter Barnes told me, "There would be preferential
treatment for unions" under one version of the Baucus proposal.

As shown on page 3 of the Baucus outline published by Fox News under
two of Baucus' four options, healthcare benefits provided under
collective bargaining agreements dated on or before January 1, 2013
would be exempt from the tax.

Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is taking a very
risky path to his bill, which is different from both the Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D-Mass) draft and the drafts now being prepared in the
House.

As Barnes' report says the exemption may be essential to passing the
bill:

"The tax proposals also likely face strong opposition from some of
the President's and the Democratic party's key supporters -- unions
that enjoy more generous health-care benefits won through
hard-fought contact negotiations over decades. Apparently
anticipating some objections about the possibility of affecting
contracts already in place, Baucus has proposed protecting some
union benefits by "grandfathering" collective-bargaining agreements
existing on January 1, 2013, in his "base plus 10%" and "base plus
20%" options, according to his presentation.

But it's not clear when or if ever that exemption would ever expire.
Union agreements dated before January 2013 could be extended
indefinitely even if other benefits and terms change. All that's
apparently necessary to perpetuate the pre-2013 date would be to
have both parties agree to modifications rather than a new
agreement.

This proposal is entirely consistent with the Obama administration's
handling of the GM and Chrysler bailouts which inure to the benefit
of the United Autoworkers Union and not to the companies'
shareholders. It would penalize every non-union recipient of
employer-provided healthcare benefits.


Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events and HumanEvents.com. He
served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George
H.W. Bush's administration.

California assemblyman Juan Arambula re-registers as an independent
By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 - 10:05 am
Last Modified: Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 - 1:43 pm
A California assemblyman has split from the Democratic Party as both houses of the Legislature head toward a contentious vote this week on a plan to bridge the state's $24 billion budget gap.

Juan Arambula confirmed today that he has re-registered as an independent.

Formerly a moderate within the Democratic caucus, Arambula is scheduled to be termed out next year from his Central Valley district, which encompasses portions of Fresno and Tulare counties.

It is not immediately clear how Arambula's decision will affect the coming budget vote, which includes more than a dozen bills that will require a two-thirds majority in both houses to take effect immediately.

Arambula said his decision to become a decline-to-state voter, or independent, had been brewing for quite a while.

"I think I owe it to my constituents to be an independent voice," he said. "My hope is that by becoming an independent that the concerns and the interests of my region will be heard."

Arambula expressed reservations about the Democrats' budget-balancing package, including proposed tax increases on tobacco and oil severance. But he did not say specifically that he planned to vote no.

"I have, in the past, voted for taxes, and I think there is a time and place to do so," he said. "The reality is that we are unlikely to get a two-thirds (vote) to raise taxes, so whether I might support them in limited situations or not is an academic issue...I could vote for additional revenues if we had had done everything we can to reduce the costs." Asked specifically if he felt the state had done so, Arambula said only that "I have a number of concerns on the budget."

Republicans were quick to applaud Arambula.

"I'm not a Republican," Arambula said. "I don't intend to be a Republican. I want to feel free to disagree regardless what party is involved."

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, in a written statement, said that Arambula has "been a thoughtful part of the leadership in the Democratic Caucus, so it's unfortunate he has decided to re-register. Juan has important perspectives to offer, and I hope he will continue offering them to his colleagues as part of our caucus."

"As to questions about what this may mean for the budget, the people in Assemblymember Arambula's district -- as in all our districts -- need good schools and a safety net for the most vulnerable, and the Democratic Caucus will continue fighting for those causes."

Two weeks ago, Bass named Arambula to head the Assembly Public Safety Committee in a shuffle necessitated by the departure of former Assemblyman Curren Price for the Senate.

Bass removed Arambula from the Assembly Budget Committee and a budget subcommittee on state administration upon his being named chairman of the public safety panel.

Arambula has a reputation for speaking his mind and not necessarily voting in lockstep with the Democratic caucus.

Three years ago, then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez ordered Arambula to move into the Assembly's "doghouse," a shoe-box sized Capitol office often reserved for lawmakers in disfavor with their party's leader.

Arambula was relegated to the tiny, fifth-floor office of 807 square feet after refusing to fall in line with Democratic leadership on a record $37.3 billion bond package.

Arambula also was stripped at the time of his chairmanship of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy.

Weeks later, Núñez relented, reinstating Arambula as committee chairman and offering his old office accommodations back.

Arambula is a former member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Fresno Unified School Board.

The son of immigrant farm workers, Arambula possesses a master's degree in educational administration and policy analysis from Stanford University and a law degree from the University of California, according to the biography posted on his Web site.

He lives in Fresno with his wife, Amy. The couple has four adult children

Act now to avoid ugly tax surprise, California warns
By Claudia Buck
cbuck@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 8B

Don't get stuck with a bigger tax bill next year. It could happen, given changes in California's tax laws that could cost the average married couple with two kids an extra $670 next April 15.

To avoid that unpleasant surprise, the state Franchise Tax Board is reminding taxpayers to adjust the withholding rates on their paychecks now.

"Our concern is that if people don't adjust their withholding, they may be in for a big surprise next April when their 2009 tax bill is due," said Brenda Voet, spokeswoman for the state tax board. "People who may have been expecting a $500 refund, for instance, may instead owe money."

The tax changes, adopted by the Legislature in February as part of the state's efforts to close its budget gap, added 0.25 percent to California's personal income tax rates and reduced the tax credit by $210 for each dependent claimed on a tax form.

In other words, your tax rate is higher and you can't deduct as much for each child or dependent. (Last year, for instance, a married couple with two kids claimed $99 in personal exemption credits for each spouse and $309 for each child; starting this year, the exemption for each child/dependent drops to $99, same as for the adults.)

The new rates are effective back to January, but employers did not receive the state's new withholding tables until April.

"By the time employers could get their computers set up with the necessary changes to withholding schedules, the new withholding may not have happened until May, even June," said Voet.

That means your withholding may have been too low for the first four to six months of this year to accommodate the increased tax rate. In addition, taxpayers who claim exemption credits for dependents may need to change the number of allowances they claim.

Those who make quarterly tax payments may want to increase the amounts to avoid getting caught short April 15.

For more details, go to the FTB's Web site, www.ftb.ca.gov (search under "Individuals" and "Plan for next year"), or call (800) 852-5711. You can also calculate your withholding rates using Form DE 4 at the Employment Development Department's site, www.edd.ca.gov.

It's Not About You, Anthony Adams

By Jon Coupal

A great line from Carly Simon's You're So Vain is "you probably
think this song is about you." Well, if you are reading this,
Anthony Adams, rest assured that this column is not about you. It is
about reasonable taxpayer expectations.

Some brief history: Anthony Adams is the Assemblyman who represents
parts of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties who, along with two
others in the Assembly, broke ranks with GOP colleagues to provide
the votes needed to approve a $12 billion tax increase in February.
That increase was part of a package that included putting
Proposition 1A on the ballot which would have dealt taxpayers
another $16 billion blow.

Since casting votes which inflicted irreparable harm to already
overburdened taxpayers, Adams has taken the position that those
votes were actually courageous because they prevented California
from "going off a cliff." For the record, there are those who
describe Adam's actions in more colorful and less flattering
language.

Adams is a second term legislator who was elected to office by
ordinary folks who work hard to look after their families, keep a
roof over their heads and put food on the table, while at the same
time generously paying high taxes to support others who cannot, or
will not, support themselves. In this economy, many of these same
voters now have a new challenge -- holding on to their jobs and
homes. So, after Adams voted to increase taxes that were already the
highest in the nation, it is no surprise that many of his
constituents now support an effort to remove him via recall. They
cannot, they say, afford to take the chance that Adams will remain
in office long enough to cast any more of his "courageous" votes.

Now in survival mode, Adams has abandoned his base of working
taxpayers and sought the protection of the governor and the
financial support of the "tuxedo class" to preserve his office.

Some argue that any recall of legislators who violated their written
pledges to voters is a waste of time and money. What's the point
anyway when Adams can be challenged in the primary election just 12
months away? Is the recall effort just an over-the-top response by
reactionaries seeking revenge, or is there a legitimate basis for
resorting to this tool of direct democracy?

First, it would be difficult to argue that Adams' own actions would
not provide substantial grounds for immediate dismissal from a
private sector job. His foremost transgressions would clearly
constitute "job fraud," which is described as "fraudulent or
deceptive activity or representation on the part of an employee ...
toward an employer." There can be little debate that Adams
misrepresented his views to his employer -- voters -- prior to the
election.

Want proof? A mailer Adams sent out asking for votes states, "I will
oppose any attempt to raise taxes." Additionally, Adams signed the
following: "I, Anthony Adams, pledge to the taxpayers of the 59th
Assembly District of the State of California and to all the people
of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all
efforts to increase taxes."

And there is absolutely no evidence that enhanced interrogation
techniques were used to compel Adams to make these declarations. The
principal of "no new taxes" was clearly represented by Adams as a
core belief and commitment and was presented to the public as a
reason to elect him to office.

And that is what distinguishes his situation from all the Democrats
who voted for the tax increases. That is precisely the behavior we
expect from the majority party. And we are aware of no Democrat
legislator in California who has signed the no tax pledge.

Some argue that all Republicans who voted for the tax increases
should be recalled. While there is some merit behind that position,
the other Republicans who voted for the "grand deal" either did not
sign the pledge or are termed out of office. Adams' situation, when
taken as a whole, is different: He could serve for another three
years and he is now equally strident about defending his
anti-taxpayer vote as he was previously about being a defender of
taxpayer interests.

There is another reason why the current Adams recall is wholly
justified: Those Californians who do not live off the public dime
want to make sure that those legislators who claim to represent the
interests of taxpayers will continue to do so. Every member of the
California Legislature is being heavily pressured to save this or
that program by the conga line of special interests now testifying
before budget committees. Quite frankly, those who pay the bills
don't have time to travel to Sacramento to engage in this mindless
dance. Recalling a legislator who stabbed us in the back is a good
way to remind other legislators that there are certain acts which
are unforgivable and punishable by the political death penalty known
as recall.


Jon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-- California's largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated
to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers' rights.

2009-24 



FORWARD THIS MESSAGE
Please forward this message to your friends
who are California homeowners or taxpayers.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE HJTA LIST
If this message was forwarded to you by
a friend, please consider subscribing at
http://www.HJTA.org/free-e-mail-updates/

JOIN HJTA
If you are not already a member
of HJTA you can join online at
http://www.HJTA.org/join-us

Governor gets scolded on water
By Steve Wiegand
swiegand@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 18, 2009 - 11:44 am
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took his balance-the budget stump speech to Fresno today - and got an earful of water.

After giving a speech on the fiscal travails California is facing because of a gaping budget deficit, Schwarzenegger took questions from an audience that was heavy with carpenters' union members, local elected leaders and people who were far more concerned with the San Joaquin Valley's water troubles than they were about Sacramento's political squabbles.

After a Fresno city councilwoman delivered lengthy comments about the problems the city faces because legislators and the governor are planning to divert gas tax money from local government to state government, Schwarzenegger called on a man who identified himself as "a cradle Californian and a Vietnam veteran."

"If you allow water to flow, you allow dams and canals to be built," the man said to enthusiastic applause, "you will raise revenue and you won't need to make cuts."

But, the man continued, since the governor had "refused to address the most important issue ... you have lost control of your state government."

"I hope you didn't refer to me as saying that I haven't addressed the issue," Schwarzenegger replied, "because I think it's very important that everyone know that I've been fighting for water for the last four years ... but I know that maybe you didn't mean that."

"I did mean it," the man shot back.

"OK, so you did mean it," Schwarzenegger replied. The governor then called Victor Lopez, the mayor of the nearby town of Orange Cove, up on stage to bolster Schwarzenegger's water credentials.

"If there's been anybody that has stood with us, the farm workers, the farmers and the business people of the whole state of California (on building a better water delivery system) it's been this governor from Day One," Lopez shouted. "There is going to be victory, because we have the best governor that any state in this whole nation has ever had!"

After another questioner importuned Schwarzenegger "please don't make us look like Bakersfield," the governor acknowledged that the water victory would have to wait until there is victory on balancing the budget.

"We will get a water deal as soon as the budget is done," he said. "But there will never be a water deal until you get a budget, because you have to pay for it ... It will be on the top of our list ... it has been on the top of the list for the last three years."

A carpenter told the governor that a way to put his union members and others to work was "to build more dams." And a city councilman from Porterville suggested that Schwarzenegger lead a counter-lawsuit against environmental groups and others who have filed suits in federal courts that have delayed some water storage and conveyance projects.

"I have been urging the federal courts to turn on the pumps, turn on the pumps," Schwarzenegger said, "because I think it's ridiculous that we pay more attention and feel sorry for the smelt and the fish and the (other) species than for the people of California."

The governor then excused himself so he could attend a meeting with local mayors. "About water," he deadpanned.

Democrats plan to pass California budget plan next week
By Steve Wiegand and Jim Sanders
swiegand@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 18, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 4A
Democratic legislative leaders vowed Wednesday that the Legislature will pass a "share the pain" plan early next week that will close the state's deficit without completely shredding California's social service safety net.

Whether it will contain a tax hike on cigarettes and a new tax on oil production, however, is problematic.

Only an hour or so before Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, made their early-next-week predictions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases.

"I am very, very much against any tax increase whatsoever," the governor said. "And I'm also talking about fee increases. None of that will fly with me."

The rhetorical staking out of ground by the key figures in the current version of the state's ongoing fiscal melodrama came a day after the Legislature's joint budget conference committee adopted a plan to balance the budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

The plan includes about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge the $24 billion budget gap, and a $15-per-vehicle registration fee to finance the state park system.

Steinberg and Bass said the conference committee's plan was a "reasonable response" to the package of deep cuts and revenue shifts that the governor had proposed last month.

And they offered a fusillade of figures to back up their contention: About 45 percent of Schwarzenegger's proposals were completely accepted by the committee, according to Bass, and 93 percent were accepted to some degree.

The key differences are that the governor's plan cuts more deeply into education, and health and social services programs for the poor, elderly and disabled, while the Democratic plan would replace some of the cuts with revenue from the tax increases.

"The people of California and the Legislature have to ask a question," said Steinberg.

"Is it more important to not look at increasing the tax on tobacco products, vs. eliminating 900,000 kids from the health care rolls? We're not willing to do that."

But the tax idea is apparently anathema to Schwarzenegger, who met privately with Bass and Steinberg earlier in the day.

The governor reminded reporters at a gathering outside his office that the state budget adopted in February for the fiscal year that starts July 1 included more than $12 billion in tax increases, which he supported.

"To now, four months later, come out with another tax increase is irresponsible," the Republican governor said.

GOP legislators have also consistently railed against tax hikes. Since a tax increase would take the consent of two-thirds of both legislative houses, Republican lawmakers can block passage of the tax element of any budget-balancing plan.

"I think we're moving backwards," said Assembly Republican leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo. "We're not making progress; we're going in the wrong direction.

Bass and Steinberg seemed to be reconciled to the likelihood that the tax hike proposals would fail next week. Steinberg said that if they did, the package they sent the governor would have a reserve $2 billion smaller than he had sought.

If the governor sticks to his insistence that the plan contain a $4.5 billion reserve, the money lost from a failure to pass the tax increases could be made up by borrowing $2 billion from cities and counties.

The borrowing idea, which was ratified by voters in 2004, is bitterly opposed by local governments. It was part of the governor's original proposal but was unanimously rejected by the conference committee.

Schwarzenegger has also objected to Democrats' refusal to tack an additional 5 percent salary cut onto the two days of unpaid furlough currently imposed upon state workers during the fiscal emergency.

Steinberg countered that "the governor ignores the fact, quite frankly, that there is a 10 percent pay cut already in place for state workers," a reference to the two payless furlough days Schwarzenegger ordered earlier this year.

The two leaders said they would seek GOP support for the package (although almost certainly without the tax increases) because a two-thirds approval would put the plan into effect immediately.

Simple majority votes would put the plan into place 90 days after it was signed.

They also predicted that after several more days of talks with the governor, a Legislature-approved plan would be on his desk by the middle of next week.

"We're going to surprise you all," Steinberg said

Senators fly high on taxpayers' dime
By Abby Phillip
The Politico
June 11, 2009

Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer each spent more than $140,000 in taxpayer money on travel in the first half of the fiscal year — roughly 10 times as much as some of their thriftier colleagues.

Cornyn, a Republican, racked up the highest travel bill in the Senate by spending more than $38,000 on a St. Michaels, Md., retreat for 59 staffers and by taking expensive, multicity charter flights throughout his home state of Texas.

Schumer, a Democrat, ran up the second-highest bill by routinely flying private charters to cities in New York served by commercial airlines.

On Dec. 2, for example, Schumer spent $4,000 to take a private plane from New York City to Albany and back again. Delta and US Airways both fly that 140-mile route several times a day, with fares ranging from around $400 to less than $200 if purchased in advance.

Asked about the senator’s use of charter flights, Schumer’s office released a statement saying that he promised when he first ran for office that he would visit each of New York’s 62 counties every year — and that he’s kept that promise by using “a small, propeller plane to make as many as five stops across upstate New York and hundreds of visits each year.”

“Sen. Schumer takes outreach to his 19 million-plus constituents seriously, and his busy travel pace makes him one of the most accessible members of Congress,” Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said in an e-mail to POLITICO.

Fallon said that Schumer usually travels with a personal aide and sometimes with one other staffer.

Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said his boss’s Texas-size airfare tab stems from the size of Texas itself.

“It has to do with travel around Texas ... the realistic ability to use commercial flights to get him where he needs to be, when he needs to be there,” said McLaughlin. “I’ve driven from Austin to El Paso, which is easily an eight-hour drive. It’s unbelievable how far it is.”

But other big-state senators manage to get around much more cheaply. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison spent about $88,000 on travel in the first half of the fiscal year; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski spent about $65,000 on transportation — less than half of what Cornyn spent.

The transportation expenditures are paid out of the senators’ official personnel and office expense accounts, the $2 million to $4 million each senator gets annually to cover the cost of travel, staff payroll and other expenses related to members’ official duties.

These figures do not — or at least should not — include money the senators spend on purely political trips, such as any Cornyn and Schumer may have taken as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and past chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively. They also do not cover trips senators take as part of overseas congressional delegations, which are paid for by separate funds.

While office-account records show that Schumer and Cornyn are the biggest Senate spenders when it comes to transportation, they’re not the only members of the taxpayer-funded frequent-flier club. In the first half of the fiscal year, three other senators spent more than $100,000 each on transportation: Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.).

Although Murray flies commercial, her $122,000 travel tab is more than twice that of her Washington state colleague, Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell — largely because she returns to the state nearly every weekend.

“It’s a very large state, incredibly rural, and some major population centers are four hours away from each other,” said Murray spokeswoman Alex Glass, echoing an explanation voiced by a number of other Senate aides. “Sen. Murray believes that she and our staff can help our constituents best by going into the communities, talking to people on the ground. She puts a priority on being back in the state.”

The use of high-priced charter flights to travel on Senate business does not violate Senate ethics rules as long as they are paid for by the member’s office, but they can be a source of embarrassment for elected officials, especially during times of economic hardship.

“We are living in a world where members of Congress are treating themselves to an elite lifestyle on the taxpayers’ dime,” said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste. “Charter flights should be the choice of last resort. It shouldn’t be used like a cab. It’s the most carbon-intensive and expensive way to fly.”

Between October 2008 and March 2009, records show, Schumer took 25 chartered trips to destinations within his home state, more than any other senator. Each trip carried a price tag of between $1,000 and $7,000, bringing the total cost of Schumer’s chartered travel to more than $100,000 in six months — approximately two-thirds of the $144,014 he spent on transportation in that time period.

In most cases, Schumer traveled to cities within 30 minutes of an international airport, some of them served by hourly commercial flights for as little as $49 each way.

Five years ago, during his first reelection campaign, Schumer answered accusations that he had spent more than $400,000 in taxpayer funds on chartered trips during his six-year Senate term. Then aides touted his 603-flight record as evidence that he was committed to his constituency, but they were also forced to contend with the “Charter Chuck” tag that Republican rivals hoped would stick during the campaign.

Corker and Bond have also paid thousands for chartered flights in fiscal year 2009; aides say they’re needed to cover long distances in the senators’ states. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) also spent taxpayer money on charters, taking three trips — at more than $5,000 each — between Washington and his hometown of Charlestown, W.Va. His senior colleague, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), does not use chartered jets to make the hourlong flight, Byrd’s spokesman said. Rockefeller’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

On average, transportation costs account for less than 5 percent of a senator’s office expense budget; in most cases, the remainder of the funds is consumed almost entirely by staff payroll. In the first half of the fiscal year, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein spent a total of $2.1 million out of her office account, more than any other senator. Rounding out the top five were Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Hutchison, Cornyn and Schumer.

Politicos' Wives Vacation on Taxpayer Dime
Española Schools Spend over $9,000 on trip to California


By Tony Hernandez
The Rio Grande Sun (New Mexico)


June 11, 2009


Española School Board member Leonard Valerio had predicted last October when Board members were planning a trip to the National School Board Association 2009 Conference in San Diego, Calif., taxpayers would have to foot a bill as high as $9,000.

Valerio’s estimate ended up being just a little low. The early-April trip cost the District about $9,087.25, according to District documents. The total is still up in the air because not all those who attended the trip have submitted reimbursements.

In addition to the cost, the District also purchased the airfare for the spouses of two Board members, Floyd Archuleta and Andrew Chavez. Despite both Board members insisting they reimbursed the District, District records do not back up their claims.

A review of expense documents also shows that the District paid hundreds of dollars to register Joe Romero for the conference even though he is no longer on the School Board, and paid hundreds of dollars for a rental car that was barely used and probably not needed. The District even paid for Supertinendent David Cockerham to attend the conference even though he was set to retire in June.

When it comes to the airfare of Floyd Archuleta and Chavez’ spouses, the ticket price for each couple was $402.60, District documents state.

Both Floyd Archuleta and Chavez said they reimbursed the District for their spouses’ ticket. However, the District did not keep any record of reimbursement for the Board members.

Both Cockerham and Business Manager Charlene Sanchez said the two Board members wrote out checks directly to Bank of America, the District’s credit card company, in order to reimburse the District for their wives’ tickets. Cockerham and Sanchez said the reimbursement would show up in the May billing statement.

But when the statement arrived, it showed no payment from the two Board members.

Chavez provided a cancelled check dated April 23 for $201.30, or half of the couple’s airfare. The check, however, did not have Chavez’s nor his spouse’s name on it. Instead it named the Española School District as the author of the check.

Sanchez said the check did not come from any District bank account pointing out that the bank named on the check was the ZIA Credit Union. Sanchez said the District has accounts with Valley National Bank and Bank of America, not ZIA.

She said when Chavez and Floyd Archuleta turned in their checks, the District made the payments for them to Bank of America. When the District made the payment, Sanchez said the transaction was done electronically, possibly over the phone or computer. She said that is why when Chavez asked for the reprinted check, it showed as if the District made the payment instead of Chavez.

Regardless, the District’s Bank of America April and May statements showed no payments in the amount of $201.30.

Floyd Archuleta refused to even go as far as Chavez and reprint the check.

“I don’t want to go (to the bank) just to satisfy (the Rio Grande SUN),” Floyd Archuleta said. “I’m not going to get you a printout of that check. I’m just telling you how we handled it.”

This is not the first time questions have arisen when Archuleta has taken taxpayer-funded trips.

In 2000, Archuleta became the subject of a federal Department of Energy probe after the SUN found vouchers showing he charged both the city and Los Alamos National Laboratory for a trip to Carlsbad. Archuleta said it was just a simple mishap; he reimbursed the city immediately after the story ran.

Archuleta was asked why his wife went on this "business" trip.

“I always take her with me when I travel,” he said.

Valerio said he continues to oppose out-of-state travel.

“This is why I don’t like to go on these trips because of these types of issues,” Valerio said. “It makes the School Board look bad in term of recklessness in cost. But I got to tell you, the Board members have a right to go if funding is available for this training.”

No Show

Included in the total trip cost was the registration of five Board members though only four attended the conference. Association representative Nelson Elvir said the District registered Superintendent David Cockerham, Board members Joann Salazar, Chavez and Archuleta and former Board member Joe Romero for $3,425 at $685 per person.

Romero did not attend the conference since his term ended in March when he was replaced by Coco Archuleta.

Romero said he did not know he was registered for the conference. However, he told the SUN in October that the trip “may be not so wise” since he was not sure if he would be a Board member at the time of the conference.

“It was an oversight,” Cockerham said. “What we do is we (register) real early. We have to do it early so we get the discount. His registration, you can’t change his name on the registration. That’s what happened, I’m sure that’s what happened.”

Elvir said the District registered sometime before Dec. 30, 2008, to avoid paying an extra $165 per person.

The group stayed at the Crown Plaza Hotel, which charged the District $3,020.97 for six nights. According to Crowne Plaza receipts for four rooms, the room rates were $145.24 per night per room for two nights and $167.74 for four nights.

The District also rented a Toyota Highlander for $485.62.

According to Google Maps, the distance between the hotel and the San Diego Convention Center, the conference location, was about six miles or 12 minutes in driving time. According to Google Maps, at least 16 other hotels suggested by the Association itself were closer. Furthermore, Cockerham said they barely used the rental car because they learned of a shuttle service from the hotel to the convention center.

Cockerham, Chavez and Floyd Archuleta also received a total of $932.76 in per-diem expenses. According to District documents, the per-diem rate is also inconsistent among the three. Chavez and Floyd Archuleta received $270 or $45 per day while Cockerham got $250 or $41.67 per day.

According to the state Per Diem and Mileage Act, public officials are given $15 per meal for out-state-travel. Business manager Charlene Sanchez said she looks at conference agendas to see if meals are provided for District employees. In this case, the conference did not provide any meals and thus the District paid for every meal up to $15.

Where the group ate, how much they spent per meal and whether any of the wives benefited from the per diem is not clear since no one in the group provided any receipts for their expenses.

The Act states that officials must turn in receipts for their expenses, but Sanchez said receipts were not necessary.

“Receipts are required if you go with actual (expenses) and we don’t,” Sanchez said. “We do the maximum (allowance).”

Not all of the documents requested by the SUN were immediately provided by the District, and one large expense, Salazar’s flight receipt, is still missing from District records.

Salazar said she paid for her own airfare but had not turned in receipts for reimbursement and had not yet asked for her per-diem allowance. She said her airfare cost close to $400, and was more expensive because she bought the ticket late.

“It was well worth the trip,” Salazar said. “(I have) no qualms about getting my compensation for all the work that I do.”

Isn't He Retiring?

With the District struggling to make up for the $1.2 million loss in expected revenue after voters rejected a property tax increase May 19, Valerio said there may not be any available funding in the future for these types trips.

He said Board members looking for professional development could just attend trainings provided by the New Mexico School Board Association, which are usually held in Albuquerque.

“I don’t think Leonard has ever been at a national conference that I’ve seen him,” Chavez said. “I don’t think he’s taken interest in getting educated in national issues or mixing with other school boards. You’re talking thousands of school boards to share ideas. I know that locally we work with the New Mexico School Board Association, those are some great and awesome avenues, however, when you take it to a national level you’re mixing with a multitude of issues.”

But when asked about what he learned at this conference, Chavez did not cite anything specific.

“It takes a little time of the mechanics of the workshop,” Chavez said. “It’s not something that you apply immediately an expect the situation to enrichen (the District) if you will. One of the many sessions was board governance in the form of how to make the Board work as a team.”

Archuleta said he was caught off guard when asked about what he has applied to the District from the conference and could not cite anything specific.

“It involves quite a bit of information on school board member responsibilities,” Archuleta said. “They talked about school law, finances, budget responsibilities. They had different workshops, programs that you can attend. It’s a huge agenda of workshops and you just pick what workshops interest you.”

Valerio also questioned Cockerham’s need to attend the conference since he is set to retire at the end of June.

“I didn’t want him to go because he was going to retire in three months,” he said. “He’s not going to go back to be superintendent any place. He’s not going to use this information anyplace else. I thought it actually a waste of money for him to go.“

“I had every right to go,” Cockerham said. “It was for my interest. Just because I’m retiring doesn’t mean I wouldn’t go somewhere else.”

 Associated Press Writers Larry Margasak And Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writers – 26 mins ago
WASHINGTON –

Influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. The wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the Senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.

Members of both parties have industry connections, including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin, in addition to Dodd, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatch, financial reports showed Friday. .

Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of the Connecticut Democrat, is on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals.

Dodd is filling in for ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill.

Other publicly available documents show Mrs. Dodd last year was one of the most highly compensated non-employee members of the Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc. board, on which she has served since 2004. She earned $32,000 in fees and $109,587 in stock option awards last year, according to the company's SEC filings.

Mrs. Dodd earned $79,063 in fees from Cardiome in its last fiscal year, while Brookdale Senior Living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their SEC filings show. She earned no income from her post as a director for Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in Pear Tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.

The annual financial disclosure reports for members of Congress are less precise. They only require that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges of values.

Dodd was granted a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, but released it to The Associated Press.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said, "Jackie Clegg Dodd's career is her own; absolutely independent of Senator Dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. The senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife's career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort."

DeAngelis said that Mrs. Dodd has hired a personal ethics lawyer to avoid any conflicts of interest and is not a lobbyist.

Other reports showed:

• Rockefeller, D-W.Va., reported $15,001 to $50,000 in capital gains for his wife from the sale of a stake in Athenahealth Inc., a business services company that helps medical providers with billing and clinical operations.

Rockefeller is honorary chairman of the Alliance for Health Reform, a Washington nonprofit whose board includes representatives from the UnitedHealth Group health insurance company; AFL-CIO labor union; the AARP, which sells health insurance; St. John Health, a nonprofit health system that includes seven hospitals and 125 medical facilities in southeast Michigan; CIGNA Corp., an employer-sponsored benefits company; and the United Hospital Fund of New York.

• Coburn, R-Okla., is a practicing physician. He reported slight business income, $268, from the Muskogee Allergy Clinic last year; $3,000 to $45,000 in stock in Affymetrix Inc., a biotechnology company and pioneer in genetic analysis; $1,000 to $15,000 in stock in Pfizer Inc., a pharmaceutical company; and a $1,000 to $15,000 interest in Thomas A. Coburn, MD, Inc.

Under Senate ethics rules, Coburn can't accept money from his patients.

• Gregg, R-N.H., disclosed $250,001 to $500,000 in drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. stock and $1,000 to $15,000 each in stock in pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Pfizer, the Johnson & Johnson health care products company and Agilent Technologies, which is involved in the biomedical industry.

• Kyl, R-Ariz., the Senate minority whip, reported $15,001 to $50,000 in stock in Amgen Inc., which develops medical therapeutics. Kyl's retirement account held stakes in several health care businesses, including the Wyeth, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and AstraZeneca pharmaceutical companies; medical provider Tenet Healthcare Corp.; CVS Caremark prescription and health services company; Genentech, a biotherapeutics manufacturer; and insurer MetLife Inc.

• Harkin, D-Iowa, has a joint ownership stake in health-related stocks. Harkin and his wife, Ruth Raduenz, own shares of drug makers Amgen and Genentech, Inc., each stake valued at $1,001 to $15,000; Their largest health care holding, Johnson & Johnson, was valued at $50,001 to $100,000.

• Hatch, R-Utah, a member of the Finance and Health committees, reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of stock in drug maker Pfizer Inc. He spoke to two pharmaceutical industry conferences last year. Sponsors of the conferences donated $3,500 to charities instead of speaking fees, as required by Senate rules.

Like millions of Americans, several senators took a financial hit in 2008. A sampling:

_Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., lost some $100,000 in equity in his home in Springfield and $35,000 in his Chicago condominium. Durbin, who released his tax returns, reported losing $32,259 in various investments last year, including more than $10,400 in Berkshire Hathaway and $5,535 in Fidelity stock.

_Kennedy in 2007 had four trusts each valued between $5,000,001-$25 million. In 2008, only one trust was still in that category while the rest had slipped in value to $1,000,001-$5 million.

_Hatch's investments suffered from the banking crisis. In 2007, he reported assets of between $2,002 and $30,000 in Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. stock. His 2008 financial disclosure lists the value at less than $1,000.

One of Dodd's investments showed a vast improvement.

A new appraisal more than doubled the value of his vacation cottage in Ireland, which has been subject of a Senate ethics complaint filed by a conservative group questioning if the undervalued property was really a gift.

The property is valued at 470,000 euros, or about $660,000, on Dodd's disclosure report.

The previous year's report valued the seaside home, located in County Galway, at between $100,001 and $250,000.

DeAngelis, the spokesman, said Dodd and his wife decided to have the property appraised because they felt it was time to update the information.

Guvernator Comes to Escondido by Dawn Wildman 
June 12, 2009
12 PM

As the doors opened up to the Center for the Arts in Escondido the union men were allowed to be seated before any women, the elderly, or women with children. I knew they were union because they all came wearing their brand new union t-shirts! That was the beginning of an otherwise boring press conference. It was more of the same rhetoric that had the governor sheepishly blaming the citizens for not passing the May propositions. The Governor even seems to think that the “out dated tax structure in CA” is to blame for our current crisis, rather than a spending spree by legislators that continues today.

And he does believe it is a crisis, he even said “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. It shows he is getting his lines and rhetoric straight from Rahm Emanuel’s mouth. Guv. Arnold spoke about not being in denial anymore that there is actually a crisis but showed nothing new to report on how he and the legislature plan to fix the crisis at hand. Oh he did talk briefly about selling off California’s assets, after all said the Governor, “The Government is not in the business of real estate. I might add he also said the government wasn’t in the business of building stadiums when asked about State support for a new Charger stadium. While all the time talking about the monies that are committed to the High Speed Rail project which apparently the governor believes is the business the State is in currently.

The agenda was focused on budget saving items such as saving monies on prisons by cost cutting measures that weren’t explained. It is noteworthy that California spends annually $49,000.00 per prisoner. The federal average is $31, 00.00 per inmate. And the governor didn’t qualify that $14,000.00 of that sum per inmate is in healthcare benefits for prisoners. Maybe they will consider letting our inmates be a little less “cared for” than the national average.


When asked if he would be borrowing monies from local governments to fill the coffers of the money grubbing special interest in Sacramento he said only as a last resort. This was prefaced by the fact that he thinks if the voters had passed the propositions dealing with the Spending cap , Sacramento would have only been able to borrow money twice over 10 years and then would have been forced to pay it back in three years. It is clear that without a voter mandated law those in the Sacramento legislature have no intention of ethical behavior. So they will steal from Peter to pay Paul.

There were a few items which were if not new to his agenda at least more clear, like the fact that he plans to get the Rainy Day Fund and the Spending Cap propositions back on the next ballot. Evidently he didn’t hear us the first time! Then again the Governor believes that the people were sending a big message to “Sacramento”, obviously he feels he is above that “message. I will place my money on the people every time Governor!!!

SDNN by Leslie Eastman, June 9, 2009

A new biological opinion was released this June 4th by the National Marine Fisheries Service; unsurprisingly, as it is issued under a bloated bureaucracy beholden to environmental activist groups, the potential repercussions to humanity is entirely overlooked. Under this opinion, 330,000 acre-feet of water will be taken from California residents and farmers. The decision is


Leslie Eastman is one of the founding members of the So-Cal Tax Revolt Coalition.
premised on the belief that the operation of both the federal and state water projects are contributing to the possible extinction of salmon, sturgeon, southern resident killer whale, and steelhead.

The citizens of California must understand that this reduction is above and beyond those mandated due to the Delta Smelt, as well as reductions on the East-side of the valley associated with the San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement. For example, this year, 370,000 acre-feet of water - enough to serve nearly three million people for one year - has been cut to satisfy the requirements of the Delta Smelt biological opinion. There is hope, however. Recently, a federal court ruled in favor of Central Valley Project water agencies, ordering the federal fisheries agencies to comply with environmental laws and take into account the harm that the water cutbacks have on people.

Successful farming in this state will be severely compromised if these restrictions are implemented! As it is, farmers are already being forced to fallow their land and workers are being laid off. Rather than piecemeal restrictions, the government needs to balance the needs of the environment and those of the people its suppose to serve with a collective plan instead of the species-by-species approach that is needlessly diminishing the quality of citizens.

I would urge my fellow citizens to download the report, read it for themselves, and get involved in fighting against it - we now need to be activists if we want to protect one of the core engines of wealth generation in this state. We must become engaged if we want our bureaucrats to stop their tendencies to put fish first in their assessments.

The report is located here.

Responsible citizens need to get informed, then get active. I urge you to contact your congressional representatives (via www.socaltaxrevoltcoalition.org), as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service [NOAA Fisheries Service; 1315 East West Highway; Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone = (301) 713-2334]. Additionally, the insane restrictions will be a focus of the local Independence Day Tea Party events, including one in El Cajon on July 4th in Renette Park.

Leslie Eastman runs an environmental health and safety consulting firm, Eastman Enterprises, and is a founding member of the grassroots organization, Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition.



http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-06-09/news/environment/leslie-eastman-putting-fish-first#ixzz0Hxf70ZSR&D

Lawmakers move to slash state agencies
ShareThisBy Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jun. 3, 2009 - 6:33 pm
Last Modified: Wednesday, Jun. 3, 2009 - 6:48 pm
A legislative budget committee voted unanimously Wednesday to eliminate state agencies altogether, taking dead aim at an administrative layer of gubernatorial bureaucracy that oversees most of the state's departments.

The 10-member panel -- six Democrats and four Republicans -- also voted to eliminate the Office of the Secretary of Education, which lawmakers said is unnecessary because the state already has an elected Superintendent of Public Instruction and a State Board of Education.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recommended last month that lawmakers consolidate more than a dozen boards and commissions to save $50 million. Schwarzenegger also began laying off 5,000 rank-and-file state workers.The Legislature's move Wednesday appeared to be a sharp retort directed at higher-paid administrative appointees who oversee the departments that provide direct state services.

"It sounds like what we're talking about here is changing the shape of government," said Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Woodland Hills. "Government should be a pyramid, but it seems to have become more of a rectangle structure. And a lot of times in this kind of budget we always end up cutting people at the bottom. And this is saying, no, we need to cut people at the top and get rid of some of the agencies and make it more of a pyramid structure."

Under the agencies move, the state would dismantle at least eight offices, from the State and Consumer Services Agency to the Environmental Protection Agency, and eliminate any duplicative administrative positions. The committee did not know how many positions would be eliminated or how much money would be saved and asked the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office to report on how far the Legislature could cut.

Schwarzenegger told lawmakers Tuesday that they should eliminate the Integrated Waste Management Board as a first matter of course before making any other cuts. The board would save the state no general fund dollars, but it has become an easy target because it contains ex-legislators who earn six-figure salaries while serving on the board.

The budget conference committee on Tuesday instead recommended that the state eliminate the Department of Conservation and the Department of Toxics Control while moving their functions to the Integrated Waste Management Board. The committee also recommended that the Integrated Waste Management Board members become part-time and take reduced pay.

"Every year, the governor tries to eliminate and consolidate a number of boards, commissions and departments, and every year the Legislature rejects that," said Schwarzenegger press secretary Aaron McLear. "We're thrilled the Legislature is joining the governor's call to make government more efficient and cost effective and we look forward to debating with the Legislature in the coming days which proposals make the most sense."

McLear said the governor would not support eliminating the secretary of education unless the Legislature gives the governor more authority over state education policy. The state Superintendent of Public Instruction currently oversees the Department of Education.

"If the Legislature will support moving the Department of Education into the executive branch, we'd be happy to eliminate the secretary of education," McLear said. "Education takes up 40 percent of the budget. It's important for the governor to have a role in that issue."

Members of Congress and their Office Allotments - Where Does the Money Go?
From Sandra Fabry on Monday, June 1, 2009 8:19 AM
The following post originally appeared on www.fiscalaccountability.org:

A few weeks ago, we discussed how disclosures of British members' of Parliament expenditures are causing a stir with taxpayer dollars being spent on products and services ranging from cleaning services over porn movies, to horse manure and cat food. In light of this growing controversy, the Wall Street Journal reviewed thousands of pages of reimbursement requests for Congressional allowances for 2008 expenses.

The result: While most of the expenditures went to areas such as staff salaries, travel, office rent and supplies, and printing and mailing (unlike British members of Parliament U.S. members of Congress cannot get reimbursed for personal living expenses), the Journal came across a number of "eye-catching" expenditures:

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs.

(...) Rep. Howard Berman expensed $84,000 worth of personalized calendars, printed by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, for his constituents. A spokeswoman for Mr. Berman, a California Democrat, didn't return requests for comment.

While legal and properly accounted for, such expenditures raise eyebrows especially at a time when taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet. What's more, is that as the Wall Street Journal discovered, most of the expenditures were made towards the end of the year. Explains the Journal:

House members get a government expense allowance of $1.3 million to $1.9 million a year. Senators get $2.9 million to $4.5 million. The disparity is based on several factors, with lawmakers whose home states are far from Washington, for example, typically receiving more to cover their higher travel expenses.

If lawmakers don't seek reimbursement for all of their allowance money for the year, the remainder doesn't roll over to the next year, but stays with the Treasury. The review showed that the increased year-end spending went not only toward equipment but also to fund year-end "bonuses" to aides.

In light of the current push for greater accountability in government finance, now would be the perfect time to take another look at the practice of expense allowances, and if not reformed in terms of amounts granted and allowable expenditures, at a minimum, the reimbursement requests should be made availabe in a searchable online database available to the public.

According to the Sacramento Bee:

May 29, 2009 Two politically sensitive bills sidetracked without vote Two politically sensitive bills quietly have been shelved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in a way that requires no lawmaker to take a potentially controversial vote. Assembly Bill 53 called for a two-year freeze on salary increases or overtime pay for about 800 non-union state employees - primarily managers or executives - whose salary tops $150,000 annually. Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Cañada-Flintridge, said the state's highest-paid employees should share the pain of seniors, college students and other taxpayers stemming from the state's fiscal mess. The Assembly Appropriations Committee opted to hold the bill Thursday, meaning no floor vote will be taken. To reach the Appropriations Committee, bills must have an estimated cost of $150,000 or more to the state. AB 53 could save about $2.5 million in salaries over the two-year period, but it could dent state coffers nonetheless by hampering recruitment of top investment managers for the state's pension system, according to an appropriations committee analysis. Portantino, anticipating that his AB 53 bill would be sidetracked, requested amendments several weeks ago to a separate bill in the Senate to contain his pay-freeze proposal, which would give him another chance to sell the idea. His request is pending before Senate leaders. The Assembly Appropriations Committee also held Assembly Bill 1501, which would have restructured salaries for members of state boards or commissions who earn $100,000 or more. The measure by Assemblyman Manuel Perez, D-Coachella, would have required high-paid commissioners to serve full-time or to be paid only for the actual hours they work. Determining what part-time board members do and how long it takes them to do it each month could cost the state about $300,000 annually, according to the appropriations committee. Several state boards and commissions historically have been plum landing spots for termed-out lawmakers. Both AB 53 and AB 1501 bills passed Assembly policy committees without a dissenting vote. Posted by Jim Sanders

May 27, 2009
Correa slashes his own pay -- immediatelySen. Lou Correa is the second legislator to voluntarily cut his pay immediately in accord with a recent vote by the state's independent salary-setting commission that can't be enforced until late next year. The Santa Ana Democrat has asked the state controller to slice his salary to 10 percent below the current legislative salary of $116,208. "Given the continuing decline in state revenue and the required upcoming cuts to many vital programs, I believe it is my responsibility to lead by example in reducing my salary," Correa wrote to the state controller's office. The California Citizens Compensation Committee voted last week to impose an even bigger cut, 18 percent, but the state constitution prohibits cutting the salaries of legislators in the middle of their terms. Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, is the only other legislator to voluntarily agree to have his salary sliced immediately. Maldonado will be paid $95,291, while Correa will receive $104,588. The last time legislators' pay was increased, in 2007, about two dozen lawmakers - including Correa and Maldonado -- rejected the $3,110 raise. Correa, in his letter to the controller's office, dated May 20, said he is willing to "step up and share in the personal sacrifices and hardships" caused by the state's recession and budget-cutting. "This Legislature is about to make some very difficult choices that will impact hundreds of thousands of Californians," he wrote. "We will be asking much of our neighbors to do more with less from the state, and I will stand with my neighbors in working through these hardships." Politically, the decision potentially could pay dividends for Correa, who faces re-election next year in a very competitive Orange County district. He won the seat by a margin of less than two percentage points in 2006. Posted by Jim Sanders

Democrats Take ANOTHER $26.8 Million From General Fund for Special Interests

Bill to Dedicate Sales Tax Revenue to the Arts Is Approved. AB 700 (Krekorian), providing that 20 percent of state sales and use tax revenue from the sale of specified products be deposited into a newly established Creative Industries and Community Economic Revitalization Fund, was approved on a 6-1 vote, with Democrats in support, Assemblyman DeVore opposed, and two Republicans not voting. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The BOE estimated that the bill would result in about $26.8 million a year going into the special fund for non-profit programs like dance troupes and youth symphonies, instead of going into the general fund.

The bill is supported by a number of non-profit arts groups that would stand to receive revenue from the new fund. Cal-Tax opposes the bill because it would elevate spending on the arts above spending on other programs, including health and safety programs. "By creating an inflexible 20 percent earmark allocated exclusively to the California Arts Council, this bill is the legislative equivalent of ballot-box budgeting, which is a step in the wrong direction for the financial health of California," Cal-Tax said in a letter to lawmakers.

Approximately 1500 citizens attended the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition's , LLC event at Spanish Landing.   Listening to the people at the event, the comments they made  focused on three points: 1) raising taxes is not the solution to deficits; trimming budgets and cutting waste was; 2) today’s politicians service their careers before serving citizens; and, 3) personal liberty is important – there was a nearly unanimous citation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other foundational documents.

The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition, LLC wants to thank the Port of San Diego and the Harbor Police. Their presence was appreciated, as well as their obvious concern at maintaining an organized event. They smoothed the way for us to gather together, and it is deeply appreciated. 

We wanted to give a very special shout-out to the UCSD Young Republican Club, a great team of students who helped us get set up in the morning. They were a key part of why everything looked great and was organized.

We would also like to thank each an and everyone of you who so generously purchased our t-shirts and bumper stickers AND contributed to the donation jar. We also appreciate the enthusiastic pinata participants; Barney Frank and Arnold Schwarzenegger never gave back so much to their constituents as they did when the Pay Day Bars, gold coins, and Monopoly money streamed out of these creations.  We are assessing how to spend the money wisely to promote the Tea Party Movement; stay tuned for further information on the April 15th events and the next rallies.

A special thank you goes to Rick Amato, our first speaker for the day's event. Rick is the San Diego KCBQ radio talk show host who is intending to heavily promote the Tea Party movement and focus on local issues that are related to it (1170 AM, 9:00 pm Sunday - Thursday). He had a wonderful “teleprompter” joke, and gave a very impassioned speech about the failures of our current representatives to live up to their constitutional responsibilities. Rick very cordially met with many of the local citizens, hearing their comments and concerns in preparation for discussions during his KCBQ show as well as his Washington Time podcast, “Inside the Story”.

Roger Hedgecock, the national talk show host who has been instrumental in making people aware of specific Tea Parties throughout the country and helping citizens figure out how to organize effectively through his "Webinars", made a discreet appearance. In a gesture worthy of a true patriot, he stepped out of the limelight and focused his attention on hearing the speakers and listening to his fellow Americans while mingling in the crowd. Though several (justifiably excited) people attempted to try and get him to speak publicly, it was very apparent he did not want to become the story. We look forward to his broadcasts associated with the upcoming April 15th Tea Parties....and future rallies. SoCal TRC, LLC wishes Roger much success with his new, national show!  For more information on Roger's shows, check our Radio Blogroll!

More information and comments from the citizens who attended will be posted through the week on this site -- so stay tuned. People will want to continue their Tea Party efforts by attending a Tax Day Rally.  Leslie Eastman, the So-Cal TRC, LLC Blogger-in-Chief, will be supporting the April 15th Tea Party effort by joining KCBQ’s Jesse Lipscomb during in broadcast starting at 7:00 p.m. that evening.

RELATED NEWS REPORTS

USA Today Article

KFMB Channel 8 News Broadcast

Feb. 27, 2009 - San Diego Tea Party Tax Revolt

This event held near the Star of India was a huge success.  Attended by 600 hard working Americans, this Tea Party Revolt was widely seen in media reports (e.g., Fox News Channel).  Below are links to videos and participant reports.

KUSI San Diego

Fox New 5 Report

Participant Video Report

Participant Blog Report: Temple of Mut

Participant Photo Essay: Temple of Mut

Please help the SOCALTRC team continue to bring these "awareness" events to you!

SOCALTRC is not backed by any BIG money funding, only by the kindness and generosity of you, our FELLOW PATRIOTS! We are working on our 501 (c) 4 non-profit status , but it will notbe tax deductible.

The latest on California politics and government
September 18, 2009
California jobless rate increased in August
California's unemployment rate rose to 12.2 percent in August, up from an 11.9 percent jobless rate reported in July, according to data released today by the California Employment Development Department.

That rate means California reported the fourth-highest jobless rate in the country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Oregon also reported an unemployment rate of 12.2 percent.

The state was one of 14 states and the District of Columbia to report unemployment rates of at least 10 percent in August.

But the number of payroll jobs lost dropped significantly. The number of payroll jobs fell by 12,300 in August, down from a net job loss of 38,900 reported in July.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying the figures reinforce the need to address the state's tax and water issues.

"Immediately addressing our challenges, which include reforming the state's antiquated tax structure and updating our water delivery system will move the state forward and build a stronger, more diverse economy," he said. "While I am pleased to see fewer jobs lost, my administration will not rest until job growth resumes and employment returns to normal."

For more on what the figures were for Sacramento, check out the Bee's Home Front blog here.

Categories: California by the Numbers, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger