Politics

Garamendi Blocks Up to 130,000 Jobs & Raises Taxes on Middle-Class Families

California Democrat Paves the Way for Tax Increases on Middle-Class Families While Allowing Himself a Pay Raise
Posted: 12/14/2011

Washington --- John Garamendi today broke new ground in demonstrating just how out of touch he is with middle-class families in California when he voted against the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. Garamendi sided with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and voted to pave the way for higher payroll taxes on all working Americans, block the 130,000 potential jobs from the Keystone XL pipeline project, and even allow a pay raise for himself in the process. Garamendi certainly went far to appease his Democrat leaders in Washington today, but struggling families and small businesses in California will be paying the price.

“This is a win-win for middle-class Americans who need tax relief and jobs, but somehow John Garamendi figured out a reason to oppose it,” said NRCC Communications Director Paul Lindsay. “Garamendi voted to block up to 130,000 jobs associated with the popular Keystone XL pipeline project and pave the way for payroll tax hikes on all working families. The only thing Garamendi can confidently say he did with this vote is allow himself a pay raise.”

Democrat leaders in Washington have been strongly opposed to the popular Keystone XL pipeline project, fearing they will alienate radical Democrat activists:

“Environmental groups have been protesting the pipeline that would run from Alberta oil sands to Texas refineries, and there have been rumblings that greens would abandon Obama next fall if he approved it. At the same time, labor unions have backed the pipeline, arguing that it would create badly needed jobs for American workers.” (Dan Berman and Darren Goode, “Obama punts Keystone XL pipeline,” Politico, 11/10/11)

The union-backed Keystone XL pipeline project would potentially create up to 130,000 jobs:

“Many of those 20,000 jobs on the construction of the pipeline would have been filled by skilled union members. Eventually, the completed pipeline was expected to result in as many as 130,000 jobs…” (Editorial, “Keystone pipeline delay is the wrong call,” Houston Chronicle, 11/11/10)

Even Democrats admit there is little reason to oppose a package that creates jobs and prevents tax increases on middle-class families:

“At a time when many are without work, it is time that we come together in a bi-partisan way to pass this legislation which will create tens of thousands of new jobs. I commend the Speaker for including the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that is supported by business and labor.

“I also believe that this bill should attract votes from both political parties, because it takes initiatives supported by President Obama including the payroll tax cut extension and the extension of unemployment benefits, while also including initiatives supported by congressional Republicans like freezing federal worker pay.” (Press Release, “Boren Supports Payroll Tax Cut Extension Legislation That Includes Permitting The Keystone XL Pipeline,” Congressman Dan Boren, 12/12/11)

The package also prevented scheduled pay raises for Members of Congress. (“Sec. 5421: Extension of Pay Limitation for Federal Employees,” H.R. 3630: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, House Committee on Ways and Means, Accessed 12/12/11)

John Garamendi toed the line for President Obama and Nancy Pelosi today, and middle-class families in California will pay the price with higher taxes and fewer jobs. When Garamendi votes to allow himself a raise while hiking everyone else’s taxes, his constituents in California can only conclude that he is a part of the growing problem in Washington.

Garamendi Blocks Up to 130,000 Jobs & Raises Taxes on Middle-Class Families http://bit.ly/vK66yL #madeinwdc

LaMalfa Responds to Budget Trigger Cuts

Legislative Republicans predicted $13b deficit, trigger cuts
Posted: 12/14/2011

(SACRAMENTO) - Senator Doug LaMalfa (R – Richvale) issued a statement today regarding Governor Jerry Brown’s announcement that nearly $1 billion in mid-year trigger cuts will take effect on in the first months of 2012. The cuts follow the passage of a rushed, fiscally unsound budget by Democrats anxious to receive paychecks and perks in the wake of Proposition 25.

“Legislative Democrats fabricated fantasy revenue numbers to kick out an on-time budget,” said LaMalfa. “The majority knew all along that the money would never materialize and that mid-year trigger cuts would be inevitable. Now, these mid-year cuts have become a political tool to help Democrats pass their tax increase plans.”

In July, legislative Republicans offered budget proposals that would have made no cuts to K-12 education. They also released an analysis that predicted the nearly $13 billion deficit if the Democratic budget passed.

"The only way to finally solve our budgeting problem is to eliminate the regulations destroying jobs and businesses,” LaMalfa stated. “When government agents are shaking down California businesses, families, and farms on a daily basis there is little doubt our budget problems will persist. California cannot regulate every aspect of business and life while expecting growth in the private sector. Californians are can-do people and will succeed if only government would get out of their way. Raising taxes will only hurt our struggling economy and hurt hard working Californian families.”

Senator Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing the fourth Senate District including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Siskiyou, Sutter, Del Norte, Placer, Trinity, Yuba and Nevada counties.

The Rich Are Getting Richer; So Are the Poor

By Jarrett Skorup
Posted: 121/4/2011

“No matter your thoughts about the Occupy Wall Street movement, the protesters were right in at least one respect: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.”

Variations on this statement were repeated in dozens of blogs, commentaries, and even news reports in the past months. The claim comes via a Congressional Budget Office analysis that shows incomes for the top 1 percent of Americans growing by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, while the lowest 20 percent saw their inflation-adjusted incomes grow by “only” 18 percent.

The numbers from the report are correct, but the assertions based on it are true only because of careful wording. While the “top 1 percent” had the highest growth of income, if broadened to include the top 20 percent (the usual way of analyzing such figures), the growth rate was a far less stratospheric 65 percent. This contrasts with about 40-percent growth for the middle three-fifths of all wage earners, and 18 percent for the lowest one-fifth.

Statistically, the lowest 20 percent of households are poor for one main reason: They don’t work as much. Among the causes are medical issues, disability, and bad incentives. Not surprisingly, households in the top 20 percent are far more likely to include people with jobs. Here’s how professor Mark Perry, a member of the Mackinac Center’s Board of Scholars and chairman of the economics department at the University of Michigan-Flint, described it:

"American households in the top income quintile have almost five times more family members working on average than the lowest quintile, and … are far more likely … to be well-educated, married, and working full-time in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in low-income households are far more likely to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young or very old, and living in single-parent households."

More significantly, the “rich getting richer” storyline insinuates that the top 1 percent and bottom 20 percent include the same individuals over time. For example, as reporter Julie Mack writes, “Overall, the numbers show that the more affluent you are, the better you’ve done in the past three decades.” Note how this ignores the reality that many individuals who were in the poorest group years ago have long since moved up and out, while among the rich are many families who are literally nouveau riche—they’ve recently arrived from lower income levels.

That’s the risk of relegating real people into statistical categories. Economist Thomas Sowell explained it this way: “The actual empirical evidence cited has been about what has been happening over time to statistical categories turns out to be the direct opposite of what has happened over time to flesh-and-blood human beings, many of whom move from one category to another over time.”

Data that tracks real people show that Sowell is correct. For example, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, IRS tax-return data shows that individuals in the bottom one-fifth back in 1996 experienced income growth of 91 percent by 2005. In contrast, individuals in the highest one-fifth saw their incomes increase just 10 percent over the same period. Incomes of households in the top 5 percent and 1 percent actually declined, by 7 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

Anecdotally, this makes sense: For example, in 1985, my father was just out of college and probably in the lowest 20 percent. But by 2007 he had moved up. Such examples are commonplace, but are completely missed by statistical aggregates.

In the late 1970s, Steve Jobs was trying to expand a struggling computer company. Bill Gates was writing code and just beginning to start working on a personal computer. And one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin, had just arrived as a six-year-old immigrant from the USSR. These are individuals who did not enter that top 1 percent until many years later—in the process displacing former “one percenters.”

It was these individuals, not statistical categories, who created companies and wealth by making products people wanted. Establishing conditions in which individuals can move up the income ladder by creating, innovating, and building is what America is all about.

Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is the research associate for online engagement for Michigan Capitol Confidential at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided

An Open Letter to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,

Posted: 12/8/2011

Why are Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Blatantly Attacking Israel Our Only Democratic Mideast Ally?

In recent days our Secretary of Defense has put his cards on the table and given Israel an ultimatum "Get to the damned negotiating table," where the cards are stacked against Israel. This curt demand was made public Friday December 2nd at the leftest Brookings Institute's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. A day later Secretary of State Clinton railed against Israel by supporting the policies of Israel's radical Left minority. She accused Israel of disrespecting women's rights. This is how they treated America's only long-time democratic ally in the Middle East - with total disrespect.

Our public officials' adversarial role was forthcoming despite unprecedented concessions made by Israel which included a 10 month legal building moratorium in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. At the same time, the PA refused to negotiate or even recognize the existence of the Jewish state. Prime Minister Netanyahu had even offered to speak with President Abbas this past September when they were at the UN in New York and his offer was rejected. It is the Palestinians who are not coming to the negotiating table, to whom his profane command should have been directed.

The question arises: If the "Palestinians" will not even recognize the existence of a Jewish state, who will they negotiate with? The "Palestinians" have refused to recognize Israel's very existence. Is it possible to negotiate with a non-existent adversary? It appears obvious that the answer to this question is "no." There cannot be negotiations with an invisible non-entity, a non-existent second party. Which leaves the Israelis negotiating with themselves, a rather impossible assignment.

Our undiplomatic Secretaries of State and Defense need to rethink their position and behave in a more civil fashion to their allies, rather than fantasizing about making would-be friends with our enemies, whose countries are in turmoil and are being taken over by the tyrannical, barbaric Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

Both Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton can begin to bring Israel and the Palestinians together by demanding that the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state of Israel. Until both parties recognize each other they cannot possibly have meaningful negotiations.

Respectfully, Esther Levens

Dr. Stein Condemns White House Blockade of Binding Agreement on Greenhouse Reduction Emissions at Durban

Posted: 12/8/2011

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, criticized the White House today for effectively killing a legally binding global agreement at the UN Climate Change meeting in Durban. The meeting concludes on December 9th.

Stein has called for a Green New Deal to create jobs while reducing climate change.

"I condemn the White House's inaction in the face of a global emergency," said Stein. "The U.S.' and other rich countries' inaction on climate change is not only inexcusable. U.S. and global emissions continue to rise, and national legislation to reduce emissions is nowhere in sight. Even when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009-10, efforts to pass even weak legislation to reduce emissions were completely unsuccessful due to the powerful influence of Big Oil and Big Coal on both of the establishment political parties."

The White House's global position reflects the influence of the fossil fuel companies that continue to dominate the energy agenda of both the Democrats and the Republicans. President Obama has himself supported offshore drilling, including granting permits to exploit the pristine environment of the Arctic, expanding nuclear power, and promoting the unproven technique of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

"Climate change is the biggest threat facing the U.S. and the planet. We don't need a nice sounding but meaningless statement coming out of Durban. The White House continues to block the creation of binding agreements for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions and provide financial support for developing countries to transition to carbon-free economies," stated Dr. Stein.

As part of her aggressive plan to combat climate change, Stein has proposed a Green New Deal, "that would create millions of green jobs through investment in weatherization, renewable energy, clean manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, public transportation and reforestation. The Green New Deal, according to Stein, would be paid for by redirecting trillions of dollars being squandered on wars for oil, Wall Street bailouts, and tax breaks for the wealthy. She says she will also end the White House's subsidies for "clean coal" schemes.

The emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement on greenhouse gases, expire in 2012. Despite the weakness of the Protocol, the U.S. has failed to ratify the agreement under both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States and some other industrialized nations say they will adopt emissions limits only if rising powers like China, India, and Brazil (which were excluded from the original 1997 goals) also commit to matching reductions, which, according to Stein, "has been a formula for stalemate. The U.S. and a few other developed countries are responsible for releasing the vast majority of the global warming pollution that's in the atmosphere. It is appropriate that we take the lead in reducing the emissions."

"Global warming is already having a serious impact on the United States and the rest of the world. The year 2011 has been a year of extreme weather events marked by record rainfall and flooding, forest fires, and deadly tornadoes, and severe hurricane activity. These events have taken a huge toll on the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of U.S. residents. The global picture is one of growing climate instability and ever rising emissions. Yet the developed countries have made it clear that a new global agreement will not be in effect until 2020 at the earliest. U.S. leadership is desperately needed to galvanize a new world treaty to rescue the climate and our future economy that depends on it."

Since the disastrous UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the White House has worked to undermine the chances of a rules-based global agreement along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol. The Administration's support for ineffective voluntary commitments to reduce emissions in the form of a so-called "pledge and review" system has brought the UN process to the brink of collapse, as other major emitters have followed the U.S. and lowered their own already inadequate emissions reductions targets. "This isn't leadership" said Stein. "It's an abdication of responsibility to the future that we can no longer tolerate."

Paid for and authorized by Jill Stein for President/ http://www.JillStein.org

Broad Coalition to File “Millionaires’ Tax” to Fund Education, Senior Services, Public Safety

Posted: 12/8/2011

A broad coalition of educators, unions and community groups announced today it is filing a ballot initiative to restore critical funding to schools and universities, essential services for seniors, and public safety, as well as start rebuilding the state’s crumbling roads and bridges. It asks the wealthiest Californians—people who earn over a million dollars per year—to help pay to rebuild the state. The “California Funding Restoration Act” would increase personal income taxes only on those who make $1 million or more annually to restore funding to services that make California communities stronger and safer, and ensure seniors receive the care they deserve.

“As a teacher and parent, I have seen the terrible impact of state budget cuts on our schools through teacher layoffs and larger class sizes,” says Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers. “It is time for the wealthiest Californians to pay their fair share to restore funding for education and essential services.”

The coalition tested various approaches in opinion research with likely voters. No other type of proposal came close to the strength of voter opinion in favor of the idea that the richest Californians should pay their fair share to restore funding for schools and services. Pollster Ben Tulchin notes that “Extensive recent public and private polling show that California voters strongly support a progressive approach of raising taxes on the rich to fund education and other essential services that have been cut in recent years.”

The coalition estimates that the initiative, under discussion by Restoring California since last March, will restore $6 billion in funds for K-12, higher education, social services, public safety, and roads. It would help people like Jazmin Casa, an East Los Angeles Community College student, who says, “I lost my job caring for seniors because of the state budget cuts. Now, I’m fighting to keep my home.” Jazmin is an active member of California Calls, a statewide alliance of organizations that has identified 325,000 voters in support of this type of reform.

Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the 750,000 strong Courage Campaign says, “This is the only initiative proposal that would restore funding devastated by the recession, and rehire thousands of teachers, senior care providers and public safety personnel, without affecting the wallets of working families and the middle class. It addresses the heart of the problem: that total income share to the state’s richest 1% has doubled over the last twenty years, while their tax rates have fallen and the 99% have fallen farther behind.”

Groups in support of this reform include:

California Federation of Teachers
Courage Campaign
California Calls
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
California Partnership
Inner City Struggle
Equality Alliance
Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Knotts Family and Parenting Institute
Communities for a New California
Oakland Rising
Causa Justa/Just Cause
The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
CAUSE
Working Partnerships USA
Poder Popular
Warehouse Workers United
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
Mobilize the Immigrant Vote
PICO California
University of California Student Association

Senator Blakeslee Issues Statement On Governor’s November Tax Increase Proposal

Posted: 12/8/2011

Today, Senator Blakeslee issued a statement in response to Governor Brown’s proposal to raise $35 billion in taxes without any reforms to resolve California’s boom-bust budget cycles.

“Last year, Governor Brown chose cuts over compromise. Now he is announcing that his plan for the coming year is to simply stop trying and delay any action until next November. If he really cares about protecting school and our most vulnerable, he will stop whining and get back to the negotiating table so we can hammer out a bipartisan budget deal in time to avoid additional harm to our economy. No one ever said that leadership would be easy.”

Senator Blakeslee was a part of a group of five Republican Senators who proactively engaged Governor Brown last year regarding his desire for a special election, which the Governor called off because of the Governor’s unwillingness to allow Republican reforms to be included on the ballot along with the Governor’s tax hikes.

U.S. Term Limits praises California U.S. Senate candidate Michael Stollery for pledge

Posted: 12/8/2011

Fairfax, VA – U.S. Term Limits (USTL), the leader in the national movement to limit terms for elected officials, praised California U.S. Senate candidate Michael Stollery for promising to support and co-sponsor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting congressional terms.

Philip Blumel commented on Stollery’s pledge saying, “Michael Stollery is leading the way for the other candidates for Congress by being an early signer of the term limits pledge.

Stollery’s commitment to returning to citizen government in Washington, D.C. is a beacon that should be followed by candidates across the nation.”

The U.S. Term Limits Amendment Pledge has been provided to every announced candidate for federal office. It reads, “I pledge that as a member of Congress I will cosponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit.”

The U.S. Term Limits Constitutional Amendment has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the House of Representatives by Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ). This session of Congress marks the first time in nearly twenty years that a serious term limits bill has appeared in both Houses with co-sponsorship.

Blumel noted, “The dysfunction in Washington, D.C. has never been greater, and people have had enough of politics as usual. Many members of Congress are getting on board as they become increasingly frustrated with the status quo. Fortunately, with candidates like Michael Stollery jumping into the fray, the political pressure for the constitutional amendment will continue building toward successful passage.”

According to the last nationwide poll on term limits conducted by Public Opinion Dynamics for Fox News in September 2010, the issue enjoys wide bi-partisan support. The poll showed that 78 percent of Americans support congressional term limits, including 74 percent independents and 74 percent of the nation’s Democrats.

Blumel concluded, “America is in trouble. Our career politicians have let the people down. It is time to limit their terms and return control of our nation to people who have actually had to create a job, earn an honest paycheck and pay a mortgage. It is time for a constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms.”

The term limits amendment bills would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate, and ratification by 38 states in order to become part of the Constitution.

U.S Term Limits is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization that works to promote term limits at all levels of government. For more information, please call Ray Wotring at 703-383-0907. U.S. Term Limits is a nonprofit501 (c) (4). It is located at 9900 Main Street, Suite 303 Fairfax, VA 22031 info@ustl.org

U.S. Term Limits praises California U.S. Senate candidate Dirk Konopik for pledge

Posted: 12/8/2011

Fairfax, VA – U.S. Term Limits (USTL), the leader in the national movement to limit terms for elected officials, praised California U.S. Senate candidate Dirk Konopik for promising to support and co-sponsor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting congressional terms.

Philip Blumel commented on Konopik’s pledge saying, “Dirk Konopik is leading the way for the other candidates for Congress by being an early signer of the term limits pledge.

Konopik’s commitment to returning to citizen government in Washington, D.C. is a beacon that should be followed by candidates across the nation.”

The U.S. Term Limits Amendment Pledge has been provided to every announced candidate for federal office. It reads, “I pledge that as a member of Congress I will cosponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit.”

The U.S. Term Limits Constitutional Amendment has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the House of Representatives by Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ). This session of Congress marks the first time in nearly twenty years that a serious term limits bill has appeared in both Houses with co-sponsorship.

Blumel noted, “The dysfunction in Washington, D.C. has never been greater, and people have had enough of politics as usual. Many members of Congress are getting on board as they become increasingly frustrated with the status quo. Fortunately, with candidates like Dirk Konopik jumping into the fray, the political pressure for the constitutional amendment will continue building toward successful passage.”

According to the last nationwide poll on term limits conducted by Public Opinion Dynamics for Fox News in September 2010, the issue enjoys wide bi-partisan support. The poll showed that 78 percent of Americans support congressional term limits, including 74 percent independents and 74 percent of the nation’s Democrats.

Blumel concluded, “America is in trouble. Our career politicians have let the people down. It is time to limit their terms and return control of our nation to people who have actually had to create a job, earn an honest paycheck and pay a mortgage. It is time for a constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms.”

The term limits amendment bills would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate, and ratification by 38 states in order to become part of the Constitution.

U.S Term Limits is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization that works to promote term limits at all levels of government. For more information, please call Ray Wotring at 703-383-0907. U.S. Term Limits is a nonprofit501 (c) (4). It is located at 9900 Main Street, Suite 303 Fairfax, VA 22031 info@ustl.org

Garamendi Ignores Continuing Consequences of Job-Killing Government Takeover of Healthcare

California Democrat Opposes Repealing the Law that Continues to Kill Jobs in a Struggling Economy
Posted: 12/8/2011

Washington --- The Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare continues to burden businesses with unprecedented new mandates and fees, but John Garamendi seems unconcerned in this bad economy and opposes repealing the disastrous law (Roll Call #14, 1/19/11). Garamendi has made it clear he prioritizes defending President Obama’s disastrous takeover of healthcare despite the fact that a plurality of voters want to see it repealed and its burden on the economy continues to grow.

“The consequences continue to pile on from the Democrats’ disastrous government takeover of healthcare, which makes it even more amazing that John Garamendi defiantly stands by the law,” said NRCC Communications Director Paul Lindsay. “Garamendi's constituents in California recognize that the Democrats’ takeover of healthcare cut $500 billion from Medicare and is destroying jobs when they are needed most, which is why a plurality of Americans now want to see it repealed.”

Examples of how the Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare imposes an extraordinary burden on the economy continue to reveal themselves:

“When CKE’s health-care advisers, citing Obamacare’s complexities, opacities and uncertainties, said that it would add between $7.3 million and $35.1 million to the company’s $12 million health-care costs in 2010, Puzder said: I need a number I can plan with. They guessed $18 million — twice what CKE spent last year building new restaurants. Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants.

“And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community. (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.)…”

“In an economic climate of increasing uncertainties, Puzder says, one certainty is that many businesses now marginally profitable will disappear when Obamacare causes that margin to disappear. A second certainty is that ‘employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.’” (George F. Will, “Choking on Obamacare,” The Washington Post, 12/2/11)

It is no wonder that a plurality of Americans want to see the disastrous law repealed:

“A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.” (David Morgan, “More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll,” Reuters, 11/16/11)

John Garamendi continues to demonstrate how out of touch he is when he opposes repealing the Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare in the face of so many disastrous consequences. This is yet another example of how Garamendi and his fellow Washington Democrats are doing more harm than good to job creators when middle-class families in California want economic growth above all else.

Macy's Fires Employee for Protecting Women's Dressing Rooms from Cross-dresser

LC.org
Posted: 12/8/2011

San Antonio, TX - A young woman was fired from a Macy's department store for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women's dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.

When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female's fitting room. Johnson's boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: "Macy's policy which allows men to use the women's dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy's customers. Macy's has essentially opened women's dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd."

Obama's War Record Should Appall Progressives

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 12/8/2011

“Why are liberals so desperately unhappy with the Obama presidency?” asks New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, a self-proclaimed “Obama apologist.”

He answers his own question: “ Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president.”

See? It isn’t Obama’s fault. It’s something in the so-called liberal, or progressive, psyche. (“Liberalism” originally meant a philosophy of maximum individual freedom, free markets, and minimum government, not today’s support for intrusive, comprehensive bureaucratic management.)

One wades through the 5,000-word essay hoping to witness Chait at least acknowledge that Obama has let his supporters down with his “war on terror” policies. But all we get is this:

Obama … has enjoyed a string of foreign-policy successes—expanding targeted strikes against Al Qaeda (including one that killed Osama bin Laden), ending the war in Iraq, and helping to orchestrate an apparently successful international campaign to rescue Libyan dissidents and then topple a brutal kleptocratic regime.

Excuse me? Progressives — who properly savaged George W. Bush for his autocratic presidency, civil-liberties flouting PATRIOT Act, undeclared war on Iraq, use of detention and torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere, and warrantless surveillance — are supposed to be happy with Barack Obama, who has essentially carried on most Bush policies, even kicking them up a few notches?

If we listen to Chait, there is nothing at all disappointing about Obama’s expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan and Somalia, with their routine “collateral damage” to innocents; his flagrant violation of the War Powers Resolution (not to mention the Constitution and his campaign promise) with his intervention in Libya; his intensification of the war in Afghanistan; his sanctions (an act of war) against Iran; his broken pledge to close Guantanamo; his support of indefinite detention without charge; his policy of assassinating even American citizens abroad without due process; his renewal of the PATRIOT Act; his placement of Marines in Australia with the words, “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay”; his failed attempt to lift the UN ban on cluster bombs; or his invocation of state secrets to keep torture victims out of court.

Chait thinks Obama should get credit for “ending the war in Iraq” — but hold on. The December 31, 2011, withdrawal date is set in the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration. Obama tried — but failed — to persuade Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to let U.S. troops stay longer. As it is, they will simply be moved down the road to Kuwait, and a large contract mercenary force will likely be left behind at the humongous embassy in Baghdad.

For Chait and his ilk, these all must count as “foreign policy successes.”

And what about torture? Nothing upset Progressives more during the Bush years. Toward the end of the administration, the criminal policy was abandoned and was forsworn by Obama. Yet the detention center at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan has been called “worse than Guantanamo” by Daphne Eviatar, an attorney for Human Rights First. Adds John Glaser of Antiwar.com,

There are now 3,000 detainees in Bagram, up from 1,700 since June (!) and five times the amount there when Barack Obama took office. Many of them have not been charged, have seen no evidence against them and do not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, aren’t given fair trials, and the U.S. claims it is not even obligated to explain why these people are caged.

U.S. special operations “black site” at Bagram features “sleep deprivation, holding detainees in cold cells, forced nudity, physical abuse, detaining individuals in isolation cells for longer than 30 days, and restricting the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” according to Jonathan Horowitz’s investigation for the Open Society Institute.

Finally, in a move that bodes ill for the future, Obama refuses to criminally or civilly investigate Bush administration officials for illegal torture of prisoners. He won’t even empanel a “truth commission” to bring the facts before the American people. Future administrations will thus have little to fear when they break the law.

Most progressives are silent about Obama’s shameful record. But it may explain the disappointment Chait can’t understand.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against California's Ban on Openly Carried Loaded Firearms in Public

Posted: 12/8/2011

A Federal Civil Rights lawsuit naming California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the City of Redondo Beach, its police department and police chief has been filed in the Federal Central District Court for California.

Defendants have until December 14th to waive service of summons. Those who do not will be served the following day which coincides with the 220th Anniversary of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

In 1967, the California Legislature made it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm in most public places in California. This was a knee-jerk reaction to the activities of the Black Panther Party which included a band of its members marching into the California State Capitol building openly carrying loaded firearms.

One of the Penal Code sections enacted as a result of this impromptu publicity stunt was California Penal Code section 12031 which makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm in incorporated cities and areas of a County where the discharge of firearms is prohibited.

The opinion of then Attorney General Thomas C. Lynch was that “...it remains clear that the Legislature did not direct the provisions of section 12031 against all uses of firearms but only at uses of firearms which are inimical to the peace and safety of the people of California.”

Then Governor Ronald Reagan was adamant that the legislation not apply to openly carrying loaded firearms through town for peaceful purposes such as hunting.

The lawsuit was intended to disarm the members of the Black Panther Party. Since then, it has been applied to persons which the statute itself exempts such as hunters and persons with loaded firearms inside of mobile residences.

This year, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill AB 144 into law which makes it a crime to openly carry an unloaded handgun as well. That law goes into effect on January 1st. As a result, California has banned a complete class of weapons commonly used for the purpose of self-defense from being openly carried in public. Only unloaded rifles and shotguns may be openly carried after the new year.

The lawsuit was filed by Charles Nichols, President of CaliforniaRightToCarry.org. The plaintiff in the lawsuit has filed as an individual. CaliforniaRightToCarry.org is not a plaintiff in this case.

The case number is CV-11-9916 SJO (SS). The case has been assigned to Federal Judge S. James Otero.

Funds for the lawsuit are being raised by Open Carry advocates across the state:

California Right To Carry
Riverside Open Carry Club
Inland Empire Open Carr
California Carry
The2A
Orange County Open Carry
OpenCarryClub.com
Bay Area Open Carry Movement
California Open Carry Movement

Donations to the lawsuit can be made online at http://do.nr/4Rj and http://tinyurl.com/PC12031Lawsuit

Donations are not tax deductible.

If you would like more information about this topic, please send inquiries to Charles Nichols: email Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

California Right To Carry is a California nonprofit registered with the California Secretary of State. It does not solicit or accept public donations for its organization. Operating expenses are provided entirely by its membership.

100% of the donations to the legal fund will be used for the Federal lawsuit. None of the money goes to the organization – California Right To Carry. Donations are not tax deductible.

JUDGE ISSUES TEMPORARY ORDER AGAINST STATE – POTENTIALLY STOPPING $100 MILLION CUTS TO THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM

Cuts would impact the care of an estimated 372,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities

OAKLAND, CA – Late yesterday afternoon United States District Court Judge Claudia A. Wilken issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective immediately that stops the state from proceeding with a 20 percent cut to the state’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program until the Court is able to hear the case on December 15, 2011.

The cuts of more than $100 million to the IHSS program are part of the state’s $700 million “trigger cuts” written into the 2011/12 state budget and passed under SB 73. The cuts, which would impact the care of an estimated 372,000 low-income California seniors and people with disabilities, were to be enacted on January 1, 2012, if state revenues didn’t meet projected earnings by mid December.

“Judge Wilken’s Temporary Restraining Order brings a sense of relief to California seniors and people with disabilities,” stated Laphonza Butler, president of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers (ULTCW). “This ruling means that our parents, grandparents, and children with disabilities who rely on the IHSS program to live safely at home will be able to get through the holidays without fear of losing their in-home care and being forced into institutions. It also means that there is a possibility of preventing these dangerous cuts to home care altogether.”

As stated in Judge Wilken’s findings, SB 73 raises serious questions of violations to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, the Medicaid Act, the American Disabilities Act and part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by placing IHSS recipients at imminent risk of unnecessary and unwanted out-of-home placement. (download TRO at: http://ultcw.org/files/2011/12/TRO.pdf)

Although the TRO does not stop the cuts from taking place, it does prevent the state from moving forward with issuing a Notice of Action to IHSS recipients that would announce the IHSS cuts as taking place on January 1, 2012.

“If implemented, these trigger cuts to the IHSS program would place hundreds of thousands of fragile lives in jeopardy,” said Butler. “Every hour of in-home care taken away from our seniors and people with disabilities places them in danger of experiencing falls, breaking bones, not taking their medications, or even worse. We simply can’t balance our states budget on the backs of our most vulnerable residents. The consequences are too great.”

The request for the TRO was filed on December 1, 2011, along with a lawsuit by senior and disability advocates to stop these devastating cuts to vital care from taking place. The Court is scheduled to hear the case on December 15, 2011, at 2:00 pm in Oakland.

Over 700,000 Californians make up SEIU in California; we work throughout the state, in all 58 counties, and we represent California in all of its diversity. We are social workers, nurses, classroom aides, state workers, security officers, college professors, home care workers, janitors, and more.

Denham Statement On Recent Unemployment Numbers

Posted: 12/8/2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Jeff Denham today released the following statement regarding this morning’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

“While lower unemployment rates are always welcome news, especially as we head into the holidays, we must be realistic about the situation. There is still much more that we can do to create American jobs and House Republicans have demonstrated this for the past year. Just this week, we passed three more bills to create jobs and we continue to work in bi-partisan ways towards pro-growth strategies. Unemployment in the Valley remains well above the national average, and we need to remain focused on getting people back to work by bringing a reliable source of water to the Valley and reducing regulations on small businesses and farms.

”NOTE: Congressman Denham addressed these concerns on the House Floor this week.

The week the House passed three pro-growth bills that would ease the regulatory burden hampering California businesses. Information on these three bills is below.

The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) is bipartisan legislation that “requires agencies to assess the costs and benefits” of new regulations on small businesses and “in most cases, to adopt the least-costly alternative to achieve the regulatory objectives of Congress,” says the House Judiciary Committee. Several dozen groups representing job creators, small businesses, and manufacturers support the bill, saying it “would modernize and update the 65-year old regulatory process” and help prevent new federal rules from destroying American jobs.

The Workforce Democracy & Fairness Act (H.R. 3094) prevents the Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from imposing sweeping new regulations that threaten American jobs. According to the House Education & the Workforce Committee, the bill ensures “[n]o union election will be held in less than 35 days,” giving workers “the ability to make a fully informed decision in a union election,” and it and overturns new NLRB rules that would raise costs on job creators. These NLRB rules were cited in a memo by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) on the “top 10 job-destroying regulations” that would be addressed by the House this year.

The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) closes loopholes used by federal agencies that allow them to impose costly, job-crushing regulations, says Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO). According to the House Judiciary Committee, it “requires federal agencies to identify and reduce the costs new regulations would impose on small businesses.” The bill was cited in Leader Cantor’s memo as one that makes “fundamental and structural reform of the rule-making system” to help create a better environment for jobs.

The Marcellus Shale Boom

By Steve Irwin
Posted: 12/8/2011

Marcellus Shale is becoming a household name, from discussions around kitchen tables to town halls with (sometimes) angry citizens. Endless media coverage, economic analysis, geological prediction, business maneuvers and political debate encompass this complex topic. Even the experts concede that the breadth of this issue will only be fully understood after gas production continues for many more years.

An important effect of natural gas production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia is simple: jobs. In contrast to America’s chronically high unemployment rate, the Marcellus-generated job activity within these regions can only be described as a gold rush. Thousands of trucks, ranging from semi-tankers to white diesel crew-cab pickups, have flooded the streets and back roads of many towns. While billions of dollars in federal spending have done little to nothing to improve jobs and infrastructure, the dollars invested into these reborn communities, once hurting by economic depression, are all thanks to subsurface layers of dirty black shale.

Infrastructure improvements and job creation are not the only byproducts of Marcellus Shale drilling. Land owners are likewise reaping tremendous benefits. Three years ago, some land leased for gas production had a market value of $10 an acre, tops. The driving market force of competition has caused that number to surge, with landowners negotiating payment terms upwards of $3,000 an acre with 15 percent or better royalty rates. That’s cash in hand, checks in the mail, and escrow in the bank.

And still, a mere one percent of expected wells have been drilled within the Marcellus-rich region, with a potential of 200,000 wells. The full potential offers a source of American energy that is hard to estimate. The pipeline system needed to transport the hydrocarbons has only begun to be constructed, with boom-centers of crackers and compressors along the way. This could portend an economic viability extending 100 years.

This phenomenon can be understood in very basic economic terms. The development of Marcellus Shale could only happen in America. Consider: citizens in this nation have long enjoyed not only the unique freedom to pursue happiness but the liberty to own property. Although other portions of the globe could be cashing in shale—namely China, Canada, and Europe—an individual citizen’s control of land, even to the depths of thousands of feet, is unique to the United States. Furthermore, it is only through private industry and corporations that the efficient technology of hydrofracturing is made available. Companies like Chesapeake Energy, Range Resources, Hess, BP, and Consol are all publicly traded and held liable to their creditors, and thus are making private business decisions for their own sake and profit.

Of course, also part of the American phenomenon is the government’s regulatory role, which plays a crucial role in Marcellus development—or the lack thereof. Look no further than the state of New York, where a moratorium on natural gas exploration has capped economic activity. Yet, gas producers remain cautiously optimistic. If Governor Rendell were still in office, things might look different. For the time being, Republican Governor Tom Corbett has only proposed an impact fee on natural gas production, of which the tax portion is not expected to survive state legislation. Maybe Governors John Kasich and Earl Ray Tomblin in bordering Ohio and West Virginia will take note.

Exploration and production of Marcellus Shale is certainly a sign of the times in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, exhibited by the boom towns that have been revived from drilling activity. These times are producing the creation of real jobs and money infused into local communities, and this is just the start. No doubt, Marcellus drilling also provides distinct challenges, which are being hotly debated, and which indeed need to be carefully considered. For now, though, the economic benefits in these dire economic times are undeniable.

teve Irwin is a senior at Grove City College and a student fellow with The Center for Vision & Values.

Fuel Job Growth with Wise Energy Investments, Scientist Urges

First Solyndra, then Beacon Power Corp.
Posted: 12/8/2011

Both alternative energy companies declared bankruptcy this year after receiving millions in federal job stimulus dollars. It’s just what the United States does not need right now, says nuclear scientist Michael T. Gamble, an alternative energy researcher and investment-banking analyst.

The public backlash to ill-spent tax dollars could hurt a vital emerging industry – one that is very much key to future U.S. jobs.

“Cheap energy would enable little Silicon Valley businesses to develop phenomenal things because they’re not hampered by the increased cost of doing business,” says Gamble, a former scientist at the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico and author of Zeroscape (www.zeroscape-thebook.com), a high-tech thriller. “Work with certain technologies, like high-energy lasers, requires large amounts of energy. A little photonics company could be a future Apple.”

Apple Inc., he notes, had 46,600 full-time employees in September 2010, up a third from the previous year. That was job growth during the throes of economic recession.

Gamble says the public perception of the alternative energy industry as a worthy recipient of taxpayer dollars may be tainted by what were essentially business failures exacerbated by the falling cost of solar-grade silicon. Perhaps they were poor choices for Energy Department loan guarantees.

“Solyndra was never even close to manufacturing cost-effective, competitive solar panels,” he says. “Their cost was $3 to $6 per watt.”

However, there are companies, and even government research, worth investing in, Gamble says.

A robust photovoltaic company that’s close to achieving competitive pricing is Nanosolar of San Jose, Calif. Its thin-film, printable solar collection panels use copper, indium, gallium, selenium and nanoparticle inks as opposed to the widely used silicon panels, a lower-cost strategy. When combined with the savings from minimal installation labor, Nanosolar’s panels are on course to produce energy for 60 cents per watt and achieve production efficiencies comparable to silicon panels within the next few years.

Of the regional options for renewable energy – tidal on the coasts, geothermal in the West, and wind in myriad locations – the latter is ripe for harvest. In 2010, China replaced the United States as the world leader in wind energy production, adding 16.5 gigawatts – comparable to the maximum electricity generated by 16 large nuclear power plants. It now surpasses the United States by 2 gigawatts. The U.S. lag was due, in part, to the expiration of the Obama administration’s Recovery Act, a one-time tax incentive for deployment of renewable energy installations.

Free as they are, sun and wind may be overpowered by success of the most high-tech energy source sought: nuclear fusion. Different from the nuclear fission employed by nuclear reactors, fusion is environmentally friendly, much less risky for humans, and uses fuel derived from water. It produces lots of energy; helium is the byproduct. The Lawrence Livermore National Lab near San Francisco has built a laser fusion device called the National Ignition Facility (NIF), capable of delivering 500 terawatts to a BB-size target while liberating clean energy. “Now that NIF is operational,” Gamble says, “its budget must be directed principally toward its mission as the groundbreaking American device closest to realizing a fantastic renewable energy source.”

Dr. Gamble is a former staff member of the physics division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he researched directed-energy devices such as terawatt laser systems. He is a former Vice President of Manufacturing Technology for Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and a founding partner of Fidelys, LLC, a California investment banking and corporate advisory firm. Gamble holds degrees in nuclear and mechanical engineering, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A Union-Industry Model for Solving Energy Problems

By Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.
Posted: 11/18/2011

Sometimes a political movement can find itself at cross-purposes. That's pretty much what's happened with President Obama's desire to create jobs and his simultaneous disdain for expanding the development of traditional energy sources such as oil and gas.

On the one hand, the president wants to create high-paying, and especially unionized, jobs to spur the economy-and his chances for reelection. On the other hand, he has strongly resisted increased oil and gas drilling, which would ... create thousands of high-paying union jobs and perhaps increase his chances for reelection.

Take, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump Canadian tar-sand oil-a heavier oil that is more difficult to transport and refine than the preferred "sweet light crude"-across the plains, through Texas and down to the Houston area where several refineries can handle heavy crude. Officials estimate that building the pipeline would create 20,000 jobs immediately, and another 100,000 indirectly.

And several unions representing more than 2 million workers agree. The Pipe Line Contractors Association, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers, Labors' International Union of North America, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have all signed a labor agreement with TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline.

These unions have workers who are ready and eager to jump into the project, and yet they have been sidelined for more than a year waiting on Obama administration approval-which finally appears to be forthcoming.

That's not to say that every union supports the project; several oppose it over environmental concerns-but many or them don't have jobs at stake. It's a lot easier to take a stand against something when someone else will suffer the loss.

Significantly, at a time when there appears to be a growing national clash between unions and corporate leaders-witness the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, which apparently are drawing union workers-the oil and gas industry and a number of unions seem to be working in a rare harmony.

For example, in June of 2009 the oil and gas industry's American Petroleum Institute (API) signed an agreement with 15 labor unions to create the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee in a first-ever effort to work together to promote job creation and retention and economic growth. The agreement included several unions in the construction trades associated with the AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters and Operating Engineers, among others.

Actually, the industry-labor agreement sounds, at least initially, like the steps taken by German companies between 2002-05 that radically reformed labor relations in that economically strong country. German unions sat down with mostly mid-sized companies, they listened to each other's needs and concerns, both made some compromises, and they created a blueprint for moving the country forward in a way that helped both sides. The result was an economy that was booming at 9 percent growth last year, while the U.S. economy was struggling at 1.6 percent.

The primary focus of the Labor-Management Committee currently is to get Congress and the Obama administration to move forward quickly on the Keystone XL pipeline. And it looks like they may win that battle pretty soon, with perhaps even more victories to come.

The Obama administration recently announced it would uphold nearly 500 oil leases to drill in the Arctic Ocean issued during the Bush administration. One company said it planned to begin drilling by the summer of 2012, and hiring would start even earlier. Now that's what you call "shovel ready."

While some commentators have dismissed the Arctic drilling approval as a sop to the oil companies, it would be shortsighted to overlook the role union lobbying may have played. President Obama has never shown the oil companies much love; the same cannot be said for unions. While moving forward with the Keystone XL is in the interest of the oil and gas companies, it clearly benefits thousands of union workers. Just maybe this industry-union agreement can serve as a model for worthy projects in other sectors of the economy.

Regardless of which group the president might be trying to placate, both the oil and gas industry and the related unions win-not to mention the victory for the American people who will have to import that much less energy from outside North America. And that is at least one good first step in creating jobs and energy independence.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas.

Modern Whig Party

Posted: 11/12/2011

WASHINGTON, DC – The Modern Whig Party of America is proud to announce this Veterans Day of its new Veterans Affairs Assistance Committee (VAAC). The VAAC of the Modern Whig Party exists to help Whig veteran members and veterans who are not members with veterans’ issues. The committee will organize the Modern Whig Party response to difficulties that veterans may be having with their benefits or any other veteran issues. The Committee will also help veterans’ families as well. The VAAC also is able to help active duty military as well as their families.Hubert Murray, the VAAC director, on working to help the military, “"I am full of excitement about this new task. This gives another option to solve inconvenient issues and reach out to help our service men and women."

The VAAC is made up of Whig members who are veterans or active duty and have experience dealing with the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The committee will listen to requests for help on behalf of the Modern Whig Party and then recommend a course of action for the party to take. Andrew Evans, the Modern Whig chairman had this to say about the VAAC, “We do not promise anything but we will use our membership and media connections to bring pressure against those who are hindering our veterans, active duty military and their families in a way that is not right. The Modern Whigs are all about service and this is a way we can serve those who have served America.”

Established in 1833, the Whigs are one of America's oldest mainstream political parties. They were the original party of Abraham Lincoln and four other U.S. Presidents. Revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the grassroots movement has quickly attracted tens of thousands of members. The Whigs have been covered by CNN, Time magazine, and the Wall Street Journal. They represent moderate voters from all walks of life that focus on a methodological approach to issues working for the most effective solution over a strict ideological approach. This Washington, DC-based national movement values common sense, rational solutions ahead of ideology and partisan bickering.

For more information on the VAAC or the Modern Whig Party please visit www.modernwhig.org.

Congressman Denham Honors Veterans And Their Families On Veterans Day

Posted: 11/12/2011

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Jeff Denham released the following statement on Veterans Day:

“This Veterans Day, we all pause to honor, remember, and respect the sacrifices our brave service members have made. Our veterans have selflessly fought to protect the values of our country and today, we must rededicate ourselves to upholding our commitment to them and their families.

“In the next two years, several hundred thousand men and women will return home from overseas and making sure they have the care and benefits they have earned is up to us. In the generations to come, it will be one of our most important responsibilities.

Today, let us all stop and thank a veteran and their family for their exceptional courage and sacrifice, and show our deep admiration for their service,” said Congressman Denham, veteran of Desert Storm.

Several weeks ago, Congressman Denham and Congressman Tim Walz, visited our service members in Afghanistan. They wrote a joint column reflecting on the sacrifices so many of our brave men and women have made, and recommitted themselves to sacrificing for them. You can read their joint column in honor of Veterans Day on military.com.

More than 200 Expected at First Public Forum

Preliminary economic cluster analysis findings to be shared and discussed November 15
Posted: 11/12/2011

SACRAMENTO—A huge swell of public interest around the first Next Economy Regional Forum fortifies the visceral need for a focused regional action plan that moves the Capital Region beyond today’s harsh unemployment and lethargic economy.

215 stakeholders have registered to attend the first of three public meetings that will occur over the next 6 months. “We are not surprised to see this high level interest,” said Bill Mueller, CEO & managing partner of Valley Vision, the nonprofit organization charged with administering the regional project. “People are fed up with the economy and want to be part of shaping the next one.”

The Next Economy Regional Forum, scheduled on November 15, is a time when community input and feedback will be collected in reaction to cursory cluster analysis research. This feedback, combined with research findings, will help shape specific strategies and joint actions to drive new job creation, investment, and innovation in the Sacramento region. Subsequent meetings will be held on February 17 and May 4, 2012.

November 15, 2011 from 9:30 – 11:30 a.m.

Speaking at the Forum and available for news interviews are:

Mark Otero – President and CEO of KlickNation
Craig McNamara – President and owner of Sierra Orchards
Martha Lofgren – Partner, Brewer Lofgren LLP
Jim Williams – President, Williams + Paddon Architects + Engineers
Brice Harris – Chancellor, Los Rios Community College District
Ryan Sharp –Director, Center for Economic Research

West Sacramento City Hall Galleria
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento

What Immigration Problem?

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 11/12/2011

Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, let’s be clear about the alleged problem. What is an “illegal immigrant”? It’s simply a person — possessing natural rights, mind you — who comes to the United States without the permission of the U.S. government. Now isn’t it curious that in this country, which began in rebellion against and secession from an empire, people are upset about other people moving around without government permission? In revolutionary times the smuggler of goods was a hero, and the customs agent was a villain. If we were true to the best parts of our heritage today the “illegal” would be a hero, and the border agent would be a villain.

This shows how far we have slipped from America’s substantially libertarian origins. This is really quite sad.

Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to state. We’d be appalled at the hassle, not to mention the grave interference with our freedom. Would we put up with it? I hope not.

Then what is the justification for having an elaborate, presumptuous, tax-financed bureaucracy whose purpose is to determine who may live in this country? Rights belong to all human beings, not just to Americans. Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens.

But, we are told, a country is not a country without secure borders. Why? This premise goes unexamined.

A country is defined by its traditions and attitudes rather than by its border checkpoints and armed guards. It is disheartening to hear people claim to believe that America is not synonymous with government and yet favor harsh measures to “secure our border” and stop free migration.

All the economic arguments for stemming the flow of immigrants fall when examined even casually. The nativists can’t quite get their story straight. Are the newcomers ambitious go-getters trying to “take our jobs,” or are they freeloaders planning to collect welfare? Those who are afraid of the former fail to understand that people not only produce when they hold jobs, but also consume. Newcomers expand the market and the division of labor, which Adam Smith taught us is the path to higher living standards. Some opponents of immigration bring up the current high unemployment as an objection. But that is purely a government-produced phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with immigrants. Seriously, scapegoating does not become us.

As for any government-financed services that immigrants might use, let’s not forget that they also pay a good deal in taxes. There’s no reason to think they are a net drain on the welfare state.

But that is really beside the point. If we don’t want people living off the taxpayers — and this should apply to American citizens as well — we should transfer welfare services to private charity and the free market. There is no good reason for government — the essence of which is physical force — to be running schools and hospitals, which are the tax-financed facilities most likely to be used by immigrants. I really see no moral difference between a citizen and a noncitizen taking advantage of a government program. The most objectionable aspect of government largess is not who accepts it but how the politicians obtain the resources that they then distribute. Taxation is robbery.

Finally, there is a good deal of worry on the Right these days that immigration is making “white America” a thing of the past. Those who hold this view say earlier immigration presented little concern because most newcomers were European and could assimilate into American culture. But this is selective memory in the first degree: virtually every group from Europe was at one time spoken of in the same degrading and alarmist terms as are today’s Latino and Muslim immigrants. In fact, as Thaddeus Russell documents in his fascinating book, A Renegade History of the United States, almost every European immigrant group — including Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews — were initially not considered to be white! As a result, many of the new immigrants felt close to blacks and African-American culture. Only with the passage of time were they admitted into the ranks of the white race by the establishment.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

The Super Committee Can Tackle Entitlement Spending

By Grace Marie Turner
Posted: 11/12/2011

Hope is fading that the congressional Super Committee will agree to significant deficit reduction, but there still is an opportunity for members to take steps toward tackling entitlement spending, especially in Medicare and Medicaid -- the key drivers of our nation's ballooning budget deficit.

These programs must be changed to meet their future obligations and for Congress to have any hope of controlling federal spending.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Program provides the model. Adopted in 2003, Part D provides affordable drug coverage to seniors by harnessing competition and choice. Private companies approved by Medicare offer drug coverage to seniors who shop to find the plan that best meets their needs. In the process, they force health plans to actively compete to offer the lowest prices and best benefits.

The result is an entitlement program that is actually under budget. Medicare Part D is coming in 46 percent below original estimates -- saving money for taxpayers and seniors. The average Part D enrollee pays $30 a month, far below the $53 premium originally projected by this point.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has a plan to extend this concept to all of Medicare. Beginning in 2022, the Ryan proposal would provide a generous payment so seniors can purchase a Medicare-approved health plan that best meets their needs. The older, the poorer, the sicker seniors are, the larger their Medicare payments would be. Everyone who qualifies for Medicare would be guaranteed coverage.

As Super Committee members honestly study the options, they can't help but see that this is the right platform to modernize and save Medicare. A number of bi-partisan commissions have come to the same conclusion. Congress' challenge is to make sure the payment is adequate for seniors to obtain coverage while not putting future taxpayers in the poor house.

The Super Committee can make recommendations that would compel the standing committees in Congress to get to work on reforms that will reduce the future flood of red ink driven by uncontrolled entitlement spending. The alternative is the path we are on in which the new health law would force deep cuts in payments to doctors that will drive many out of practice and lead to rationing by the unelected, unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board.

While it works to develop positive reform, it's just as important for the Super Committee to avoid changes that will make problems worse. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) want the group to require pharmaceutical firms to pay a rebate on prescription drugs for people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. This is misguided. Studies show these rebates would ultimately shift costs back to seniors in the form of higher drug costs and premiums.

The Committee also must beware of programs masquerading as competition. The so-called "Competitive Bidding Program" is designed to save money in Medicare's purchasing of medical equipment -- everything from diabetic supplies to sophisticated home wound care equipment.

Instead of Washington setting prices, the agency that runs Medicare is supposed to get competitive bids on these medical supplies. It sounds like a good idea. But the agency's regulations for this program actually drive out competition and violate all the rules of market-driven bidding. Companies can bid so low that they drive out legitimate suppliers, and then the winning bidder doesn't have to supply the product!

The key to real reform is building in changes to Medicare and Medicaid that rely on consumer choice and competition, not price controls and crushing government regulations.

The Medicare drug program works because consumers are in charge of seeking the best value in their health spending, forcing providers to deliver better services at lower cost.

To ensure the future of Medicare and Medicaid -- and to correct our disastrous fiscal course -- the Super Committee can take the long-term view of reform with steps that move away from the failed approach of Washington micro-management and toward modern reforms that rely on consumer choice and market competition.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, is a co-author of the new book Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins).

FEDERAL INJUNCTION TO BE FILED AGAINST CALIFORNIA OPEN CARRY BAN

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit to be filed on Anniversary of Second Amendment
Posted: 10/30/2011

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 proposed amendments to the United States Constitution; giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to go into effect.

On December 15, 2011 a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit will be filed seeking an injunction against a California law that was passed in 1967 which makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm.

Ironically, the law recently passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown (AB 144) making it a crime to openly carry even an unloaded handgun has greatly simplified the lawsuit. Under a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in May of 2011 it would have been necessary to show that the California law which requires openly carried firearms to be unloaded until one was in grave, immediate danger was a “substantial burden.”

With the passage of AB 144, this will no longer be necessary. The California Legislature has created a mirror image of the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The decision, issued in 2008, held that the individual has the right to openly carry a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense; except in certain “sensitive” places such as schools and government buildings. The High Court held that a law banning handguns, even though it exempted long guns (rifles and shotguns) was unconstitutional.

Two Federal lawsuits which had been brought in California to obtain permits to carry handguns concealed failed, in part, because the Federal judges cited the exception to California law for openly carrying a loaded handgun when one was in grave, immediate danger. With the passage of AB 144, that exception no longer exists. The Chief Federal Judge for the Southern District of California said she was unable to rule on whether or not the section of the California Penal Code making it a crime to openly carry a loaded handgun before one was in danger was constitutional, because neither party challenged the constitutionality of the law (Penal Code section 12031). The attorney for the defendant in that case, the Sheriff of San Diego County argued that the Heller decision did not apply outside of the home. The attorney also argued that the Second Amendment should not apply to the County of San Diego because it was located near the Mexican border. The Federal judge in the case did not buy either of those arguments.

The lawsuit seeking an injunction to California Penal Code section 12031, to the extent it makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense will be brought in the Federal Central District of California.

Donations to the legal fund can be made here http://do.nr/4Rj and here http://tinyurl.com/PC12031Lawsuit

If you would like more information about this topic, please send inquiries to Charles Nichols: email Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

California Right To Carry is a California nonprofit registered with the California Secretary of State. It does not solicit or accept public donations for its organization. Operating expenses are provided entirely by its membership.

100% of the donations to the legal fund will be used for the Federal lawsuit. None of the money goes to the organization – California Right To Carry. Donations are not tax deductible.

Retooling Obama's Jobs Bill

By Kmele Foster
Posted: 10/26/2011

Earlier this month, the President's jobs bill failed in the Senate. Now the White House intends to break up the bill and gin up sufficient Republican support to pass key pieces. "We will now work with Senator Reid to make sure that the individual proposals in this jobs bill get a vote as soon as possible," said President Obama in a statement released shortly after the Senate vote.

This piecemeal approach might be politically expedient, but the provisions the White House is pushing are still a whiff policy-wise. They're just too superficial. Extending unemployment benefits and cutting the payroll tax aren't going to fuel the sustained, robust job growth Americans are so desperate for.

What the President can and should do is immediately rework his bill to pursue a structural realignment of the tax and regulatory burden facing American business.

Mr. Obama should focus his attention on reducing the tax burden faced by consumers and businesses. The proposed legislation takes some steps in this direction. It cuts the payroll tax in half to 3.1 percent in 2012 and institutes a temporary tax credit for businesses that hire new workers or buy new equipment.

But these cuts have already been tried and they don't go far enough. Temporary cuts are no substitute for comprehensive tax reform, and they mean even less without commensurate spending reductions. Washington should be taking steps to simplify the tax code, broaden the base, and lower rates on corporations and individuals.

It's time to stop tinkering around the edges of our Byzantine tax system and fundamentally

reform it -- it's no longer controversial to admit that America's tax code is impeding our ability to compete in the global economy and create jobs.

The half trillion-dollar jobs bill also contains billions in new spending. The president's bill calls for public investments directed at sectors that are politically popular among Democrats. For example, it earmarks $25 billion for investment in school infrastructure and $35 billion to state and city governments to prevent public teacher layoffs.

But these "investments" reflect the philosophy of previously failed efforts to stimulate the economy. At best, short-term spending by government will produce short-term employment opportunities. And these temporary jobs often come at the expense of sustainable new employment in other parts of the economy.

Rather than focusing on short-term solutions, the administration should be empowering executives and entrepreneurs to create viable patterns of employment. If more government spending could turn around our desperate economic situation, then surely the first $1.5 trillion stimulus would have solved the problem already.

Finally, a recalibrated jobs bill must eliminate regulatory impediments to industries that are proven job generators.

One sector that could generate hundreds of thousands of new, high-paying jobs is domestic energy production. Research suggests that opening up known offshore resources would generate 144,700 new positions and expanding access to federal lands for energy exploration would create 500,000 more.

The President could immediately encourage investment and job creation in the energy industry by simplifying permitting and reducing the number of new regulations.

Private companies should be allowed to explore and develop domestic energy resources without undo interference or assistance. The Solyndra scandal and the lackluster jobs numbers posted by other federally backed "green jobs" initiatives illustrate the governments inability to engineer a solution to the country's employment crisis. Opening new domestic frontiers for traditional energy production would generate the jobs that other politically popular programs have manifestly failed to produce.

Obama's jobs strategy is more of the same. Even if this new piecemeal strategy works, the results will be just as underwhelming as the White House's previous efforts to stoke employment. A truly effective jobs initiative would permanently cut, taxes, and reduce spending, while curtailing unnecessary regulations, and empower industries that are proven to create jobs.

Kmele Foster is the co-founder and vice president of TelcoIQ, a telecommunications consultancy. He is also the chairman of America's Future Foundation.

"God Bless Them?" Congresswoman Pelosi on the Wall Street Mob

By Dr. Paul Kengor
Posted: 10/19/2011
This article first appeared at CatholicVote.org

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has a lengthy track record of jaw-dropping political statements. Among them, the lifelong Roman Catholic has been a huge disappointment to her Church on matters of unborn human life, which I’ve personally written about on many occasions.

But it isn’t just Pelosi’s actions on the sanctity and dignity of human life. Her supportive comments on radical people and causes generally have been legion. For years, Congresswoman Pelosi has made outrageous statements, from the Cold War to the Middle East, that consistently leave one speechless.

I’ll never forget her stunning House floor tribute to Harry Bridges, a notorious communist/labor agitator who spent a lifetime lying about his secret loyalties to Stalin and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), even while his position on the Central Committee of CPUSA was directly authorized by Stalin’s Kremlin. “Today we can all hold our heads high and be proud of Harry Bridges’ legacy,” said Pelosi. “Harry Bridges is … beloved by the workers of this nation, and recognized as one of the most important labor leaders in the world.”

Bizarre statements about the extreme Left are old hat for Congresswoman Pelosi. And now, add yet another.

Commenting on the out-of-control gang of Wall Street “Occupiers,” Pelosi glowed and said warmly, “God bless them for their spontaneity.”

“God bless them?”

What a remarkably strange thing to say. Of everything said about this Manhattan mob, this strikes me as the most bewildering.

“God bless them?”

Well, we certainly don’t want God to damn them. We would like God to bless everyone. We should pray for everyone.

But, frankly, I doubt this particular band of protestors is even thinking along such lines. This is an extremely secular, militant crowd. These aren’t exactly the nuns who taught Nancy Pelosi in parochial school.

Ironically, Pelosi’s comments came at almost the same time a representative of the mob, Roseanne Barr, literally called for guillotining—yes, guillotining—wealthy American bankers. She openly called for their forcible “re-education” and execution.

I have friends and students there in New York observing this spectacle. They email me daily. One took a picture of two homosexual men embracing while holding a sign imploring the brethren to “KILL YOUR PARENTS.”

As he snapped this picture, the throng initiated a frightening march upon the homes of those loathsome “millionaires and billionaires” that President Obama targets unceasingly with his terribly destructive class-based rhetoric.

It’s only a matter of time before this angry, envy-filled insurrection turns violent.

“God bless them?” I say “God help them”—and help those they threaten to hurt.

Think about that strange inflection from Pelosi: “God bless them.” What does it normally mean, or how is it typically applied?

It’s the kind of sentiment you usually wish to a church secretary or Religious Ed director who unselfishly does five peoples’ jobs for $18,000 per year; to your pastor on call 24/7; to a little girls’ choir singing angelically; to earnest kids raising money for a soup kitchen; to a woman suffering in silence from breast cancer; to Salvation Army volunteers paying peoples’ heating bills; to a Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteer who works the rape hotline; to a nursing-home attendant who cheerfully bathes mentally challenged adults; to the guy who snow-blows every driveway on the block; to the black college students who stoically entered an Alabama school building while ugly rednecks spat on them; to Rosa Parks.

Yes, God bless those people.

“God bless them” isn’t the kind of sentiment anyone would normally direct to a ranting, raving, raging, screaming crush of self-professed “occupiers” bordering on anarchy without nary a whiff of religious motivation. I seriously doubt that the horde smashing and littering the streets even cares for someone to “bless” their event. Are there prayer chains and prayer circles going on there?

As anyone paying attention can see, this is an unkempt, cursing lot, some of them trust-fund kids on voluntary sabbatical from $100,000 (per year) elite educations. They hoist a Starbucks in one hand and iPhone in the other while shouting “down with capitalism!” As anyone there will tell you, some elements of the crowd are engaging in everything from group sex to group bong sessions.

This is not a Norman Rockwell picture. It’s about as cute as an LSD trip, as quaint and charming and innocent as a Grateful Dead concert.

Is this the kind of thing Christians are expected to bless?

To Congresswoman Pelosi, apparently it is. Yet again, her comments leave one dumbfounded. This latest statement has taken me a few days to try to assimilate.

I say God pray for them, pray for all of us, pray for me—and pray for Nancy Pelosi.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and his latest release, "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

Committee Approves Denham’s Civilian Property Realignment Act

Posted: 10/19/2011

Washington, DC – Representative Jeff Denham’s Civilian Property Realignment Act passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today. The Committee approved the legislation that will improve the management of federal property, shrink the federal government’s footprint and save taxpayers billions of dollars.

“I believe the potential to save billions of dollars is real, and H.R. 1734 creates a process that can help us realize those savings. There are vacant or underused buildings across the country that will result in taxpayer savings and efficiencies immediately,” said Congressman Denham. “There has been inaction for too long – my bill will increase transparency and cut through the bureaucratic red tape to literally shrink the size of government and maximize utilization rates.”

H.R. 1734, the “Civilian Property Realignment Act” (CPRA), was approved by a vote of 30 to 22. Congressman Denham’s bill would employ a BRAC-like process for civilian properties, reduce the federal footprint and save taxpayers billions of dollars. This cost saving initiative would achieve a reduction in the size of the federal real property inventory through selling or redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus properties.

Provisions and benefits of the bill include:

- Establishes an independent civilian commission, similar to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to make property recommendations to Congress;
- Recommendations can only be disapproved en bloc by the President and Congress;
- After a one-time appropriation of initial seed funding, the process would be self-funded by sale proceeds;
- Proceeds will go towards deficit reduction;
- Requires the sale or transfer of several underutilized GSA properties including for the National Women’s History Museum, the consolidation of the National Gallery of Art and the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Energy, and the proposed Los Angeles Courthouse, all of which will benefit taxpayers and result in immediate savings;
- OMB estimates such a proposal would result in $15 billion in future savings;
- Anticipated CBO direct spending savings of at least $400 million in the first five years.

Brian Williams Never Loses Sleep

By Robert Morrison
Posted: 9/29/2011

Brian Williams: "Governor: Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those [persons executed in Texas] might have been innocent?"

Gov. Perry responded, "No, sir."

Could there have been a more "loaded" question? The premise of the question was that capital punishment is wrong, that there are likely to be errors in the administration of it, and that Gov. Perry must be a callous person if he did not lose sleep over his role in the application of Texas' laws.

Well, Winston Churchill did lose sleep over capital punishment. When he served as Britain's Home Secretary prior to World War I, it was his mournful duty to approve state-sanctioned hangings. Churchill hated that part of the job. He was the first Home Secretary to go into British prisons and he recommended a number of important reforms. He made British justice more humane. He sought desperately for some extenuating circumstance to justify leniency in the application of the death sentences he was forced to approve. But he never called for the abolition of capital punishment.

Here's a question Brian Williams would never ask, say, of New York's governor:

Williams: "Gov. Cuomo: New York State pays for more abortions every year than Texas has approved executions in the last decade. Have you ever struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any of those [put to death] might have been innocent?"

To Williams and his fellow members of the journalistic elite the idea that unborn children might be regarded as persons is ridiculous. But unborn children were so regarded for hundreds of years, prior to 1973 and Roe v. Wade. Before the Supreme Court's act of "raw judicial power," the abortion laws of the fifty states were found where? In the homicide sections of state law. Homicide is defined as the killing of human beings, persons.

Scripture takes every human life seriously. The life of a condemned killer still has sanctity. That's why, in the Old Bailey in London, the magistrate would put a black hat on top of his large, white wig and pronounce: "...and may God have mercy on your soul" when forced to sentence a man to hang.

Scripture also cares about the life of the unborn. In Psalm 139:13, we read: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." The Boston Globe recognized this truth several years ago when it published an amazing story, "Inside the Baby Mind." (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/04/26/inside_the_baby_mind/)

This article confirms the reality of a mind forming early and capable of vast imagination. Unless, of course, you think that all of this springs into being the moment the child is born. And sophisticated people think we are looking for storks!

Brian Williams has recently told us that he dropped out of college. No shame in that. Before that, though, he says he read a lot of Nietzsche and Machiavelli (http://www.aol.com/video/youve-got-brian-williams/1183374323001/). Hmmm. I'm not sure how such fare prepares you to question possible presidents or how either of these writers gives one a moral foundation sufficiently elevated that you can so clearly look down your nose at a candidate for the White House.

Many of those on trial for war crimes at Nuremberg could well have cited Nietzsche and Machiavelli in their defense. They never lost any sleep over the millions of innocents they put to death.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo believes that it would be discriminatory not to pay for the killing of unborn children in New York. If a woman cannot afford an abortion, then right-thinking, or should I say, left-thinking people have an obligation to provide the means for the extinguishing of their lives. To them, it's a convenient truth.

Happily for Gov. Andrew Cuomo, he will never be asked such a question. Brian Williams would be read out of the journo fraternity if he dared to ask such a question. Like his father before him (Gov. Mario Cuomo), Andrew believes that only the innocent should be put to death. They should die in their thousands and hundreds of thousands. And you never lose a minute's sleep over it.

Robert Morrison is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

Student Punished for Christian Beliefs About Homosexuality Pushes Back

Source: Liberty Counsel
Posted: 9/29/2011

Fort Worth, TX - On Tuesday, high school freshman Dakota Ary was given in-school suspension for stating in class that he believes homosexuality is wrong because of his Christian faith. Liberty Counsel is representing Dakota in this case, demanding full vindication and a full retraction of the suspension. If the school board does not comply, a lawsuit will be filed for violation of Dakota's First Amendment rights.

Dakota was in a German language class at Western Hills High School on Tuesday when the topic of homosexuality arose. "I'm a Christian and, to me, being homosexual is wrong," Dakota said to one of his classmates. His teacher overheard the comment, wrote Dakota an infraction, and sent him to the principal's office. The class topic was religious beliefs in Germany. During the discussion, one student asked what Germans thought about homosexuality in relation to religion. Another student then asked to hear some translated terms such as "lesbian." These questions provoked the conversation about Christianity and Dakota's expression of his opinion to one classmate.

The discipline referral form says the comment was out of context, even though the lesson for the day was on religious beliefs. The teacher charged Dakota with "possible bullying" and indicated, "It is wrong to make such a statement in public school." Last week, the teacher displayed a picture of two men kissing on a "World Wall" and told the students that homosexuality is becoming more prevalent in the world and that they should just accept it. Many of the students were offended by the teacher's actions and his continually bringing up the topic of homosexuality in a German language class.

Matthew Krause, Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, along with Dakota's mom, Holly Pope, met with school administrators Wednesday morning. Krause states: "Just because you walk through the schoolhouse doors doesn't mean you shed your First Amendment rights. Dakota wasn't disrupting class. He wasn't bullying or harassing anybody. He was just stating his personal opinion on a topic somebody else brought up and in a civil and respectful manner."

Liberty Counsel recently defended Florida Teacher of the Year Jerry Buell, after he was suspended for a comment he made outside of class on his personal Facebook page, expressing his disapproval of legalized homosexual marriage in New York. After a week-long "investigation," the Lake County School Board fully exonerated and reinstated Buell.

Harry Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: "The double standard advocated by homosexual activists is mind boggling. Jerry Buell was suspended for opposing same-sex "marriage" outside of class. This teacher in Texas is actually bullying his students into accepting the homosexual lifestyle inside the class, and yet it is his student, not him, that gets suspended. We will vigorously defend and restore Dakota's constitutional rights."

Jerome Horton Offers Support for Bill Requiring Public Posting of Top 500 Tax Delinquents List

Measure also requires suspension of professional licenses
Posted 9/22/2011

Jerome E. Horton, Chairman of the California Board of Equalization (BOE), in a letter to Governor Edmund G. Brown is urging the Governor to sign Assembly Bill 1424, the measure approved by the Legislature that expands the public list of the top 250 BOE and Franchise Tax Board (FTB) tax delinquencies to 500. The measure also requires the state to suspend occupational, professional, or driver's licenses of the state's top tax debtors.

"California's tax cheats need to know we are serious about making them follow the law. This bill is an incentive for those who owe the most to the BOE and the FTB to come clean and pay what they owe," Horton said.

The previous legislation, AB 1418, that created the state law mandating that both the BOE and FTB make available to the public a list of the largest 250 tax delinquencies of more than $100,000 in tax, was authored by Chairman Horton when he was a member of the California State Assembly. The measure also required a 30-day advance notification to the tax debtors advising them that if they fail to resolve their tax delinquencies, their liabilities will be disclosed to the public.

"Since the BOE and FTB began posting the top 250 largest tax delinquencies, over $87 million has been collected as a result," Horton said. "If the taxpayers on the list continue to ignore their tax debts, the public has a right to know who they are."

As Chairman of the BOE, Horton also serves as a member of the FTB.

Elected in 2010, Chairman Jerome E. Horton is the Fourth District Member of the California State Board of Equalization, representing more than 8.5 million residents in Los Angeles County. He is also the Board of Equalization Legislative Committee chairman. He is the first to serve on the Board of Equalization with over 21 years of experience at the BOE. Horton previously served as an Assembly Member of the California State Assembly from 2000-2006.

The five-member California State Board of Equalization is a publicly elected tax board. The Board of Equalization collects more than $50 billion annually in taxes and fees supporting state and local government services. It hears business tax appeals, acts as the appellate body for franchise and personal income tax appeals, and serves a significant role in the assessment and administration of property taxes. For more information on other taxes and fees in California, visit www.taxes.ca.gov.

Chairman Horton Letter to Governor Brown: http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/1424_Letter_to_Gov_Jerry_Brown.pdf

America Must Stand With Israel

Source: www.lc.org
Posted: 9/22/2011

Jerusalem, Israel – As the Palestinian Authority (PA) leader, Mahmoud Abbas, presses the United Nations to officially recognize the statehood of the PA, Liberty Counsel sent a delegation to Israel this week to show support for Israel and the Jewish people.

Tens of thousands of Americans have already signed Liberty Counsel’s “Stand with Israel” petition. In June, Mathew and Anita Staver, founders of Liberty Counsel, met privately with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I expressed the strong support of the American people for Israel,” said Mat Staver.

During that meeting, Mr. Netanyahu said that conflict over the right of Israel to exist is, at its core, a battle over values and Western civilization. President Obama has called for Israel to return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, which would make Israel only nine miles wide and thus lead to the complete destruction of the Jewish people. Netanyahu said, “In America, you need to ask the question, WWAD, What Would America Do?” Indeed, what would we do if England or Spain asked us to return to our pre-1776 borders?

PA leader Abbas is calling this week for Israel to return to the indefensible 1967 borders, calling for the recognition of the PA as an independent nation, and also calling for Jerusalem to be the capital of the PA. In Mr. Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress earlier this year, he said it is time for Abbas to stand up before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.” For peace negotiations to be successful, Palestine must acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a state. Absent those words, negotiation of real estate is pointless.

This week a delegation commissioned by Liberty Counsel is in Israel during the important UN vote. Liberty Counsel urges America’s elected leaders to “Stand with Israel” at this critical time. Liberty Counsel has created a sticker that proudly proclaims “Stand with Israel.” “Now more than ever, Israel needs America and America needs Israel,” concluded Mat Staver.

Governor Brown Signs Executive Order to Establish Tribal Advisor Position

Posted: 9/20/2011

From left to right: Chairperson of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations Lynn Valbuena, Vice Chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Richard Gomez, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Chairman of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Bo Mazzetti and Senior Advisor to the Governor Jacob Appelsmith

SACRAMENTO – In order to strengthen communication and collaboration between California state government and Native American Tribes, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued an Executive Order establishing the position of Governor’s Tribal Advisor in the Office of the Governor. This position will serve as a direct link between the Governor’s Office and tribal governments on matters including legislation, policy and regulation. Governor Brown signed the Executive Order today while attending the TASIN All California Tribes Meeting at the Sheraton Hotel in Sacramento, CA.

American Workers Deserve Respect

By Roger Smith
Posted: 9/20/2011

"The middle class would not exist without organized labor."

So proclaimed Vice President Joe Biden at a recent speech in Ohio. He's right. And with unemployment stuck above 9 percent, the need for strong unions has never been greater.

I am the CEO of an international life insurance company. If you think a management perspective automatically means opposition to labor unions, think again. I am humbled to witness the impact of millions of workers' voices as they proudly affirm, "Workers matter, and we are one!"

America's middle class and workers are under systematic attack. Our failed and reckless economic policies, the Wall Street raid on Main Street, the coddling of millionaires and billionaires, and the gaming of a tax system that favors Big Corporations and offshore tax havens - taken together, all of these amount to a thinly veiled attempt to silence American workers and profit at their expense.

It isn't working. What started in Wisconsin with thousands of union members clad in red, battling to keep the rights they earned through their collective voice, has transformed into a national struggle. The stakes are towering, and there is no place for bystanders.

Havens of hope are turning up everywhere. A record number of Wisconsin voters spoke in a recent recall election. Though they fell short of reclaiming a state senate majority in favor of workers' rights, they won back two seats and reenergized the spirit of American workers, who are now readying themselves for the next round at the ballot box.

In Ohio, when the state legislature approved SB 5, a bill that gutted years of hard-won worker rights, over 1 million people joined in petitioning for a state referendum to overturn it. Once again, a sea of red is spilling into the streets.

Even if you don't believe, as I do, that organized labor is the surest path to a solid middle class and that collective bargaining creates the type of shared prosperity we need in this country, you must join the fight for fairness. This is not about union or non-union. It's about respect for American workers and the value of their labor.

The few at the top are grabbing all the gains for themselves, leaving nothing for the workers whose increased productivity has resulted in record corporate profits. CEO pay jumped 27 percent in 2010, while the pay of workers in the private sector grew little over 2 percent. This fundamental unfairness must come to an end. This battle will be fought at the worksite and at every polling place in America.

Last month, 45,000 courageous workers went on strike against Verizon, a corporation with over $22.5 billion of profits in the past four and a half years. The strike has since been put on hold while union officials negotiate a new contract with Verizon. Shockingly, Verizon wants to renege on benefits for retirees, eliminate sick days for new hires, abolish disability benefits for workers injured on the job, outsource company jobs, and stick already struggling families with over $20,000 in annual concessions.

I hope millions of America's workers see this fight for what it is - another attempt to devalue labor and silence workers. American corporations must be brought to understand that they can remain competitive, be profitable and do right by their workers.

It's important that we support American workers seeking a fundamental transformation to a fair shake for all: a fair wage while working and protection for rightfully earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare.

All people of goodwill should join our protestors clad in red, the unemployed and underemployed, and business leaders who want to do right by our workers. Their voices ask all of us, including CEOs such as myself, to do our part and pay our fair share in rebuilding our great country and our middle class.

Roger Smith is the president and CEO of American and National Income Life Insurance Companies.

GOVERNMENT IS BIGGEST LAW BREAKER

New E-Pamphlet Shows Constitution Has Been Trampled, and How Americans May Reclaim It
Posted: 9/20/2011

Manassas, VA -- Just in time for Constitution Day, longtime conservative activists Richard A. Viguerie and Mark Fitzgibbons have exposed one of the country's dirtiest secrets: Government is the oldest, largest and most pervasive lawbreaker in America. This is described in stunning detail in the new pamphlet, The Law that Governs Government: Reclaiming the Constitution from Usurpers and Society's Biggest Law Breaker . Viguerie and Fitzgibbons are veterans in the war against government lawbreaking, and set forth a timely and comprehensive pamphlet of principles, purpose and proposals for and about constitutional conservatives and the Tea Party (The full 60-page e-pamphlet is available at www.ReclaimtheConstitution.com at no charge).

"Lawbreaking by government in terms of cost and the number of people victimized is of a scale unmatched by any other organization or group -- leaving nothing as a close second," write Viguerie and Fitzgibbons.

A major marketing, PR, and advertising campaign is being launched to make the failure of most of our political leaders to follow the Constitution an important issue in the 2012 primaries and general election. To encourage others to get this message out, the e-pamphlet is not copyrighted.

The authors cite examples of government misdeeds by the President, the entire Executive Branch, Congress, the courts and states curtailing free speech and property rights, intrusions into family life, and heavy handed actions by the police.

"Government has injected itself into nearly every aspect of private affairs, and has taken an

excessive, intrusive and omnipotent view of what are public matters. Given the vast and unilateral authority it claims to have over so much of society and property, government has unmatched opportunity for lawbreaking. It makes and rigs the rules in its favor. It cloisters and covers up its lawlessness, and makes it almost impossible to challenge its lawbreaking when exposed.

"In addition to its lawbreaking that takes place in the open, there is the cloistered lawbreaking done by anonymous bureaucrats and in backroom deals by public officials. Government transparency is mostly a fiction. We see and know only what government wants us to. The irony is that government lawbreaking is done mostly under the guise and misnomer of the rule of law. The law has become one big slap in the face to all Americans.

ReclaimtheConstitution.com is a project of ConservativeHQ.com, which was founded by Richard A. Viguerie. Mark J. Fitzgibbons is the President of Corporate and Legal Affairs, American Target Advertising.

Dr. Pan, Families and Advocates Urge Governor to Keep Newborn Screening for Fatal Bubble Boy Disease

Signing Dr. Pan’s AB 395 Would Make Permanent the State Pilot Program That has Identified Higher Prevalence of the Disease
Posted: 9/14/2011

SAN FRANCISCO – Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) today urged Governor Jerry Brown to sign Assembly Bill 395 to make sure a groundbreaking state newborn screening pilot program that has identified newborns with bubble boy disease, also known as Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), is made a permanent part of California’s newborn screening process.

“California’s pilot program has shown us the way toward the day when bubble boy disease is a thing of the past and AB 395 will help make sure children born with the disease can live to see that day,” Dr. Pan said at University of California San Francisco. “AB 395 will make sure all California newborns are screened for SCID and I am proud to be working on this effort with the March of Dimes, UCSF doctors and the brave families with babies who were identified early, treated and now have the chance to live a healthy life.”

Beginning on August 16, 2010 the California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) pilot program has screened all California newborns for the SCID, allowing for early life-saving treatment and showing a higher than predicted prevalence for the disease, especially among Latino newborns. The state pilot program ends in February 2012.

Annalou Bojorquez was the first baby identified by the pilot program as having SCID. Her grandmother, Lisa Mayorga, told reporters about the importance of newborn screening for SCID.

“If our precious Annalou had been born just three months earlier, before the pilot program began, she might not be here today,” Mayorga said. “I fear for the lives of newborns now that the SCID pilot program is ending, which is why I am here today. AB395, currently before Governor Brown, would permanently add SCID to the California newborn screening panel.”

“March of Dimes has a long history of expanding newborn screening legislation and this has been a major focus of our work in California,” said Karyn DeMartini, March of Dimes State Director. “It is critical that these newborns get screened for these life-threatening conditions at birth so they can receive the medical treatments and interventions early to prevent the worst possible outcomes. Enacting this bill will ensure that this federally recommended core disorder is added to the current newborn screening panel here in California.”

On May 21, 2010, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced the addition of SCID to the core panel of 29 genetic disorders -- as part of her recommendation to adopt the national Recommended Uniform Screening Panel.

Dr. Jennifer Puck, who treated Annalou at University of California San Francisco, discussed the importance of early detection and treatment of SCID.

“When babies are born with SCID, they don’t have any ability to fight infections,” Dr. Puck said. “It’s called ‘combined immunodeficiency’ because both the T-cell and the B-cell arms of the immune system are impaired, or disabled. When babies have this condition they develop infections starting from the early months of life, and if they are not given a working immune system they cannot survive.”

Without early identification and treatment, babies with SCID must undergo isolated, constant and costly treatment and rarely live past early childhood. With early diagnosis (before the age of 3.5 months) and treatment, these babies have a very high probability of living normal, healthy and productive lives.

AB 395 has been approved by the Legislature and Governor Brown has until October 9 to sign or veto the bill. Without action by the Governor the bill automatically becomes law.

Dr. Richard Pan is a father, pediatrician, educator, small business owner and first-term Assemblymember that lives in Natomas Park. He represents Natomas and portions of the City of Sacramento, along with Arden Arcade, Carmichael, the City of Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, the City of Folsom, Granite Bay, North Highlands, McClellan Park, Orangevale.

U.S. Response to Cairo Attack on Israeli Embassy Inadequate

President Continues to Abandon Our Closest Middle-East Ally
Source: Move America Forward
Posted: 9/14/2011

Sacramento, Calif. - Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop, grassroots organization, said “The tepid response by President Barack Obama to the outrageous Egyptian attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo is totally inadequate and a continuation of the President’s abandonment of Israel, our closest and most dependable ally in the Middle-East.”

The White House released a statement that “The President expressed his great concern about the situation at the Embassy, and the security of the Israelis serving there….” and called “on the Government of Egypt to honor its international obligations to safeguard the security of the Israeli Embassy.”

“President Obama has not learned from the experience of the United States under another weak President, Jimmy Carter, when Iranian Islamic extremists took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Our U.S. President should exhibit a little backbone and stand firmly with our ally, Israel,” said Sal Russo, Chief Strategist for Move America Forward.

“The President should have condemned the slow response from Egyptian authorities in protecting the sovereign territory of Israel at their Embassy in Cairo. This government-sanctioned lawlessness is unacceptable. This is no time to remain tepid when being bullied by Islamic extremists. The President should be forceful and exhibit leadership on the side of protecting the vital interests of Israel in the Middle-East.”

Barack Obama's Patriotism, and Everyone Else's

By Rob Schwarzwalder
Posted: 9/14/2011

Barack Obama wants you to know he is a patriot. You see, he offered legislation to foster employment during the Sept. 8 joint session of Congress, and if you disagree with him, you are not a patriot - which, ergo, means he is one.

Consider the progression of his remarks about Republicans over the past month:

- "The only thing keeping us back ... is the refusal of some in Congress to put country ahead of party. Some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than the country win." - August 11, 2011, Holland, Mich.
- "The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party." - Weekly radio address, August 20, 2011

Okay, so "some in Congress" are so obtuse that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the country for the benefit of their parties. An arguable proposition, that, but for the sake of argument let's presume it might be true. Anyone who puts party ahead of country is a scoundrel, and deserves dressing-down from our President. Fine and good.

However, Mr. Obama clarified his comments further when, speaking to a loud and angry crowd of union executives and workers on Monday in Detroit, he said the following:

"We're going to see if we've got some straight shooters in Congress. We're going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party. We'll give them a plan, and then we'll say, do you want to create jobs?" - September 5, 2011, Detroit, Mich.

Suddenly things burst into perspective: It's not "some in Congress" who are the problem - it's Republicans! Those flag-loving Democrats are fighting the evil, unpatriotic GOP for the sake of the masses - er, the people.

How do we know this? Because our President tells us that to disagree with his jobs bill is to put party ahead of country. To disagree with Mr. Obama is to be unpatriotic: In the lectionary of modern American politics, this is a self-evident, axiomatic reality, at least according to Mr. Obama himself.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has demeaned those who disagree with him. Consider his words to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at last year's Blair House health care summit: When McCain said something Mr. Obama disagreed with, the latter said, "We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over."

Later at the same event, after Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) challenged the President about some health care issue, Mr. Obama said, "These are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation."

Nice and neat: Agree with the President, and you're serious, apolitical, patriotic. Disagree, and you are a political hack, a mere partisan whose tendentious affectations betray insincerity, cynicism, even evil motives.

I believe Mr. Obama loves America, although his understanding of our country varies significantly from my own. I am offended, however, that he would suggest that disagreement with his agenda is unpatriotic: Free and conscientious dissent is at the very heart of what it means to be a true American.

Those on the Left believe that their enlightenment is so transparent that to differ with them demonstrates one of three things: Innate stupidity; a failure on the part of the Left itself to communicate clearly and simply enough that the unlettered bourgeoisie can understand it; or ill-will and malign intent.

In other words, it is incomprehensible to the Left that people honestly disagree with them. As Thomas Sowell wrote in his book, The Vision of the Anointed, the Left's understanding of life and the world "so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things."

Mr. Obama appears to take rank with the "many" of Dr. Sowell's description. It is left to the rest of us, the wrong and ignorant (Mr. Obama's view of us, apparently) - those who disagree with him - to try to save the nation from policies we believe will wreck it. His policies, that is - patriotically intended they might be, but disastrous and unconstitutional and corrupting nonetheless.

__________

Robert Schwarzwalder is Senior Vice President at the Family Research Council.

Divided Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on ObamaCare Lawsuit

Resource: Liberty Counsel
Posted: 9/14/2011

Richmond, VA – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “ObamaCare”) in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner and issued a separate opinion on the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals, challenging both the individual and the employer mandates in ObamaCare.

The panel of judges for the case included one judge appointed by President Clinton, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, and two judges appointed by President Obama, Judges Andre M. Davis and James A. Wynn Jr. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Wynn concurred. Judge Davis wrote a dissenting opinion.

In the case of Liberty University, the divided court ruled that the mandate is a “tax” under the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), and thus the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits until the “tax” is paid and a refund sought by the taxpayer. Thus, the case could not be brought until the mandate becomes effective in 2014. Every court which has considered this question has found that the mandate is a “penalty,” not a tax, and the AIA does not apply. Even the federal government defendants argued that the AIA does not apply and that the statutory intent clearly indicated that the AIA was inapplicable.

In the Virginia case, the court ruled 3-0 that Virginia does not have standing to bring a challenge to the individual mandate, because that right is for individuals affected by the mandate.

In the case of Liberty University, the next and final stop in the battle over ObamaCare will be the United States Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel will file a petition with the High Court.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument in early May. Staver said: “From the beginning everyone knew that the final frontier in the battle over ObamaCare would be the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling goes against every court in America that considered this case. Even the United States Government argued that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case. We look forward to the final round in this battle over ObamaCare at the United States Supreme Court.”

The Bedroom in the Classroom: Clio is Not Amused

By Dr. Jason R. Edwards
Posted: 8/29/2011

Though my mastery of Greek mythology is not strong enough to know off-hand the muse of history’s sexual orientation, I do know that Clio might try to persuade her father to hurl thunderbolts from Mt. Olympus into Sacramento as punishment for defiling her beloved discipline.

The crime?

On July 14, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 48, which dictates that California schools adopt instructional materials in social science classes that emphasize “the role and contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” in history.

When considering the myriad ways such a law tramples on parental rights and academic legitimacy, it is hard to know where to begin. However, since the law will be celebrated by some as a triumph of inclusivity, perhaps it should be noted it solves no conceivable problem currently plaguing California.

Regarding inclusivity, California law already bans discrimination in instructional materials based on “race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.” Not content with banning discrimination, earlier California legislators already mandated emphases on the contributions of both men and women as well as “Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans” and other ethnic and cultural groups in California textbooks and curriculum.

In other words, it is hard to imagine that historically significant lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans are not already being included. The real change here is that while those in the “LGBT” crowd used to scream for others to “stay out of their bedroom,” they now demand that their bedroom be put in everyone’s classroom.

The absurdity of the law can be seen when considering that despite the proclivity of lowbrow boasting, rarely does a person’s bedroom behavior actually make the person worthy of historical veneration—a fact that undoubtedly contributes to so many students finding history class “boring.” In fact, when a person’s sexual activity might actually be germane, it is almost always for scandalous reasons; and, ironically, this probably couldn’t be covered since negative associations with a person’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity is specifically banned by the law. Therefore, according to this new law, sexual preference rather than actual historical significance will determine inclusion.

All of this means that rather than relying on historians and teachers to do their jobs—stem the tide of cultural and historical ignorance—California politicians have rushed in and demanded that historians and teachers (K-12) waste time endorsing sexual preferences rather than covering their actual subject. And, yes, the law makes no distinction for age or grade level—including, assumedly, little Johnny’s and Suzy’s kindergarten class.

Such action makes sense only in a bizarre world where political “leaders” of an economically bankrupt state ignore pressing needs in order to tilt at politically correct windmills. Sweetening the irony is the fact that the legislators’ usurpation of others’ jobs (and dereliction of their own) places more financial burdens on their already strapped school system by demanding the purchase of new textbooks and curriculum.

Of course, the tragic ironies of SB 48 do not end with economics. Proponents of SB 48 trumpet the law as “anti-bullying,” but “bullying” is the mildest term one could have for a law that dictates public teachers trample the values of millions of parents, children, and taxpayers in addition to disregarding their own professional opinions and personal beliefs.

For those thankful that their residency insulates them from the folly of California legislators, it is important to remember that despite laws to the contrary, the United States does have a national curriculum. That curriculum is created by textbook companies, which must cater to high population states. Thereby, while the nation need not fear the actions of Wyoming’s legislature, which publishers will ignore, California’s de jure educational mandates often become the de facto curriculum for the entire country.

Selecting historical subjects through a myopic lens of sexual preference is simply bad history—a crime egregious enough to outrage Clio. Furthermore, for freedom lovers nationwide, it is also outrageous educational practice and heinous lawmaking.

Dr. Jason R. Edwards is an associate professor of education and history at Grove City College and a fellow with The Center for Vision & Values.

$24 Million in Grants to Support Habitat Acquisition and Conservation Planning for Endangered Species in California

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Regional Office
Posted: 8/29/2011

SACRAMENTO, CA – Projects throughout California will receive more than $24 million in grants through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF). These grants will support conservation planning and acquisition of vital habitat for threatened and endangered fish, wildlife and plants, and help local California governments expand their environmental programs.

Authorized by Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act, the competitive grants enable the state to work with private landowners, conservation groups, and other agencies to initiate cost-effective conservation planning efforts and acquire and protect habitat to support the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

“Ensuring the survival of imperiled species depends on long-term partnerships and voluntary landowner participation,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. “The vital funding provided by these grants empowers landowners and communities to safeguard habitat for threatened and endangered species and foster conservation stewardship efforts for future generations.”

The CESCF will provide grant funding through the Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition Grants Program, the Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants Program, and the Recovery Land Acquisition Grants Program. The three programs were established to help advance creative partnerships for imperiled species conservation recovery.

“California is one of the most diverse and biologically rich regions in the world and these grants support the department’s continuing conservation partnerships with local government to ensure that diversity remains for future generations to enjoy,” said John McCamman, Director of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). “This grant program and the delivery of conservation through local governments is an excellent example of the critical nature of partnerships in meeting the department’s mission.”

A complete list of the 2011 grant awards under these programs (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 15.615) is available online at www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/index.html.

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are agreements between a landowner and the Service. These agreements allow a landowner to undertake otherwise lawful activities on their property, even if they may impact listed species, when that landowner agrees to conservation measures designed to minimize and mitigate the impact of those actions. HCPs may also be developed by a county or state to cover certain activities of all landowners within their jurisdiction and may address multiple species. In California all of the plans that were awarded grants are developed hand in hand with DFG under the state’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) or California Endangered Species Act.

Under the HCP Land Acquisition Grants Program, the Service provides grants to states for land acquisition that complements the conservation objectives of approved HCPs. Projects to receive these grants include:

Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This grant will result in the acquisition of land that will greatly enhance the existing Coachella Valley MSHCP by securing key regional wildlife linkages and sand transport areas as well as preserving core habitat areas. The land acquisition will benefit 20 species, including seven federally listed species such as Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, desert tortoise, and peninsular bighorn sheep.

San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). This project will result in the acquisition of 250-600 acres of land that will greatly enhance the existing San Diego MSCP by securing key regional wildlife linkages and preserving core habitat in four targeted areas. The acquisitions will benefit 31 listed and unlisted species, including the San Diego fairy shrimp, arroyo toad, least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, and bald eagle.

East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). These funds will purchase lands that will provide important habitat and wildlife corridors for many of the 28 covered species covered in the HCP/NCCP, including eight federally listed species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

The HCP Planning Assistance Grants Program also provides grants to states to support the development of HCPs through the funding of baseline surveys and inventories, document preparation, outreach and similar planning activities. These grants have been awarded to:

Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This project will support the development of an HCP/NCCP for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Delta) Region. The Delta is the largest estuary on the west coast. The Bay Delta HCP/NCCP is being developed as a long-term comprehensive plan that will conserve and manage covered species and natural communities in perpetuity while providing reliable water supplies for the state’s myriad of beneficial uses. Species that will benefit from this HCP include the Delta smelt, Chinook salmon, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and the giant garter snake.

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)/Measure M2 NCCP/HCP. This grant supports the development of a comprehensive holistic, rather than piecemeal, conservation program in order to provide higher-value environmental benefits, while allowing freeway projects to be implemented. The plan will conserve and enhance key connections between existing conservation areas and provide additional live-in habitat, buffering proposed covered species from natural and stochastic variation. The plan also includes maintaining opportunities for dispersal and genetic exchange and provides wildlife and plants the opportunity to shift their distribution in response to climate change and other disturbances such as fire. The Measure M2 NCCP/HCP will cover an estimated 22 plant and animal species, including coastal California gnatcatcher, Santa Ana sucker, pallid bat, and Coulter’s matilija poppy.

Placer County Conservation Plan HCP/NCCP. The project will support the completion of the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP). The primary objective of the PCCP is to balance development with conservation of the county’s natural resources and provide for protection of sensitive species and their respective habitats. The PCCP will permanently protect habitat, establish preserve designs, and establish management guidelines for the conservation and recovery of 31 sensitive species, including seven listed species such as California red-legged frog, conservancy fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

Yuba and Sutter Counties Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). This project will support the continued development of a multispecies HCP and NCCP in both Yuba and Sutter counties by protecting and enhancing the ecological diversity and function within the rapidly urbanizing region of Sutter County and the more slowly urbanizing region of Yuba County. This plan addresses 23 listed and non-listed species, including six federally listed species and ten state listed species. A few species that will benefit from this HCP include Hartweg’s golden sunburst, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, giant garter snake, and the western yellow-billed cuckoo.

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan HCP/NCCP (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo Counties). This project will support the initiation of a conservation strategy for covered natural communities and species in desert ecosystems, while allowing for the development of utility-scale renewable energy projects. It will exclusively address the environmental impacts of large-scale development of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass technologies, as well as associated transmission facilities proposed throughout the deserts in Southern California. Currently, the DRECP identifies 87 species to be covered under the plan. A few species that will benefit from this HCP include the Quino checkerspot butterfly, arroyo toad, California condor, and the desert tortoise.

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). This grant supports the development of a multi-species HCP and NCCP in order to conserve sensitive species and their habitats within the Metropolitan Bakersfield study area while allowing for the orderly and necessary progression of urban growth and development. This plan addresses 38 species of concern, including 15 state and federally listed threatened, endangered or fully protected species and the vegetation communities upon which they depend. These species include the Bakersfield cactus, kangaroo rat, San Joaquin woolly threads and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) Service HCP. This grant supports the development of an HCP for Sacramento Municipal Utilities (SMUD) by funding operations, maintenance, and construction actions on transmission and gas line corridors inside SMUD’s service area. The HCP will benefit 11 federally listed species and 12 California special status species, along with numerous non-listed species such as the California tiger salamander, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and slender orcutt grass. The HCP will include a comprehensive approach to avoid or reduce SMUD impacts to species and habitats and will include the preservation and management of a 1,800-acre preserve.

South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. This grant funds the completion of the HCP document and will result in the permanent protection of over 48,000 additional acres of high-quality species habitat. The SSHCP will provide conservation benefits to seven federally endangered and threatened species, including the giant garter snake, California tiger salamander, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Sacramento orcutt grass, and slender orcutt grass.

The Recovery Land Acquisition Grants Program provides funds to states to acquire habitat for endangered and threatened species with approved recovery plans. Projects to receive these grants include:

Endangered Insects and Plants of the Zayante Sandhills. This project will permanently protect and improve the management of up to 76 acres of Sandhills habitat that is naturally rare both due to its limited geographic range in the central Santa Cruz County and its Zayante coarse sand soil-type. This habitat is essential to the long-term recovery of four federally endangered species: the Mount Hermon June beetle, Zayante band-winged grasshopper, Ben Lomond wallflower, and Ben Lomond spineflower.

Five Species Ocean Meadows/Devereux Slough (Santa Barbara County). This project will acquire the 63-acre Ocean Meadows property to ensure the permanent protection of the federally endangered tidewater goby, California least tern, and Ventura marsh milk-vetch, as well as the federally threatened western snowy plover and California red-legged frog.

Land Acquisition Grant for the Federally Endangered Santa Cruz Long-toed Salamander, King & Katz Properties. Acquisition of up to 100 acres will provide high-quality upland sheltering habitat that is within dispersal distance of several known and potential breeding ponds for the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, a subspecies that exists in only a small, 25-square mile range located entirely within California’s Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. By acquiring lands that are slated for residential development, negative impacts on the salamander will be prevented.

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Riverside County). This acquisition will acquire and permanently protect highly developable habitat designated as critical habitat for the endangered peninsular bighorn sheep, habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, endangered triple-ribbed milk-vetch, and potential habitat for the endangered desert slender salamander. Land will be acquired in private in-holdings that are vulnerable to development in two separate areas, both within the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument boundary administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and along State Highway 74, adjacent to DFG’s Carrizo Canyon Ecological Reserve.

The Endangered Species Act provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife, and plants. The Service is working to actively engage conservation partners and the public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. To learn more about the Endangered Species Program, please visit www.fws.gov/endangered/.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov. Connect with our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/usfws, follow our tweets at www.twitter.com/usfwshq, watch our YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/usfws and download photos from our Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq

BOXER CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION TO HELP RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS

Senator Praises Administration for Looking at Further Steps to Ease Housing Crisis and Calls on the Federal Housing Finance Agency to Immediately Implement S.170
Posted: 8/29/2011

Fresno, CA – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today reacted favorably to press reports that the Obama Administration is considering new measures to slow down foreclosures and boost the economy by taking steps similar to S.170, the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act. This bipartisan bill will help up to two million Americans to refinance their mortgages at historically low interest rates, keeping them in their homes and boosting economic growth.

Senator Boxer said, “I am extremely pleased that the Boxer-Isakson legislation is gaining support in Washington as it has throughout the country with endorsements from Mark Zandi, the National Association of Realtors, the National Consumers Law Center, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers and many others.”

Boxer also sent a letter this afternoon to Acting Director Edward DeMarco of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to follow-up on their meeting earlier this year and to urge him to immediately implement S.170.

In the letter, Senator Boxer noted that she was pleased to read DeMarco’s comments indicating he was “open to all ideas that provide needed assistance to borrowers.” She wrote: “S.170 has the dual benefit of saving Fannie and Freddie money and boosting the economy by giving responsible homeowners who deserve a break but are stuck with high interest rates more money to spend in their communities.”

Boxer has called her legislation a “no brainer” and a “win-win” because experts have stated that it will help homeowners who deserve a break but are stuck with high interest rates to refinance and spend extra money to help boost the economy. Additionally, it will save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money as a result of lowering the foreclosure rate.

Senator Boxer’s legislation is cosponsored by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and would:

- Eliminate risk-based fees on loans for which Fannie and Freddie already bear the risk;
- Remove refinancing limits on underwater properties;
- Make it easier for borrowers with second mortgages to participate in refinancing programs; and
- Require that borrowers are able to receive a fair interest rate, comparable to that received by any other borrowers in good standing who have not suffered a drop in home value and have stayed current with their mortgage payments.

Interest rates for 30-year home mortgages are at historically low levels. Yet of the 27.5 million mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than 8 million still carry an interest rate at or above 6 percent. For the average homeowner – with a $150,000 loan – lowering the interest rate by 1 percent would save $1,100 a year. With up to two million additional borrowers refinancing, this would pump up to $2.2 billion annually into the economy. The legislation is also expected to lead to up to 54,000 fewer defaults by homeowners and produce a net savings of up to $100 million for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It has been endorsed by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, along with the National Consumer Law Center, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the California Association of Realtors, the California Association of Mortgage Professionals, William Gross, managing director and co-CIO of PIMCO, and housing economist Thomas Lawler.

Time for States to Take Action on Iran

By Mark D. Wallace
Posted: 8/25/2011

Recently, both California and Florida enacted laws barring companies that do business in Iran from receiving state contracts. They follow last year's passage of sweeping sanctions at the federal level.

The logic underpinning all of these laws is straightforward: lucrative state and federal contracts funded by American taxpayer dollars should not be awarded to companies doing business with a regime that is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, training and supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing U.S. troops, and engaging in egregious human rights abuses inside its own borders.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) believes it is time for America's other 48 states to join California and Florida in their support of U.S. foreign policy and security interests by adopting similar legislation. Recently, UANI sent model legislation to state Governors and lawmakers, and urged them to passing laws that would force companies to end their business in Iran, and in turn economically pressure Iran's regime.

The stakes are high-the threat of Iran succeeding in its quest to acquire nuclear weapons is as destabilizing and frightening of a possibility as the world has dealt with in decades. Iran's history of funding terrorism throughout the world is also well-known, and U.S. troops on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly being killed by high-tech Iranian weapons.

For the first time, the U.S. government has also formally detailed Iran's alliance with al-Qaeda. The Treasury Department recently reported that Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda operatives and is facilitating the transfer of large amounts of cash to al-Qaeda's top leadership in Pakistan. Commenting on this insidious relationship, David Cohen, the Treasury Department's Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said "By exposing Iran's secret deal with al-Qaeda, allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran's unmatched support for terrorism."

Americans have traditionally understood that the conduct of foreign policy is primarily the responsibility of the President and the U.S. Congress. This does not mean, however, that individual states have no role to play in foreign policy, particularly when action at the state level can bolster and reinforce the goals already supported by the president and enacted into legislation by Congress.

Clarifying the role that states can and should play in U.S. foreign policy on Iran is precisely what the U.S. Congress and President Obama have done. Section 202 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, passed last year with overwhelming bipartisan support, specifically grants state and local governments the authority to take action against those persons that engage in business activity in Iran. By passing debarment laws like California and Florida have, the other 48 states can now send a strong message to the Iranian regime and force companies to make a choice between Iran and the American people.

When presented with the choice of doing business with the United States or with Iran most companies will ultimately make the right decision. California passed its law earlier this summer, and has already seen numerous multinational corporations end their business activities in Iran after being warned that they would lose their state contracts. The truth is that contract debarment has proven to be incredibly effective at pressuring companies to pull out of Iran.

Companies should not need, of course, any pressure to pull out of Iran. As President Obama recently noted, "International companies are increasingly recognizing the risks of doing business with Iran and are abandoning existing business opportunities, declining to take advantage of new ones, and scaling back any existing relationships." Sadly, though, some have chosen to pursue short-term profits at the expense of U.S. national interests. While it may not be politically expedient to say, the business these companies do in Iran increasingly is tantamount to trading with the enemy.

The U.S. Congress, President Obama, and now California and Florida have taken a stand. It is time for the other 48 states to make their voices heard and stop supporting companies that support a regime with American blood on its hands. If common sense, morality, and reason will not lead companies to voluntarily end their irresponsible business dealings in Iran, then perhaps denying them lucrative contracts funded by our taxpayer dollars will make them see the light.

Mark D. Wallace is president of United Against Nuclear Iran. He served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as representative for U.N. management and reform.

Teacher of the Year Suspended for Facebook Comment Against Same-S*x Marriage

Posted: 8/20/2011

Mount Dora, FL - Jerry Buell, last year's "Teacher of the Year" at Mount Dora High School, has been suspended from the classroom for a comment he made on his own personal Facebook page, expressing his disapproval of legalized same-s*x marriage in New York. Buell commented that homosexuality is a sin and that seeing two "grooms" kissing on a news story revolted him. School officials received a complaint about Buell's comment on Tuesday from a 2002 Mount Dora graduate, who was never even in Mr. Buell's class. The Lake County School District responded by taking away his teaching privileges and reassigning him to administrative duties. Liberty Counsel is representing Buell and demanding that he be immediately reinstated with an apology for violating his First Amendment rights.

Buell has been a teacher for more than 22 years, served as the Social Studies Department Chair at Mount Dora High School, and taught American history and government. Buell has always been open to students, including those who identify as homosexual, about his conservative principles but has never forced his beliefs on anyone. Furthermore, Buell's students understand he has an open line of communication, which has built a high level of trust in his classes.

The school district's response to Buell's comments is unconstitutional, violating his right to free speech. Groups who are pushing "same-s*x marriage" and "marriage equality" are claiming any speech that is contrary to their viewpoint is considered "hate speech" and should be censored.

Harry Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: "Public school teachers are not constitutional orphans. They, like all Americans, enjoy the freedom to engage in discourse about matters of public concern. Mr. Buell is being investigated and punished for communicating his mainstream objection to homosexual marriage, an objection shared by a large majority of his fellow Floridians who have outlawed homosexual marriage through a constitutional amendment. If the First Amendment does not protect Mr. Buell's right to voice his personal opinion, on his personal time, from his personal computer, on his personal Facebook page, then the First Amendment means nothing."

Next Thursday, August 25th, Liberty Counsel will host the Florida Awake! at the First Baptist Church of Leesburg, where Buell resides. This event will gather support from individuals in Florida to take a stand for their constitutional rights. The rally seeks to motivate, educate, and equip the public to restore our nation's values, as our founders originally intended.

Politicians in a Panic

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 8/16/2011

You can almost see the panic on their faces. The politicians, central bankers, and court economists seem to be thrashing around like bad swimmers caught in a riptide. Despite all attempts — stimulus spending, increased borrowing, the Fed Reserve’s low-interest-rate policy, presidential jaw-boning — the economy refuses to recover. Unemployment remains over 9 percent, investment is stagnant, and even the previous paltry growth is fading. People increasingly see the government as impotent.

If it weren’t for the innocent victims, this would be satisfyingly entertaining. After all, these are the reputed best and brightest, who assured us they know how to fix and run an economy. Now they are at wits’ end, and they’re running out of time. The election is next year.

Had they heeded those who said no government can run an economy but it can run one into the ground if it tries, neither they nor we would be in this mess.

Of course the policy elite try to maintain a façade of confidence. If government stimulus spending hasn’t worked, the “experts” say, it’s only because government hasn’t spent enough. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. The government already owes about as much as the economy can produce in a year.

Political-economic faith resists evidence. There’s always a reason — other than government itself — for its policy failures. Those of us who believe that markets (when allowed to work) are morally and economically superior to bureaucracies are called “market fundamentalists.” It is true that when markets seem to fail, we point to the government intervention responsible. If that is market fundamentalism, what should we call those who believe government never fails and prescribe more government whenever it appears to do so?

President Obama’s most ardent government-fundamentalist supporters say that focusing on the deficit and debt is a mistake. The only thing the president should be thinking about, they say, is jobs. That means more government spending, along with a few tweaks of the tax code. Debt and deficit be damned.

But haven’t our overlords already done that, with nothing good to show for it? The ruling elite don’t appreciate such skepticism. Leave them alone. They’ll get it right next time. They promise.

Despite what Obama, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the rest of the ruling elite say, their policies are the poison not the antidote. Monetary, financial, and housing policies created an unsustainable boom and set the stage for the bust we continue to suffer. Since the bust, the Bush-Obama policies have worked against the emergence of a vibrant economy. Instead of getting out of the way and permitting the liquidation of policy-induced bad investments, government has piled intervention on intervention in a foolhardy attempt to recreate the pre-bust world. That is idiocy: The boom was a politically generated series of economic distortions. Restoring that situation makes no sense. Rather, the mistakes must be revealed through market revaluation of assets, insolvent firms must be allowed to fail, and we all must adjust to reality. Then the economy will grow. To date, the government’s policies have been aimed at denying reality. No wonder they have failed.

“What should be done?” is the wrong question The right question is: What should be undone? The answer is: Lots of things. A good start would be for the government to stop sucking scarce resources out of the private economy. Every penny government spends — whether taxed or borrowed — is a penny taken from potential private investment. Government spending — particularly welfare and warfare — must be zeroed out and its borrowing must stop. That should be accompanied by an end to all subsidies, privileges, and barriers to competitive entry. The tax code, which aims to manipulate our economic activities as well as raise money, must be repealed.

But, the policy elite say, if no one is investing their money now, why would they invest if they could keep more? Investors are afraid to move because of uncertainty about what government will do next. The policy unknowns — sources of which include rules yet to be written for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank — make waiting on the sidelines the smart bet. Credibly ending the threat of government intervention would do wonders for the economy.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Representative Denham’s Statement on Tragedy in Afghanistan

Posted: 8/13/2011

Washington, D.C. – Representative Jeff Denham today released the following statement regarding the crash of a U.S. military aircraft in Afghanistan.

“Today marks the deadliest day for American forces in our nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan. Our service members make extraordinary and difficult sacrifices for our country every day and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families, friends and communities of these brave individuals. Let us also keep those who continue to fight for our freedoms in our minds every day.” – Representative Jeff Denham

Bernanke and the Potemkin Economy

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
Posted: 8/13/2011

On July 11, The Center for Vision & Values posted my article decrying the insulting name-calling directed toward Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke. The very next day, Bernanke made me question my forbearance by telling Congress that a third round of “quantitative easing” or “QE3” could be a near-term option.

Now it’s my turn to call Bernanke a name, but I’ll use a clinical label, not a crude one. He is an inflationist, although he may prefer the label “anti-deflationist.” He so fears a deflationary spiral that he will create however many dollars he believes necessary to avert deflation.

Bernanke’s repeated attempts to patch over the nation’s economic weakness, rottenness, and dead wood with newly created dollars remind me of the “Potemkin village” ruse. The Soviet communists duped foreign visitors into thinking that communism was a viable and prosperous system by steering them to sham factories, stores, villages, etc. that appeared productive, bustling, and attractive. In reality, Potemkin villages were like movie sets, built to disguise the widespread poverty and backwardness that characterized life in the “workers’ paradise.”

Official statistics insist that the Great Recession ended two years ago. Yet unemployment is creeping up, record numbers of workers are remaining unemployed for record lengths of time, income is down for small proprietors, and millions of people feel as though the recession never ended.

It is proverbial that statistics lie. One such statistic is the gross domestic product. GDP has risen modestly the last two years, supposedly indicating growth rather than recession. Here is the flaw in GDP: By definition, GDP=C+I+G. In other words, GDP equals the sum of consumer spending, private investment, and government spending. (There is also a problematical addendum of net exports, reflecting the mystical mercantilist notion that a country is richer if foreigners obtain more goods and services than domestic residents do, but let’s omit that here.)

In the last few years, GDP has increased by approximately one third of a trillion dollars, while the government component has risen by closer to a full trillion dollars. That means that the private sector (consumption and investment) has shrunk. Government has cannibalized private sector spending and jobs. GDP creates a Potemkin-like superficial appearance of economic growth, but the private sector, the heart of the economy, is suffocating. The private sector share of GDP has contracted to its 1998 level.

Another Potemkin-like aspect of our economy involves the chasm between the economic fortunes of Wall Street and Washington on the one side, and Main Street on the other. Chairman Bernanke’s QE1 and QE2 policies helped to propel a huge advance in the stock market over the last two years. The political and financial elite have been prospering, but, relatively speaking, aside from potentially unrealized gains in his 401K, that Fed-generated glitter may not have helped Joe Six-pack.

Here is what we need to understand: Bernanke and Co. have immense powers, but they don’t have the right power. They can control short-term interest rates; virtually dictate the policies and practices of American financial institutions; artificially boost asset prices by purchasing whatever quantity of them they choose; bail out politically connected enterprises; and do many other things by virtue of their power to create dollars without limit. Yet, the one thing that Bernanke and the Fed cannot do is generate prosperity and thereby raise standards of living. They can benefit some at the expense of others by deciding which assets to purchase and where to deploy new dollars—that is, they can redistribute wealth, but they can’t create it.

Question: Are there any grownups who really believe that our country can get richer by printing more money? If so, why not just mail everybody a check for $20 million? Even better, why not give every household its own little printing press so that whenever someone gets laid off or isn’t generating enough income, he can create the wealth he needs by printing it?

There is really only one way out of Ben Bernanke’s Potemkin-like economy. It isn’t to replace Bernanke with a supposedly “better” central banker. Rather, we need to abolish the central bank and foreswear the fiat money that enables the Fed to create the cruel façade of Potemkin-like illusions on the rest of us.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

How to Make Democrats Heroes for Medicare

By Douglas E. Schoen
Posted: 8/3/2011

The debt ceiling debate didn't end well for the Democrats. Faced with unified Tea Party delegates in the House, they were forced to cede huge cuts in federal spending without an iota of revenue increases in the final deal.

It was the right move at the time -- reaching a deal averted fiscal catastrophe. But now, Democrats are thirsty for a win. And rightfully so -- they need an opportunity to show the American people they're serious about fiscal reform -- but that they're also uniquely committed to preserving vital public services in the process.

Repealing IPAB -- short for "Independent Payment Advisory Board" -- offers just such an opportunity. Established last year by the President's health bill, IPAB has grown increasingly unpopular among the American public and Capitol Hill lawmakers alike. And there's good evidence to suggest that IPAB will severely undermine the quality of care in Medicare -- a key program for the Democrats' base.

The President should give his party the go-ahead to get rid of IPAB.

IPAB is supposed to make the tough cost-cutting decisions for Medicare that Congress has failed to make. It's comprised of 15 presidential appointees serving six-year terms. Starting in 2014, if Medicare exceeds a preset annual spending target, the Board is authorized to make cut recommendations.

IPAB's powers are limited -- it can't adjust premiums, cost-sharing arrangements or eligibility requires. But, the powers it does have are dangerous. Notably, IPAB can slash reimbursement rates of participating healthcare providers.

Medicare's reimbursements are already dangerous low. Indeed, the American Academy of Family Physicians has reported that over 12 percent of its doctors now don't accept Medicare patients because rates are so paltry -- and that percentage is rising.

If IPAB makes even more cuts, more doctors will opt-out of the program, the pool of available providers will shrink, and patients will face longer wait times to get treated.

Medicare does need fiscal reform. The CBO and the Medicare trustees both predict the program will go bankrupt in less than ten years. But slashing reimbursements and compromising patient care is the wrong strategy.

What makes the Board all the more dangerous is that it's effectively unchecked. Unless Congress passes cuts achieving the same amount of savings or vetoes IPAB's recommendations outright with a supermajority vote, the Board's proposals automatically become law. And there is no legal mechanism for appeal available to patients or doctors.

IPAB is just bad policy. And, politically, getting rid of it is a no-brainer. The GOP is all but unanimously against the Board. Republicans have formed caucuses in the House and Senate exclusively comprised of physicians with the single purpose of getting rid of IPAB.

A recent letter sent to Congress pushing repeal was signed by 270 major healthcare stakeholders. The American Medical Association recently passed a resolution against the board.

There's growing opposition among Democrats, as well. Even last year, in the heat of the healthcare debate, over 70 congressional Democrats signed a letter to then-Speaker Pelosi urging her to remove the IPAB provision from the legislation.

And just last month the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing examining the board and two Democrats -- Reps. Frank Pallone (NJ) and Allyson Schwartz (PA) -- broke party lines and voted for repeal. In early August, Reps. Loretta Sanchez of California and Tim Bishop of New York signed on to the IPAB repeal bill.

The political will is there. The Democrats should cash in on it.

Given that IPAB was part of his healthcare bill, the President can't come out and explicitly endorse its repeal. But he can send subtle signals to the Congressional leadership that he won't veto a bill to that effect.

The President would not be sacrificing any of his legislation's key components. It still expands the ranks of the insured and installs price-reduction mechanisms. The White House would not be sacrificing anything of consequence by letting IPAB die.

Getting rid of IPAB would bolster Democrats' reputation as champions of Medicare -- that they're a party that cares about fiscal reform, but not at the expense of our nation's most vulnerable.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.

The Need to Restructure the DoD: Part I

By Dr. Earl Tilford
Posted: 8/3/2011

In 1914, on the eve of the Great War, the Duke of Cambridge wrote, “There is a time for all things. There is even a time for change; and that is when it can no longer be avoided.”

Speaking of change, the current debt crisis could force drastic cuts in the Department of Defense budget, perhaps as high as 50 percent.

In the immediate post-Cold War era, DoD futurists envisioned a 25-year period of “strategic pause” before the nation faced a “major peer competitor” sometime between 2015 and 2020. In the 1990s, major candidates for peer-competitor status included China and a resurgent Russia. India and a nuclear-armed Iran were cast as lesser threats. In those heady days, terrorism was seen as a tactic and more the purview of law enforcement. The major emphasis was on being prepared for big wars against peer competitors—wars no world power can afford to lose. Preparing for those wars also satisfied each service’s need to perpetuate itself in familiar ways wrapped around developing and acquiring high-tech weapon systems. Programs like “The Army After Next,” “From the Sea,” and “Air Force Next” addressed future strategic paradigms focused on parochial core strengths.

To be sure, there were cuts in defense spending during the 1990s. The size of the American military shrank. The Air Force, alone among the services, reorganized its force structure from one based on strategic deterrence to power projection. Cuts were “salami slices” that, for the most part, reduced but did not reform outmoded force structures.

And then, September 11, 2001 changed everything. In the immediate aftermath, the Bush administration made a major mistake by declaring a “War on Terror” rather than specifying the enemy as Al Qaeda, associated groups, and nations that support them. With a generic “terror” as the enemy, the war easily morphed from one into two wars, with Operation Iraqi Freedom launched in March 2003. Ten years later, the fighting in Iraq continues, and what was originally a campaign to root out and destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan has become an endless struggle against the Taliban. This war has exhausted the American military, contributed to our national economic nightmare, and derailed critical thinking about the future.

This exhausted force is also outmoded. Cutting such a force by a quarter, much less half, would invite aggression by nations like Iran and North Korea. Keeping the current force at the status quo would be expensive and also leave the nation vulnerable to current threats and unable to cope with a rapidly growing Chinese threat.

The U.S. military needs massive restructuring. Its current structure originated with the reforms instituted in 1903 after the Spanish-American War. A major overhaul on the eve of World War II made it possible to fight the Axis powers. The National Security Act of 1947 institutionalized the Industrial Age force extant today. Now, the armed forces of the United States would be hard-pressed to counter a North Korean invasion of South Korea without using nuclear weapons.

In fact, war on the Korean peninsula is one of our immediate threats. Iran, soon to be a nuclear-armed state, is bent on establishing hegemony in the world’s energy epicenter. Despite a predictably forthcoming declaration of “victory” in the ill-conceived War on Terror, al Qaeda and associated groups will continue to attack U.S. interests abroad while putting the nation on the defensive at home.

An anti-American alliance between Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and possibly Cuba is not beyond the realm of possibility. If Mexico continues to descend into anarchy, that alliance could extend to our immediate and un-defended southern border; imagine the cost of trying to fortify it sufficiently to keep it secure.

Slicing the salami thicker will result in fewer divisions, cutting new weapons acquisition, and trimming at the edges by reducing costs associated with professional military education. This is like starting a weight reduction with a frontal lobotomy and removing a few fingers. What is needed is drastic restructuring of the armed forces, massive reduction in the associated bureaucracy, and major changes in the way officers are educated.

Meanwhile, China is building a first-class fighting force, one capable of global power projection. While Russia’s ability to project power remains questionable, its modernization programs focus on high-tech weaponry and on revitalizing nuclear forces.

Critics argue that the United States now spends more on its military than the next 10 nations combined. True. A lot of that goes to sustaining force structures that are redundant, unnecessary, and ill-suited for Information Age warfare. Much of it goes to personnel costs (including retirement), maintaining bases and posts that are no longer needed, and unnecessary civilian personnel. There is much that can be cut, but also much more that needs to be restructured if the United States is to survive the challenges beyond 2015.

Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

A Cheer and a Half for the Tea Party

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 8/3/2011

Were it not for the Tea Party, the debt-ceiling controversy might never have taken place. Kudos on that count alone.

It comes as no surprise that the governing class and its boosters in the media portray the Tea Party folks as a collection of bumpkins and idiots who “don’t know the difference between campaigning and governing” — indeed, who would rather destroy the world economy than compromise their dogmatic insistence on spending cuts and resistance to tax increases.

But the policy and media elites’ attitude reveals more about them than about the Tea Party. The spenders and borrowers in Washington have had their way largely unimpeded for generations. What have they wrought? A formal debt about equal to the American economy’s annual output (GDP), a 75-year “entitlement” unfunded liability of $39 trillion, a budget deficit that far exceeds $1 trillion a year (more than 40 cents per dollar spent, about 10 percent of GDP), and federal spending that consumes about 25 percent of GDP.

And that isn’t enough for the governing class and its apologists in the intelligentsia!

All this happened before there was a Tea Party. Without it the debt ceiling would very likely have been raised with little fuss, as it has been so often before. It would not have been linked to a debate over cutting spending, reducing the deficit, and shrinking the government. Some Tea Partiers opposed raising the ceiling under any circumstances. Contrary to the power elite, that is not a sign not of ignorance and inexperience but of good sense.

No one exemplified anti–Tea Party snobbery more clearly than MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell (though he had close competition from his colleagues Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow). Stunned and outraged that the Tea Party was able to keep a new debt-ceiling bill from being passed without difficulty or even public notice, he furiously waved an old one-page debt-limit bill, fuming, “There is nothing easier for Congress to do than to raise the debt limit.”

How pathetic to see O’Donnell being so clueless about two important things: first, that the ease with which the government has been able to borrow is a big part of the problem facing the country, and second, that this ease in abusing the American people is precisely why the Tea Party emerged.

For O’Donnell and his state-worshiping ilk, any resistance to the growth of government spending — which, let us recall, is nothing but the forcible transfer of scarce resources from private owners to greedy, power-lusting politicians — is an impertinence, a sign of disrespect for one’s betters. How dare anyone question those anointed to “run the country”? How dare mere citizens object to being committed to more debt, which will impose additional burdens on them, their children, and their grandchildren? How dare they thwart the grand schemes their benevolent rulers have in store for them?

Well, the Tea Party knows better than O’Donnell & Company that the politicians are not our betters. And they know a political comeuppance is long overdue.

For all that, I give a cheer and a half for the Tea Party. But why not more than that?

Because the Tea Partiers need to be more radical. They have missed too many opportunities to advance their cause.

For one thing, they have been largely silent on the American empire. The government spends more than $1 trillion a year on imperial activities misleadingly called “defense,” far more than the nearly $700 billion in the War Department’s budget. Empires are bloody expensive, and the sooner the Tea Party understands that, the more effective it will be in fighting for smaller government. They also should understand that that trillion dollars is not just a misguided effort to protect American security. It is a scam largely designed to line the pockets of the military-industrial complex. They can start by reading President Eisenhower’s farewell address.

Second, Tea Partiers need to learn that the middle-class welfare state is a snare and a delusion. Social Security and Medicare masquerade as benevolent mutual-aid programs, but they are devices to foster allegiance to power. If you depend on politicians for support in your later, vulnerable years, how can your freedom truly be secure? The welfare state robs working people while turning the elderly into wards of the cold state.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

SENATOR GAINES ISSUES STATEMENT ON EL DORADO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PERISON’S NEW REPORT ON THE JAYCEE LEE DUGARD CASE

Posted: 8/3/2011

SACRAMENTO — Senator Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) today issued the following statement regarding the release of El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson’s new report on the Garrido case.

“The report makes it crystal clear that the system failed Jaycee.”

“The fact that the Garridos were so easily able to manipulate authorities both inside and outside prison walls points to the need for immediate reform.”

“I’m a father of six myself and I want to make sure that predators like Phillip and Nancy Garrido don’t victimize anyone else.”

“That is why District Attorney Pierson and I are conducting a community discussion tomorrow to review the sad facts in this report and gather input from other experts to identify a bipartisan solution that will strengthen our state’s public safety system.”

The new report is available on the El Dorado County District Attorney’s website at: http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/ELDODA/Press_Release/2011/Findings_Re__Jaycee_Lee_Dugard_Case.aspx

For more information about tomorrow’s “Community Discussion on Public Safety,” visit www.senate.ca.gov/GAINES.

Senator Ted Gaines represents the 1st Senate District, which includes all or parts of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento and Sierra counties.

Denham Statement on Budget Control Act

Posted: 8/3/2011

Washington, DC – Representative Jeff Denham today issued the following statement after the House of Representatives approved the Budget Control Act of 2011.

“Today I voted to shrink a federal government that has done nothing but expand for the past 40 years. I voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 to hold the President and Washington accountable and ensure that we’re never in this situation again. While this legislation is far from perfect, it is one step towards ensuring economic security for our kids and grandkids.

“While the numbers are smaller than I would like, today we made real progress towards mandating fiscal discipline in Washington and instilling confidence in America’s job creators. Californians have been forced to tighten their belts for too long, it’s now time that Washington did the same. With this legislation we have the opportunity to hold Washington accountable for the money it spends by voting on a Balanced Budget Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.”

A Free Speech Challenge for Parents

By Dr. Joseph J. Horton
Posted: 7/24/2011

Should a 13-year-old be able to purchase a school-shooting simulator without parents’ knowledge or consent?

The Supreme Court says that freedom of speech requires that 13-year-olds have that opportunity. In a 7-2 decision, the court struck down a California law barring the sale of graphically violent video games to people under 18.

I have not seen legal minds commenting on what seem (to me) to be obvious consequences of this decision. If the First Amendment requires that minors be able to purchase graphically violent video games, does this mean minors may attend R-rated movies without an adult or purchase pornography? We have longstanding traditions and laws which regulate the speech to which minors may be exposed without the consent of their parents.

The research on the effects of violent video games shows that parents and society have reason to be concerned. Today, we are not talking about the games from my youth like Space Invaders or games that involved a cartoon-like image of a person falling over. We are talking about games with graphic, movie-quality images of death and dismemberment. Unlike a movie, however, which is viewed passively, game players are actively causing the scenes which unfold before them.

Yes, video games are pretend. Of course, they are. Even young teenagers who play the games know they are pretend. Yet, even passively viewing pretend images affects the way people think. Television commercials are pretend. We all know they are pretend. The reason some of the most successful businesses in the world advertise—even paying over $2,000,000 for a 30-second Super Bowl spot—is not to generously provide free television for us; it is because they have data showing that advertising changes consumers’ attitudes and behavior. Active participation, like playing a video game, changes attitudes and behavior more efficiently than passively watching TV.

Will most kids who play games that simulate school shootings live out the roles they are playing? Will most kids who play Grand Theft Auto steal cars? No. Very few kids who play violent video games will perform those acts in real life. The changes most kids will experience as a result of playing violent video games are more subtle than mass murder, but are still quite measurable.

For example, greater exposure to violent media desensitizes people to the effects of violence and aggression. What would have been abhorrent, or should be, becomes not so bad or perhaps even funny. Violent video games cause users to think more violent thoughts. Typical behavioral effects from these changes in thinking might range from not being appropriately moved by images of real human suffering to being more argumentative and disrespectful.

Space does not allow for a full consideration of the effects of using violent video games. I spend an entire class period in my course on child development discussing violent media. Among the well-established effects is that users of violent media are more likely to believe that crime victims deserved their fate. In addition, users of violent media have a distorted view of the world, believing life to be significantly less safe than it is.

It is true that people who are prone to aggressiveness are more likely to use violent media. It is also true that people who use violent media become more aggressive. None of us want to believe that we will acquire a taste for the distasteful, but if we consume enough of what began as distasteful, it becomes satisfying.

Make no mistake about it; video games can be a great use of free time. Research shows that kids who play video games develop better spatial skills and hand-eye coordination. They are also just plain fun. Yet the benefits of video games do not require gruesome images.

We endure a lot of ugliness to protect our right to free speech. Like Justices Clarence Thomas and Steven Breyer, I do not believe that restricting the sale of violent video games to people 18 and older would have strained the First Amendment. With or without laws that require adult involvement for kids to have questionable material, parents must be parents. Laws are no substitute for parental monitoring. While I find the Court’s decision disappointing, it highlights the need for parents to be proactive and willing to make tough decisions.

Dr. Joseph J. Horton is professor of psychology at Grove City College and a researcher with The Center for Vision & Values.

Urge Governor Brown To Veto AB120 And Save Thousands Of Jobs

Source: Land Rights Network; American Land Rights Association
Posted: 7/24/2011

The green groups are fighting back. But your calls are winning. You must keep calling. Call at least three friends to get them to call. Governor Brown is paying attention. See the action items below.

Attention all private property owners and Federal land users in California.

You’re in a race. The Center for Biological Diversity and other extreme environmental groups are waging a campaign to get California Governor Jerry Brown to sign a draconian bill, AB 120, which would destroy an entire industry and cost thousands of jobs in the economy.

You must call, fax and e-mail California Governor Jerry Brown today and each week for the rest of July. Urge him to veto AB120 which would destroy thousands of recreation and mining jobs and jeopardize the economic ecosystem of local communities.

What’s The Problem And Why Should You Care?

A secret backroom legislative deal in Sacramento helped pass a bill (AB 120) and attach it to a money bill that would destroy recreation and commercial suction dredge mining throughout California and in the process destroy thousands of jobs while hurting the economy.

All the miners, small companies, equipment manufacturers, restaurants, hotels and many others up and down the mining food chain would be damaged or completely put out of business in rural communities throughout California.

That means more stress on an already hemorrhaging California economy. It means less tax money to support local services so you have to pay more to make up the difference. AB 120 will cost you money.

Governor Brown has no business signing such a draconian bill in these economic times.

The greens don’t care if they destroy jobs. They are showing again they really don’t care about the economy.

If they are successful in getting Governor Jerry Brown to sign AB 120 they will hurt you. Only few thousands jobs and the lost wages often stand between a local rural economy being able to survive or go under.

No more ghost towns. AB120 will hurt jobs. Governor Brown must veto AB120.

What’s more, once the extreme environmental groups finish off this recreation and small business industry, they will come for your recreation and your use. You either stand together now or you will embolden your enemies to destroy you later.

Following is the background information about California AB120, Section 12, and why it needs to be vetoed.

AB120 is a Resources packet which has 2 paragraphs of language regarding suction dredge mining, *which were inserted in the packet through the budget process in order to expedite its passage without the public being able to comment.

This secret process is not the way to pass legislation. Such a far-reaching bill should be open and transparent.

If the extreme environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity are successful passing AB120, you could be next. They will kill off more recreation access, more Federal land uses, more industries and more communities unless you draw a line in the sand and say no more.

The intent of this legislation is to kill the suction dredge gold industry. Indeed, it will produce that outcome if Governor Brown signs the bill.

This important recreation and economic industry contributes 23 million dollars annually to more than 14 sectors including fuel, restaurants, camping supplies etc. If AB120 passes, it will permanently end 4000 individual miners' jobs and will affect an additional 15,000 inter-related jobs.

Additionally, this legislation will also cause consequences of exponential harm to taxpayers and landowners throughout California, who have nothing to do with suction dredging for gold.

If AB120 becomes law, the directive to “fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts” will create a new standard which requires that the California Department of Fish & Game works outside of CEQA (California Environment Quality Act) requirements!

This deviant legislation will create a financial “Pandora’s Box” for the State, by establishing a threshold that exceeds CEQA requirements!

More broadly, it could open up all projects to be subjected to this new standard that are conducted in, near or around California waters, whether those waters are on public or private lands!

AB 120 has been passed in both houses on party lines, and is now en route to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Action Items:

1. Please forward this article to everyone you know in California.

2. Please forward this message to all your allies in multiple-use, recreation and mining. This plague will spread if successful.

3. Please call, fax and e-mail Governor Brown today to request that he VETO AB120, Section 12.

Governor Brown
Fax (916) 558-3160
Phone (916) 445-2841
Email www.gov.ca.gov

4. Please call, fax and e-mail Governor Brown’s staff urging a veto of AB120.

Gareth Elliot, Legislative Affairs Secretary
Phone (916) 445-4341
Fax (916) 558-317
Email gareth.elliot@gov.ca.gov

Nancy McFadden, Exec Secretary for Legislation, Appointments and Policy
Jamie Callahan, Assistant
Phone (916) 324-7039
Fax (916) 323-999
Email Jamie.callahan@gov.ca.gov

Joshua Groban, Senior Advisor for Policy and Appointment
Phone (916) 324-7745
Fax (916) 323-0918
Email joshua.groban@gov.ca.gov

Jim Humes, Executive Secretary for Administration
Phone (916) 324-7745
Fax (916) 323-0918
Email jim.humes@gov.ca.gov

John Laird, Secretary of Natural Resources Agency
Fax (916) 653-8102
Phone (916) 653-5656
Email j.laird.resources@gov.ca.gov

AB120, Section 12:

Background:

(12) Existing law designates the issuance by the Department of Fish and Game of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court in a specified court action.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake, for instream mining purposes, until the Director of Fish and Game certifies to the Secretary of State that (a) the department has completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (b) the department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (c) the new regulations are operative.

AB 120 would modify that moratorium to prohibit the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment until June 30, 2016, or until the director's certification to the secretary as described above, whichever is earlier.

The bill would additionally require the director to certify that the new regulations fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts and that fee structures in place will fully cover all costs to the department related to the administration of the program.

For more information, contact:

racheldunn2010@yahoo.com
Rachel and Mike Dunn
Gold Pan California
(925) 825-GOLD (4653)
www.goldpancalifornia.com

Brad Jones
GPAA Editor / Content Dir
Gold Prospectors Association of America/Gold Prospectors/ Magazine
bjones@goldprospectors.org
(951) 699-4749 Ext. 164
www.goldprospectors.org
http://www.facebook.com/GoldProspectors

American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
(360) 687-3087
alra@pacifier.com
www.landrights.org

See Facebook connection. Hit the Like Button.

Also LinkedIn Connect with American Land Rights.

Please forward this message as widely as possible. The more allies ALRA has the more we are able to help you protect your property rights, your use of Federal and state land and your community.

Thank you for taking immediate action to save jobs and rural communities. If we let them destroy these jobs, yours may be next.

This needs to be a one for all – all for one battle. Join in and prevent this regulatory plague from spreading to your job, industry or recreation activities.

STOMPING ON THE GRASS ROOTS WITH ACA 6

By Assemblyman Dan Logue
Posted: 7/21/2011

This year marks the 100th anniversary of California’s process of initiative, referendum and recall.

Whenever the Legislature or the Governor are unresponsive and ignore the needs of the people, the people can change their laws directly at the ballot box through initiatives and referenda. Landmark changes to state law – including historic measures like “Three Strikes” that put career criminals behind bars, and Proposition 13 that made it harder for politicians to raise your taxes – would have never been enacted without the initiative process.

With Democrats now having unified control over all statewide offices and the Legislature, there is effectively only one check left on their power – the voice of the people through California’s citizen initiative process.

But if liberal politicians in Sacramento get their way, our right to rein in our government through the initiative process could be severely limited. This year, they are pushing an Orwellian measure that is nothing more than a power grab to silence your voices. Under the provisions of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6, any citizens’ initiative that would spend more than $5 million would be prohibited from going before the voters, unless it included an offsetting revenue source, such as a tax or fee increase.

ACA 6 would undermine the initiative process by giving the Legislative Analyst (an unelected bureaucrat confirmed by legislators) the power to determine whether or not a proposed measure “pays for itself.” In addition, the Legislative Analyst can make this decision up to 15 days after the initiative measure is found to have qualified for the ballot. This brings up the chilling possibility that the supporters of a particular initiative could spend much effort and money successfully qualifying it for the ballot, only to be told that it will not be placed on that ballot because of one person’s arbitrary – and perhaps politically motivated – decision.

Not surprisingly, all constitutional amendments, ballot measures and bond measures placed on the ballot by the Legislature will be exempt from the “pay-as-you-go” requirements of ACA 6. Imagine: the very politicians who have brought California state government to the brink of bankruptcy now want to re-write the state constitution to allow them to continue their free-spending ways, while restricting the right of the people to stop them.

If Sacramento politicians genuinely seek fiscal accountability, the first thing they would do is to apply ACA 6 to themselves. But the hypocrisy of those who support ACA 6 becomes clear when you learn that of all state costs attributable to initiatives approved by the voters from 1988-2009, 83% of those costs came from measures authored and passed by legislators! It’s not the people who are the problem, it’s the politicians.

Make no mistake: the purpose of ACA 6 is not to “reform” the initiative process, or to rein in spending, but to increase the Legislature’s power at the people’s expense. The very reason the initiative process came into being in California was to break the stranglehold that special interests had over legislators at the turn of the century. To break this stranglehold, reformers successfully added the citizen’s initiative, referendum and the recall to promote greater public oversight.

Thankfully, grassroots volunteers throughout the state recently rose up and demanded that the Legislature reject ACA 6 after learning about its ramifications. Due to their efforts, the Assembly did not pass ACA 6 earlier this month, although it or a similar measure could come back for a vote again in the future.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any particular ballot initiative, we should be able to agree that the people’s right to direct democracy should not be infringed. If you do not like a particular measure, you can always vote “no.” But the Legislature should never tell the people that their voice should not be heard.

In a state as great as ours, the people – not the Legislature, not the Governor, not activist judges – are the ultimate authority over our government. This is how it should be and I will continue to do everything I can to preserve our citizen’s right to hold government accountable.

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, is the Vice Chair of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee and represents the 3rd Assembly District in the California Legislature.

Dr. Bachmann Attacked for Offering 'Hope' and 'Change' - to Homosexuals

By Tony Perkins
Posted: 7/20/2011

There has been a frenzy of drummed up controversy about Marcus Bachmann, the psychologist husband of a Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). His "scandal?" A counselor in a practice run by Dr. Bachmann offered a client the service he requested.

Why would this be controversial? Was the client engaged in illegal activity? Was the counselor? No, there was nothing illegal - just very, very politically incorrect. You see, the "client" - actually an undercover employee of a homosexual activist organization - asked for help in changing his sexual orientation.

Taking a page from undercover sting operations against liberal organizations such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood, John Becker, of the grossly misnamed homosexual group "Truth Wins Out" (TWO), secretly videotaped five one-hour sessions with a counselor at the Bachmann clinic. But while ACORN and Planned Parenthood showed themselves willing to conceal crimes, all the Bachmann clinic did was offer Becker help toward achieving what he asked for: "I told them that I wanted to be rid of my same-sex attractions, to be rid of my homosexuality."

The misinformation and bias in the media's reporting of this story were astounding. Reporters used the sarcastic catchphrases of homosexual activists, like "pray away the gay" or "gay cure," as though they were objective descriptions of what is more properly called "sexual reorientation" therapy or "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE). They described such counseling as resting only on prayer, Bible reading, and "willpower" ignoring the serious therapeutic methods employed. HLN's Dr. Drew Pinsky at least explained to Anderson Cooper that "some of these treatments are quite legitimate" - but not, in Pinsky's opinion, to change someone's sexual orientation.

The general theme was that such therapies don't work and are harmful. Major professional organizations, which caved in to pro-homosexual ideological pressure in the 1970's, have been critical of such treatments - but even their statements are more nuanced than most reports indicate. For example, the American Psychological Association's 2009 report on the topic did not say such therapies have been proven ineffective. Rather, it said, "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work [emphasis added] to change a person's sexual orientation." The APA also did not say such therapies have been proven harmful, noting only that "sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited."

In reality, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has detailed "125 years of clinical and scientific reports documenting that volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality is possible." To complain of the absence of "adequate scientific rigor" in such reports is a Catch-22, since the APA's own attempts to discourage such therapy inhibit the very research that is needed. Of course, no responsible reorientation therapist claims that changing one's sexual orientation is easy or guaranteed (any more than overcoming depression or anxiety is easy, for example). TWO even noted that the counselor they secretly taped admitted this. But homosexual activists do not merely claim change is difficult - they claim it is impossible, and the evidence contradicts them.

Even Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the psychiatrists who led the 1973 effort to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, confirmed in a study thirty years later that change is possible, noting, "The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity [but] ... encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning ... the core aspects of sexual orientation." Spitzer also found "no evidence of harm" in the 200 subjects he studied, and noted, "Even participants who only made a limited change nevertheless regarded the therapy as extremely beneficial."

The attack on Dr. Bachmann, while politically motivated to undermine his wife's presidential campaign, is also part of a larger effort which could end up driving conservative Christians out of the psychology and counseling professions altogether. A counselor at the Centers for Disease Control was fired, and graduate students in Michigan and Georgia have been dismissed from their programs, for refusing to change their personal convictions about homosexual conduct. These individuals did not refuse to counsel homosexuals, nor did they treat them with disrespect. They merely said they could not affirm homosexual conduct, and offered to refer the client to another counselor for help with their homosexual relationships.

Counselors like Dr. Bachmann's colleague do not (and cannot) force homosexuals to change - they offer reorientation therapy only to those who want to change. But radical homosexual activists not only want to deny help to those homosexuals who seek it, they have no tolerance for Christian professions who offer it. They seek to force them to change their faith-based beliefs, or forfeit their livelihoods.

These self-styled apostles of "tolerance" should try practicing a little themselves.

Tony Perkins is President of Family Research Council Action in Washington, D.C.

How do we responsibly cut Medicare as part of the budget debate?

By Douglas E. Schoen
Posted: 7/13/2011

Although President Obama continues to meet with top House and Senate Republicans in an effort to reach a budget agreement before the August 2nd deadline for raising the debt limit, it is unclear how far-reaching the final deal will be.

Obama wants to achieve the boldest possible package through an agreement that would save up to $4 trillion over the next decade, which would consist of large cuts in Medicare and other entitlement programs -- while requiring new tax revenue. Meanwhile Republicans advocate for a more modest deal to avoid a default on the national debt that contains some spending cuts and has no tax increases.

Despite these differences the President and the Republicans have agreed that the nation's budget problems must be addressed, and Medicare reform is a critical part of any agreement.

Throughout negotiations, it is critical that cuts to the Medicare program are responsible and productive. Medicare reform must still protect policies and programs that work while eliminating those that are no longer effective.

One productive Medicare program that must be kept intact is Part D, the prescription drug benefit program. Part D is the most cost-effective and successful entitlement program the federal government runs. Thanks to strong competition, the program costs the government and beneficiaries far less than initial projections. This year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reduced its baseline 10-year spending projection for all of Medicare by $186 billion, two-thirds of which is accounted for by a reduction in Part D spending.

The Medicare Trustees report released this year says that this competition will continue to drive savings. Research shows that in the Part D program, the proportion of prescriptions filled with a generic drug has increased each year, as plans strive to keep premiums low.

While Medicare Part D is an example of an effective Medicare program, it is clear that not all Medicare policies and programs are as productive.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was created with the passage of last year's health care law is one such provision that should be eliminated. Essentially, IPAB would allow an unelected board make binding "recommendations," or rather, demands, to reduce Medicare spending.

IPAB is a threat to all Medicare beneficiaries. Proponents of the board argue that IPAB will lead to improved quality of care as a result of the cost-cutting measures it enacts in order to save. This is doubtful.

The board must make cuts that reach annual targets, and can only look at specific parts of the health care system when making these decisions. Standard line item cuts will result, only reinforcing systemic problems -- not fixing them -- meaning unsustainable savings.

Major changes in the Medicare program should be decided by elected officials who are held accountable for their decisions. IPAB's arbitrary system lacks transparency and oversight.

Our political leaders should look at other ways to help reduce Medicare spending and increase savings as negotiations progress.

For example, increasing the savings mechanisms in the current health care law could be done by guaranteeing the law's $500 billion worth of savings from reduced Medicare payments to health providers and insurers by accepting a "trigger" for further cost cutting if those savings don't materialize.

Lawmakers could also cut subsidies for beneficiaries to buy supplemental "Medigap" insurance, and save $92 billion by 2021. While increasing premiums that beneficiaries pay for Medicare doctors' coverage by just 10 percent would save $241 billion. Also, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65 would save $124 billion.

Employers and employees could be incentivized to select more cost-effective health plans by capping the tax exclusion of employer-provided health benefits in 2018, and then phasing it out over ten years. The exclusion of employer-provided health care benefits is the single largest tax expenditure. It is estimated to cost the government more than $1 trillion over the next five years.

Medicare's copayment structure could be modernized with a deductible and out-of-pocket maximum that is indexed to increases in spending per beneficiary -- saving about $14 billion through 2018.

Bundling Medicare's payments for post-acute care to reduce costs and increase incentives for efficiency would result in cumulative budget savings from 2012 through 2018 of $5 billion.

There are many options lawmakers have to reform Medicare without resorting to drastic measures. Cuts must be made, but not at the expense of programs that work. Parts of the Medicare program that are effective must be left alone, while those that are not must be changed.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.

The GOP's Rotten Harvest: CA Republicans Gallegly, Lungren, Bilbray Reap Bad Crop with Forced E-Verify Push

Mandatory E-Verify Will Devastate CA Ag Industry & Small Business; Undermine Their Own Political Fortunes
Posted: 7/13/2011

Washington, DC – A new report released today from America's Voice highlights the fact that mandatory E-Verify legislation being pushed by a number of California Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives would impose new burdens on American workers and businesses, devastate California's agriculture industry, and further their Party's political problem with Latino voters.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice, "What is it about the California GOP that they would gladly burden small businesses with new costs and regulations, cripple their home state’s agriculture industry, tie up job seekers in mountains of red tape, and remove billions of dollars in revenue from the federal tax coffers - all for a forced E-Verify program that doesn’t even work half the time? One would assume the answer is politics. But in this case, the politics of this issue are working against the California Republicans, as bill co-sponsors like Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), and Dan Lungren (R-CA) are threatening their own political careers while ensuring that the California Republican Party continues to have problems with Latino voters."

Among the key report findings:

Bad for Business, Bad for Taxpayers: The new report highlights a range of studies that show that a forced E-Verify program will hurt the economy and will be ineffective. For example, according to a recent Bloomberg study, making the E-Verify program mandatory would cost small businesses an estimated $2.6 billion to implement. That's $2.6 billion they have to spend on government regulation, not job creation. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that mandatory E-Verify would cost taxpayers more than $17 billion in lost revenue, as more jobs move into the cash economy. And all this for a program that wouldn't even work as designed - according to a study from the research corporation Westat, E-Verify identifies undocumented workers run through the system less than half the time. The National Immigration Law Center estimates that up to 421,886 legal workers in California would be unable to work because of E-Verify errors. And foreign-born legal workers (34.9% of California’s workforce)—including naturalized citizens—would be disproportionately harmed by this legislation, as their error rates are twenty times higher than those of native-born workers.

Devastating to California's Agriculture Industry: The America's Voice report makes clear that such an approach would devastate California's agriculture industry, which is dependent on undocumented workers. Yet, Gallegly and Lungren want to rid the state and the country of existing and experienced farm workers and replace them through an employer-friendly, worker-unfriendly rehash of the infamous bracero program. If mandatory E-Verify went nationwide, like Reps. Gallegly and Lungren and others are pushing for, it would do for California what Georgia is experiencing today. In Georgia, the state's new anti-immigration law has lead to a labor crisis that is forcing the state to place probationers in the fields to replace the experienced immigrants who are afraid to come to work. Already, food is rotting in the fields and growers are reporting major economic losses. Mandatory E-Verify would not only destabilize the entire agriculture industry, causing farms to close and sending food production overseas, but it would kill a range of related jobs that rely on farm production. In fact, each American agriculture job generates three additional jobs upstream or downstream, all of which would be jeopardized by the Gallegly-Lungren-Bilbray bill. That's some jobs program, Congressmen.

Bad Politics for the California Republican Backers of Forced E-Verify: Separate from the economic burdens and problems of mandatory E-Verify, the report makes it clear that pushing this bill is a political problem for California Republicans as well. A June 2011 poll from Latino Decisions and impreMedia shows that immigration continues to be the top issue for Latino voters, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate, beating jobs and the economy by 16 points. And by a 65% to 19% margin, more Latino voters trust Democrats than Republicans on the issue. One only needs to look at the results of the 2010 elections, and the handling of the immigration issue by California Republican candidates Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, for fresh evidence of the GOP’s Latino problem. Yet the California Republican congressional delegation doesn't seem to be learning its lesson. In fact, of the thirty co-sponsors of the mandatory E-Verify bill, 33% (10/30) are Republicans from California.

Redistricting to Further Entrench GOP's Latino Problem: With the congressional redistricting process underway, some of the very same California Republicans pushing for mandatory E-Verify are likely to be facing new districts with a higher percentages of Latino and Democratic voters. Gallegly, Lungren, and Bilbray are all likely to have more difficult races - and Latino voters could make the difference. This makes their advocacy for mandatory E-Verify, and refusal to debate common sense measures like AgJOBS and comprehensive immigration reform, all the more confusing.

Access the new America's Voice report: http://americasvoiceonline.org/ReapWhatTheySow

Transparency Measure Is Ripe For Abuse

By Thomas A. Schatz
Posted: 7/7/2011

The lowest qualified bid by the most competent contestant traditionally wins the government contract. Unfortunately, the "Change" gang now wants to fiddle with this decades-old, generally reliable formula.

President Obama hopes to throw another item onto the scale as bureaucrats weigh bids: political donations. He could sign an executive order any day now that would instruct federal officials to consider the political contributions of prospective government contractors. While this move is being portrayed as a matter of increased transparency, it will actually fuel unintended consequences and indirectly overturn an important Supreme Court decision on free speech.

Forcing companies to disclose political gifts supposedly will expose covert "pay-to-play" schemes and ensure that private industry does not unduly influence Washington's decisions when awarding lucrative contracts. Rather than depoliticize procurement, this practice would empower public officials to scrutinize a particular company's political philanthropy. The Obama administration's supporters could score government deals while opponents leave with empty pockets and a simple message: "If you want our checks, show us yours."

The executive order could transport such old-fashioned, Chicago-style wheeling and dealing from Lake Michigan to the Potomac.

This executive order - drafted in April - requires contractors to disclose annual donations of more than $5,000 that were made in the past two years and paid to political candidates, parties or independent political groups. Directors, officers and other top managers would have to declare their personal political contributions from the past two years - even if they were made without their employers' knowledge or consent.

This order is in part designed to thwart last year's Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which lifted certain restrictions on the donations corporations and labor unions can make to campaigns and independent organizations.

Congressional Democrats quickly tried to counteract that ruling by re-limiting the third-party donations. But a House- approved bill sputtered in the Senate.

Since the legislation will not be passed, Obama is trying to accomplish that same goal through the executive order. A clothing company would have to reveal its donations to a conservative advocacy nonprofit before bidding to manufacture military uniforms. A landscaping firm would have to list its checks to a liberal third- party group before applying to maintain a national park.

Clearly, such rules could foster political discrimination. Obama would enable his administration to deliver literally billions of dollars in government contracts to pro-Democrat businesses while denying billions to pro-Republican firms.

And when the GOP takes the White House again, that administration could turn around and practice the exact same kind of discrimination against Democrat-friendly contractors.

And the favoritism would not necessarily be confined to contracting work. The entire federal government would be made aware of private firms' political affiliations. Other agencies could use that information to determine where and how to award billions of dollars.

Even the appearance of political favoritism would be a problem.

The Agriculture Department, for example, might hire a company to upgrade 30 regional offices. That firm may have backed Obama's campaign and other Democratic causes. It also could finish its work on time, under budget, and with elegant results. Nonetheless, a losing, pro-Republican bidder might cry foul - even though it lost to a truly superior bidder, picked by honest public servants with no partisan axes to grind.

When awarding contracts, federal decision-makers should consider only one issue: the bidders' merits. Officials should evaluate the price and quality of the products and services on offer, the supplier's performance under previous contracts and how closely each bid follows federal contract rules.

This proposal is generating bipartisan opposition. Connecticut's independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats, and Missouri's Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who chairs the Government Contracting Subcommittee, have both publicly opposed the executive order. Twenty-seven Republicans senators signed a letter urging the president to scrap this plan.

Imposing campaign- disclosure requirements on government contractors sets the table for a feast of patronage based not on the content of each contractor's character, but on the color of his PAC money.

Thomas A. Schatz is president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

Chairman Denham’s Investigation Leads SEC To Give Up Leasing Authority

Posted: 7/7/2011

Washington, DC – Representative Jeff Denham, Chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, today questioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman and Inspector General regarding the Agency’s recent lease of hundreds of thousands of square feet of unneeded space. As a result of the Chairman Denham’s investigation, the SEC agreed to give up its leasing authority and many of the SEC employees may also face prosecution from the Justice Department for backdating documents that “justified” the lease.

“It is inconceivable that the SEC bound the taxpayer to more than a half a billion dollars based on “back of the envelope” calculations that were inflated and just simply wrong. And, it is even more disturbing that such a lease was signed without any formal internal written approval, no OMB approval and no congressional approval. On top of that, the SEC proceeded with a sole source contract, “negotiated” over the course of just days, based on a justification document that was backdated and altered,” Denham continued.

At a June 16, 2011 Subcommittee hearing on SEC IG report, the SEC’s COO and General Counsel could not answer key questions related to the SEC lease and the circumstances surrounding the sole source procurement and back-dated documents included in the lease. As a result, Chairman Denham held today’s follow-up hearing to examine whether the SEC should keep its independent leasing authority and to make sure there is accountability for the SEC’s actions. Today, SEC Chairman Shapiro took full responsibility for the SEC’s actions, but what remains unclear is who will be held accountable for this blatant waste of taxpayer dollars.

“In the private sector, if an employee bound their company to a contract costing over $500 million it did not need, that company would want to know the facts to determine who all should be held accountable and how to prevent it from happening again,” Chairman Denham said. “Federal agencies should be held to an even higher standard as, ultimately, it’s the American people who pay for their costly mistakes.

Because of prior abuses of independent and unchecked leasing authority, legislation introduced in the House by Chairman Denham in May – the Civilian Property Realignment Act (H.R. 1734) – eliminates the independent leasing authority for the SEC.

Background:

In July of 2010, the SEC entered into a ten-year lease, anticipating that their responsibilities would expand under the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The lease was signed in only a few days for space it did not need. The SEC Inspector General (IG) released a report on the lease at the request of Subcommittee Chairman Denham, which found that the Office of Administrative Services at SEC vastly overestimated the amount of space needed under this lease, committing the taxpayers to more than $500 million.

PRELIMINARY STUDY COMPLETED FOR GARDEN BAR RESERVOIR

Posted: 7/6/2011

SUTTER COUNTY, CA – A new reservoir on the Bear River at Garden Bar could improve water supply reliability for agricultural and municipal users by producing as much as 150,000 acre feet of additional water supplies, according to a recent study conducted by a group of six California water providers. Released today, the Garden Bar Reservoir Preliminary Study evaluates the potential water supply and hydropower benefits of several different reservoir sizes. The results will be used by the study partners to inform decisions on future planning activities, and for discussions with other interested water providers. The study can be reviewed at www.gardenbarwater.com/documentsandnotices/.

For more than 60 years, a reservoir at Garden Bar – located on the Bear River between Camp Far West and Lake Combie Reservoirs – has been eyed as a potential source for supplemental water supplies. First identified by the State in the 1950s, the concept has been the subject of at least six studies by federal and local agencies since that time.

“Garden Bar’s rocky, steep landscape is ideally suited for a reservoir. In fact, we believe it may be one of the state’s last workable locations for a new facility,” said Brad Arnold, General Manager of the South Sutter Water District (SSWD), which has spent approximately $750,000 on Garden Bar studies since the early 1990s.

According to Arnold, a reservoir at Garden Bar could effectively capture surplus runoff, especially during wet years. He noted that Camp Far West Reservoir, located 4.5 miles downstream of Garden Bar, has spilled more than 600,000 acre feet of runoff water so far this year. SSWD and its partners believe such runoff could provide supplemental water for agricultural and urban uses, protect groundwater resources, and offer redundancy and flexibility in water supplies. Flood protection, emergency water storage, and enhanced recreational opportunities are also important benefits associated with reservoirs.

“We have a long-held and well-known interest in developing Garden Bar water to reduce over-drafting of our limited groundwater resources,” said Tom Cuquet, President of the SSWD Board. “To date, cost has been the primary obstacle to project development. We cannot fund it alone.”

In recent years, California water providers have looked past traditional boundaries to collaborate on projects that reduce the cost of water supply development for all users. Partnering with South Sutter Water District on the latest study are five other water providers, each with an interest in improving water supply reliability for their areas: the Cities of Napa and American Canyon, Castaic Lake Water Agency, Palmdale Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

“Developing a supplemental supply is just one of many strategies being considered by each partner as part of their overall water supply reliability planning activities,” said San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District General Manager Doug Headrick. Other key management strategies include more aggressive water conservation, groundwater recharge, water banking, and increased use of recycled water.

The Garden Bar Preliminary Study is the first step in what could be a complex project development process, if the project partners decide to move forward. Next steps would include the development of a project description, environmental studies, permitting, public outreach, and preliminary design, among other things.

For more information, please contact the partnership’s Garden Bar hotline at 530-845-5485, or visit www.gardenbarwater.com.

USDA Designates Glenn and Tehama Counties in California as Primary Natural Disaster Areas

Posted: 7/6/2011

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated Glenn and Tehama counties in California as primary natural disaster areas due to losses to the 2011 olive crop caused by unseasonably warm weather followed by freezing temperatures that occurred from Nov. 23, 2010, through March 1, 2011.

“President Obama and I want California producers to know that disaster assistance is available to them to help them recover from challenging weather conditions,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “This designation will help affected growers qualify for the help they need.”

Farmers and ranchers in Butte, Colusa, Lake, Mendocino, Plumas, Shasta and Trinity counties in California also qualify for natural disaster assistance because their counties are contiguous.

All counties listed above were designated natural disaster areas June 30, 2011, making all qualified farm operators in the designated areas eligible for low interest emergency (EM) loans from USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), provided eligibility requirements are met. Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of the declaration to apply for loans to help cover part of their actual losses. FSA will consider each loan application on its own merits, taking into account the extent of losses, security available and repayment ability. FSA has a variety of programs, in addition to the EM loan program, to help eligible farmers recover from adversity.

USDA also has made other programs available to assist farmers and ranchers, including the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE), which was approved as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; the Emergency Conservation Program; Federal Crop Insurance; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. Interested farmers may contact their local USDA Service Centers for further information on eligibility requirements and application procedures for these and other programs. Additional information is also available online at http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov.

FSA news releases are available on FSA’s website at http://www.fsa.usda.gov via the “News and Events” link.

BOXER STATEMENT ON ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION TO RELEASE OIL FROM STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Senator Had Previously Called for Release to Help Consumers and Protect the Economic Recovery
Posted: 6/25/2011

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) praised the announcement today by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu that the United States will release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in conjunction with the release of another 30 million barrels from member states of the International Energy Agency. Oil reserves will be offered on the world market over the next 30 days in an effort to address supply disruptions and high gas prices, which have hurt the economic recovery.

Senator Boxer said, “This decision will provide relief for consumers who are struggling with high prices at the pump. With the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at record levels and oil prices soaring because of unrest in the Middle East, it’s appropriate to take this step to protect our fragile economic recovery.”

Releasing reserves from SPR, which is currently at a historically high level of 727 million barrels, will help offset the disruptions in the oil supply caused by turmoil in the Middle East that have contributed to high oil prices.

In March, Senator Boxer joined with other Senators to call on President Obama to release oil from the SPR to address high gas prices and spur economic growth. The Senators’ letter is available here.

CA Retailers Applaud Senate Public Safety Committee's Vote to Protect California Communities & End Meth Epidemic

Real-Time, Stop-Sale Legislation Will Block Illegal Sales & Protect Patient Access To Common Medicines
Posted: 6/21/2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California Retailers Association (CRA) President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Dombrowski today released the following statement following the vote in the Senate Public Safety Committee to support Assembly Bill 1280 (Hill-District 19), which will implement real-time, stop-sale technology which block attempts to purchase more than the legal amount of pseudoephedrine-based medicines while protecting patient access.

"Today's vote in the Senate Public Safety Committee in favor of real-time, stop-sale legislation has brought the end in sight for California's meth production and abuse epidemic," said Bill Dombrowski, president and chief executive officer of the California Retailers Association (CRA). "Nineteen states have now adopted electronic technology and have produced real results, with thousands of blocked sales and meth worth millions of dollars in street value never making it into the hands of criminals. California residents want the same protections for their communities and we are encouraged to see that the Senate Public Safety Committee recognizes that and is committed to ending this epidemic once and for all.

"We hope that as this bill continues to move forward with the eventual outcome of statewide electronic tracking that punishes crooks, not law-abiding citizens."

About the California Retailers Association

The California Retailers Association is a trade association representing major California department stores, mass merchandisers, supermarkets, chain drug and convenience stores, as well as specialty retailers such as auto, book and home improvement stores. Members have more than 9,000 stores in California and account for more than $100 billion in sales annually.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto's Statement on John Chiang's Decision Not to Pay Legislature

Posted: 6/21/2011

Sacramento, CA—Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) issued the following statement on John Chiang's decision not to pay the legislature.

"Our state government right now reminds me of a troop of boys lost in the wilderness. The goal is to get back to civilization, but the Governor seems hell-bent on forcing four people to take his chosen path, while John Chiang just wants to sit there and beat up on the unpopular kids.

It's always been an easy move to bash the disliked – but the truth is that such demagoguery is rapidly becoming cliché, and does nothing to move the state forward.

Many of us have chosen to make the difficult decisions this year – cutting programs and raising revenue – even though those are unpopular decisions. The Legislature has proposed and passed not one, but two full budgets this year – two paths out of the wilderness – that were based on the nonpartisan LAO's recommendations. The Controller should stop checking the Legislature's approval rating and propose an alternative if he is going to behave this way.

I halted a fulfilling private sector career path to enter public service. I now have to explain to my wife and daughter that we won't be able to pay the bills because a politician chose to grandstand at our expense.

California has officially degenerated into a Banana Republic, with one branch of government withholding the pay of another. I wonder if the Controller plans on withholding the pay of judges if he disagrees with one of their decisions."

Mike Gatto is the Assistant Speaker Pro Tempore of the California State Assembly. He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and parts of Los Angeles, including Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Toluca Lake, Valley Glen, and Van Nuys.

Website of Assemblyman Mike Gatto: www.asm.ca.gov/gatto

Thank You, Secretary Vilsack

By John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs
Posted: 6/21/2011

With all the budget-cutting rhetoric and partisan bickering these days, we hear so little about good things getting done in DC. It is crucial, therefore, to offer a word of thanks for a job well done, especially in these times.

On June 22, 2010, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack published a draft livestock market reform rule, commonly known as the GIPSA rule, which defined an “unreasonable preference,” a.k.a, the sweetheart deals packers give to the nation’s largest livestock producers and deny to family farmers and ranchers, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

In 1997 farmer Keith Mahaney of Walthill, Nebraska called for this rulemaking in testimony to the National Commission on Small Farms. Since then I’ve heard thousands of family farmers and ranchers make the same call. Eleven years later, all of us, together, were finally able to get Congress to direct the writing of that rule. Secretary Vilsack wrote a strong set of livestock market reforms, perhaps the boldest since the Packers and Stockyards Act passed in 1921. And for that I thank you Mr. Secretary.

On June 22, however, another year will have passed, and we’re still waiting, still urging Secretary Vilsack and President Obama to move the rule forward, still urging Congress not to hamstring them. And we’re still reminding all of them of the countless times family farmers, ranchers and other concerned citizens, both rural and urban, called upon them to level the playing field and make livestock markets fair and competitive.

The Center for Rural Affairs was established in 1973 as an unaffiliated nonprofit corporation under IRS code 501(c)3. The Center for Rural Affairs was formed by rural Nebraskans concerned about family farms and rural communities, and we work to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities.

The Truth about Energy Profits

By Lawrence J. McQuillan
Posted: 6/21/2011

America's largest oil and natural gas companies recently reported quarterly earnings, and as expected, profits were up. But the caricature of fat-cat energy executives lining their pockets at the expense of the everyman doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

ExxonMobil posted quarterly earnings of $10.7 billion on Thursday, up 69 percent from last year. And on Wednesday, ConocoPhillips reported quarterly earnings of $3 billion, reflecting an increase of 43 percent from a year ago. Impressive, but not shocking given the current price of crude oil.

No less predictable was the outrage voiced by politicians. President Obama called for new taxes on the oil industry, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to introduce legislation to that effect when Congress is back in session.

Talking tough when pump prices are high might be safe politically. After all, it's easy to get outraged while people struggle to fill their tanks. But we should consider some facts about the American energy industry before breaking out pitchforks or enacting knee-jerk policies.

Yes, pump prices are high, but companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron have as much control over the price of gasoline as they do the price of speeding tickets. The single biggest factor affecting pump prices is the cost of crude oil, which is set by global futures markets subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Right now the recovering global economy, Mideast turmoil, and declining dollar are driving up the price of crude. The truth is ExxonMobil can't control the price of a barrel of oil, but the higher price naturally results in higher revenues.

No one is asking drivers to shed a tear for gasoline stations forced to charge high prices at the pump. But equally unfair is the assumption that those high prices mean 24-hour champagne and limos for company executives. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry actually operates at lower margins than most American manufacturing.

In arguing for higher energy taxes, politicians cite that America's five largest oil and gas companies had a net income of $484 billion from 2006 to 2010. What they don't tell you is those companies' profit margin during those years was 6.65 percent, below the U.S. manufacturing average.

Because of the large size of the industry, profits sound exorbitant when stated in absolute dollars. But those dollars are distributed to millions of ordinary Americans who are shareholders and plowed back into oil exploration and next-generation energy R&D.

The caricature of greedy oil company executives falls apart even further when one considers who owns most energy companies. Only 1.5 percent of oil and gas shares are owned by those companies' executives. Fifty-three percent of the shares are owned by mutual funds and individual investors. Twenty-seven percent are owned by pension funds, and 14 percent are held by IRAs. In other words, average investors, people who have begun saving for retirement, and retirees benefit from their investments in energy companies-and these investments are paying off.

A new study examined the performance of oil and natural gas investments in the two largest public employee pension funds in four states-Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The oil and gas investments had returns between 41 percent and 49 percent from 2005 through 2009, while the funds' non-oil and gas investments had returns between 10 percent and 17 percent. And the gains are not just enjoyed by a select few-these funds account for between 50 percent and 89 percent of the total membership and total assets of all public employee pension programs in these states.

The Obama administration's 2012 budget proposes almost $90 billion in new taxes for the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. These taxes will hurt ordinary Americans and public employees, and the energy industry already pays one of the highest effective income tax rates in the country. About 44 percent of every dollar earned by oil and gas companies goes to income taxes, while retailers pay about 33 percent.

Caricatures shouldn't be the basis for government policy. In reality, energy profits have not been excessive compared to other industries, are plowed back into exploration, and benefit ordinary Americans. Congress and the Obama administration shouldn't impose higher taxes or other sanctions on the industry. Instead, they should eliminate barriers to oil production, helping consumers at the pump.

Lawrence J. McQuillan, PhD, is director of Business and Economic Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Contact him at LMcQuillan@pacificresearch.org.

Redistributing Wealth to Wall Street

By Gus West
Posted: 6/21/2011

Remember those dark days after the 2008 financial collapse, when Congress vowed it would get tough with the banks? Well, that resolve seems to be dwindling. A move to undo some of the reforms legislators were touting just months ago was barely stopped on June 8.

The issue at hand this time was debit cards. Currently, when you make a purchase with a debit card, the retailer has to pay a so-called swipe fee of 1% to 3% on the transaction. The rate is set by whatever credit card company the bank is affiliated with - often Visa or MasterCard - but the fee goes to the bank. Banks say they have to charge swipe fees to cover the costs of processing the transactions. But in reality, as the Federal Reserve has determined, the fees are far in excess of the banks' costs.

Few consumers are even aware that these charges exist. Yet they add up. Total swipe fees for debit cards are estimated at nearly $20 billion annually. That money ultimately comes out of consumers' pockets because merchants raise prices to recoup the swipe fees.

Worst hit are the poorest Americans, who don't carry credit or debit cards and must pay cash. The "unbanked" don't have the convenience of using debit cards, yet they end up subsidizing their use by the better-off. Latinos are disproportionately unbanked and are accordingly hit hardest, as a 2009 study by the organization I chair determined.

A new financial reform scheduled to take effect next month will bring some overdue common sense to the fees associated with debit card transactions, putting limits on what banks can charge merchants. But that reform, part of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, was under serious threat earlier this month.

Under the reform, starting July 21, rather than a percentage charge, swipe fees paid to the biggest banks will be set at a flat 12 cents per transaction. This is a huge reduction: The average swipe fee for debit card transactions in 2009 was 44 cents. Given that the Federal Reserve has determined average processing costs are really around 4 cents per transaction, a 12-cent fee seems more than reasonable.

The new rules include protection for smaller community banks - those with less than $10 billion in assets, which in truth account for a minuscule share of transactions. They will still be able to collect higher swipe fees under a two-tier system that takes account of their higher costs in processing transactions.

All told, merchants, and ultimately consumers, will save $14 billion a year under the reform. Another way of putting that, though, is that big banks will be losing $14 billion a year in free money. And that's why they mounted a full-court press in recent weeks full of absurd claims and distortions aimed at killing or at least delaying the reform.

Sens. Bob Corker (R.-Tenn.) and Jon Tester (D.-Mont) put forward an amendment in early June that would have delayed the new fee-limit regulations and required more study of the issue by the Federal Reserve. The Fed could then have revised the rules if it found that they would've hurt consumers or small banks.

The legislation was stopped - but barely. To pass, the amendment needed 60 votes; only 54 senators voted for it. Still, it's alarming that a majority of senators were prepared to back the banks against consumers, and it doesn't bode well for the future. Banks are already warning that they will raise other fees, such as those for checking accounts, to make up for the lost income. And it's not looking as if we can count on our elected officials to keep them honest.

Visa and MasterCard have been jacking up swipe fees for years. That has kept the banks happy and encouraged them to issue more cards. Meanwhile, the banks most efficient at processing transactions have profited the most from the fixed fees. Ordinarily, competitive pressure would force them to pass on some of their increased efficiency to consumers in the form of lower fees. The genius of the way the system is rigged, however, is that the banks don't set the fees and therefore don't have to compete with one another. They are insulated from competition by Visa and MasterCard, and they happily profit from it.

The last thing Americans need is to pick up the tab for the banks again. In this economy, consumers - and especially the poorest and unbanked among them - deserve a break. And our elected officials should be on the side of the people.

Denham Hearing Targets Wasteful $500 Million SEC Lease

Posted: 6/19/2011

Washington, DC – Representative Jeff Denham, Chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, says a wasteful Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) office lease goes far beyond mismanagement, fleecing taxpayers for half-a-billion dollars.

Denham led a hearing today to examine the SEC’s mismanagement of its independent leasing authority, and a May 16, 2011 SEC Inspector General (IG) report on the agency’s recent lease procurement of 900,000 square feet of space.

The SEC signed a lease in only a few days for space it did not need, and the amount of space it leased turned out to be hundreds of thousands of square feet more than was necessary. After receiving very few answers, Rep. Denham stated he will hold another hearing to determine how the SEC will be held accountable for this type of cavalier spending of taxpayer dollars.

The IG Report found that the SEC vastly overestimated the amount of space needed under this lease, committing the taxpayer to more than $500 million based on “groundless” and “unsupportable” figures. In fact, in the course of the IG’s investigation, one SEC Realty Specialist described the standard used to develop the needed space figures “as a ‘WAG’ (wild-ass guess) and a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation.”

“After reading the Inspector General’s report, it is hard to comprehend how easily the SEC can just commit to spending $500 million of the American people’s money in just a few days,” Denham said. “It is as though the SEC did not get the memo that Congress and this administration have both been talking about cutting the waste in our federal buildings.

“Our Subcommittee has been working to cut waste in federal buildings,” Denham continued. “Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted in underused property, the overbuilding of federal facilities and in our overreliance on costly leases to meet long-term space needs.

“Unfortunately, examples of waste abound in our management of federal real property, but the SEC’s massive half-a-billion-dollar lease for space it did not need goes far beyond mismanagement. The SEC has a history of bad leasing decisions that cost the taxpayer millions. There must be accountability and consequences for this type of cavalier spending of taxpayer money,” Denham concluded.

Because of prior abuses of independent and unchecked leasing authority, legislation introduced in the House by Chairman Denham in May – the Civilian Property Realignment Act (H.R. 1734) – eliminates the SEC’s authority to continue making mistakes like this in the future.

San Francisco Considers Circumcision—and Parental Rights

By Dr. Steven Jones
Posted: 6/14/2011

This November the citizens of San Francisco will decide whether to ban circumcision, a practice that dates from antiquity and is embraced by at least three of the world’s major religions. Now, the fact that something stretches far back into human history is by no means a guarantee that it has social value. Slavery, human sacrifice, and arranged marriages for adolescents also have long histories, but, thankfully, are no longer accepted by Western societies. The question is whether circumcision belongs on this list. It doesn’t.

The Center for Disease Control reports that circumcision has numerous health benefits. Circumcised infants have fewer urinary tract infections, a blessing to any young family already stretched by numerous doctor visits. The benefits extend well beyond infancy, too. International studies from Africa, Asia, and the United States point to the same conclusions, namely that circumcision lowers the likelihood of HIV infection, as well as a host of other sexually transmitted diseases. Importantly, the CDC report makes clear that this is not just attributable to behavioral or lifestyle issues that may be correlated with circumcision. The procedure itself results in lower rates of STD infection and may lower the risk for certain types of cancer, too.

Why, then, the proposed ban? Advocates claim that it is in the best interests of the child. This seems a curious rationale for at least two reasons. First, the health benefits are well documented. There are, of course, risks associated with any surgical procedure, but these are minor. Other than short-term discomfort and bleeding, there are few side effects reported by the CDC. Second, it is surely odd that political advocacy groups would be in a better position to evaluate the best interests of the child than the child’s own parents, clergy, and not least of all, doctors. The real issue, then, is what advocates of the ban mean by “best interests.” The root issues are not medical, but political.

Lloyd Schofield, proponent of the ban and author of the legislation, has likened circumcision to female genital mutilation, not because the two are medically or culturally similar (they aren’t) but because he hopes to stoke outrage by connecting circumcision to the violent manipulations of young girls who have this practice forced upon them. In his view, circumcision should be a matter of “choice” exercised at the age of 18, or later.

In San Francisco the issue may be “forced” circumcision and the supposed limitation on an individual male’s future freedom and right to control his own body, but this logic has implications for other religious practices as well. In the minds of the faithful, circumcision is not just an act performed on a given day; it is an initiation into a community and a way of life. And it is not the only such practice. Faith-based schooling, for example, is designed to instill and nurture faithful observance by religious adherents and is often chosen not by the child but by the parents. Sure enough, critics of the practice have argued that religious schools (or religiously motivated home-schooling) may render a child incapable of exercising truly free choice when they come of age. How, they wonder, can a child that has been indoctrinated from birth with a particular view of the good life actually be free to make their own decisions? While some such concerns may be valid, there are significant legal and sociological problems with this sort of reasoning.

Legally, the U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized that parents have a right, even a duty, to bring up their children to be more than just members of the state. In many of the world’s religions, it is a fundamental obligation to raise one’s child in the faith. For San Francisco, or any locality, to disallow the exercise of this solemn duty in the name of individual choice is to radically undermine the very sense of obligation and commitment at the heart of religious practice.

It is on the sociological level, however, that the problems with San Francisco’s proposed ban are most evident. At bottom, advocates of the ban believe they are protecting human rights and freedom. For them, freedom only exists if a person is untied from any sort of binding practice or communal obligation. Once something has been done to individuals, rather than by them, they are no longer free. Thus, things like circumcision, or the decision to restrict exposure to alternative viewpoints in an effort to inculcate a particular set of religious truths, if forced on the child by the parents, renders true freedom impossible.

The problem with this reasoning is both simple and profound. It is simply not who we are. Humans are not free-floating individuals unconnected from the communities that surround them. We are social beings who thrive most when we have thick ties to kindred spirits, when we are nurtured in institutions and relationships that connect us to something larger than our selves. Curtailing the rights of parents to initiate those relationships is a social experiment of dire consequences, the impacts of which will be felt not by proponents of the ban, but by the very children they seek to help.

Dr. Steven L. Jones is associate professor of sociology at Grove City College and a fellow for character & ethics with The Center for Vision & Values.

Budget Stories: More Taxes Fund Waste

By Senator Doug LaMalfa
Posted: 6/10/2011

While we see the potential effects of the loss of revenue to key programs in the coming fiscal year, there are few who admit that what we are facing now is a direct result of years of irresponsible budgeting and our state’s direct assault on private industry in the way of high taxes, fees and regulation. The current policies have chased businesses and the jobs they provide out of the state. And, year after year it has been apparent that several key budget solutions and proposals are urgently needed, yet they have not seen the light of day.

Many of my colleagues and I have long urged:

Imposing a hard spending cap limited to the increases in inflation and population growth so that spending is kept in line with revenue growth.

Pension reform. Milk and billboard inspectors are not public safety and should not be treated that way. Also simple reforms such as increasing retirement age and increased employee contribution will save millions if not billions in the long run.

What about capping salaries for government executives to no more than the Governor’s salary?

And, little has been done to reduce fraud and verify eligibility in costly social programs such as CalWORKS, IHSS and Medi-Cal.

Yes, the taxpayers support these programs in concept, but they don’t want their money to go to those who are undeserving. In 2009, it was reported that 78% of the CalWORKS recipients were not meeting minimum work requirements. They weren’t working, looking for work, seeking job training, performing community service or getting an education. What has changed? Are we still sending these people a check?

In-Home Support Services is a program that the taxpayers believe in and support. They appreciate the desire to help the elderly and infirm get the assistance they need to remain in their homes. But, the taxpayers also want to know that the state is paying people who are not ex-felons. Since there are no verification requirements, how do they know they are paying for actual hours worked to benefit those who really need the care? Many of my colleagues and I have proposed safeguards to ensure that the almost $6 billion we spend on these In-Home Support Services are providing actual care recipients need. In April of this year, the San Diego Grand Jury found that only 20 percent of the recipients are severely impaired and unable to care for themselves. But, no significant verification procedures are being implemented. Let’s add up those potential savings. Or would we rather ignore the waste and fraud and simply raise taxes?

In 2010, Sacramento County’s fraud tax force ferreted out 19 felony cases of IHSS fraud in a four month period totaling $315,000 in overpayments among 42,000 caregivers and clients. The task force noted at that time that it was investigating another 145 IHSS participants suspected of bilking the system out of more than half a million dollars. That’s only one county of 58.

In March of 2009, Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office reported that seven private medical laboratories had defrauded the Medi-Cal program of hundreds of millions of dollars by overcharging the state as much as 400% for blood, urine, and other lab tests. How widespread is such fraud?

And, if the taxpayers consent to raising taxes for five years, will you stop there? The Governor’s budget projects a 27% increase in spending in the next three years. Does anyone actually believe these taxes will be “temporary?” Two years ago, we were told the taxes would be temporary. Why would anyone believe that five more years will change anything?

And, will the Democrat majority stop there? No.

Legislative Democrats already approved of legislation (which the Governor signed) to divert funds derived from a surcharge that utility users pay – that’s supposed to go to renewable energy programs. The funds will now be used to create a “green” curriculum in public schools. And guess what? The ratepayers may now be expected to pay an additional surcharge to backfill what will be spent on environmental education in our public schools.

Democrats also want to impose new taxes on soda, oil and gasoline, tobacco, even water, and they’re still pursuing a $40-plus billion single-payer health care plan. In fact, some believe the state should simply keep the tax and fee revenue that’s supposed to go to our cities and counties to pay for the programs we require them to provide, but now many here want the state to keep those funds and give our locals authority to raise a whole new raft of local sales taxes, income taxes, vehicle licensing fees and more.

I recommend we put a stop to the $46 to $100 billion high-speed rail boondoggle, which is clearly under-funded and will require huge, annual appropriations of ongoing taxpayer-funds just to survive. Not a single independent review has found the plan to be workable. But we haven’t.

The taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to fork over one more dime. Not until we take drastic actions to end waste, fraud and abuse, not until we remove the regulatory hurdles that strangle businesses and currently make California the worst place in the nation to start a business, and not until we implement obvious reforms to downsize the costs of running our government. And once we do those things, we won’t need to raise taxes.

Senator Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing the fourth Senate District including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Siskiyou, Sutter, Del Norte, Placer, Trinity, Yuba and Nevada counties.

Budgets, Appropriations and Priorities

By John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs
Posted: 6/8/2011

A young farmer called me last year because he’s transitioning his farm to organic production and he heard me on the radio talking about USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Organic Initiative, which provides cost-share to farmers and ranchers during organic transition.

Jeff is a small farmer. He is transitioning to organic to make his farm more sustainable, economically as well as environmentally. Accessing EQIP Organic cost-share funds was an investment, not just in his operation, but in the future of family farms, ranches and rural communities.

When I saw that the House Appropriations Committee passed its fiscal year 2012 agriculture appropriations bill, I was shocked and saddened by the draconian cuts to conservation, extension, research, renewable energy and rural development that would be realized if the bill became law.

The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would be cut $171 million, requiring the government to renege on contracts it has already signed with farmers and ranchers. EQIP would be cut $350 million. Likewise, rural development and renewable energy investments are decimated.

No one can deny that there are times when we must tighten our belts. However, how many farmers like Jeff will we fail if we slash investments that can help build a better future in rural America while leaving subsidies to the Nation’s largest farms virtually untouched.

Isn’t it time we put effective limits on the farm program payments to mega-farms and targeted the resources we have where they are needed most and can make the most difference?

The Center for Rural Affairs was established in 1973 as an unaffiliated nonprofit corporation under IRS code 501(c)3. The Center for Rural Affairs was formed by rural Nebraskans concerned about family farms and rural communities, and we work to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities.

Governor Proposes to Eliminate Appeals Board

Posted: 6/7/2011

Sacramento – In another move to save taxpayer dollars, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has proposed eliminating the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

“Although state revenues have improved because of the underlying strength of California’s business climate, we’re not out of the woods yet – not even close,” Brown said. “Cutbacks in boards, commissions and other state services will continue as we work towards a truly balanced budget.”

The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Appeals Board) is a quasi-judicial agency created to hold hearings on disputed unemployment and disability determinations and tax-liability assessments made by the Employment Development Department.

There are seven members on the Appeals Board: five appointed by the Governor and one each from the Senate Rules Committee and Speaker of the Assembly. The annual salary of board members is $128,109 and the chair receives $132,179 per year. The Appeals Board met 14 times in 2010 and is scheduled to meet 16 times in 2011.

The Governor’s proposal, which will be included in the May Revise of the budget, calls for the Appeals Board to be eliminated by June 30, 2012 and will save up to $1.2 million in salary and travel costs.

Given the state’s fiscal challenges, Governor Brown will continue to closely examine the structure of state government and the utility of state boards and commissions. Earlier this week, the Governor announced a long overdue plan to merge the state’s two personnel agencies – the State Personnel Board (SPB) and the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) – into a single California Department of Human Resources (CalHR). When implemented, this plan will save at least $5.8 million.

Since taking office, Governor Brown has slashed spending in own office by more than 25 percent and ordered state agencies and departments to:

Halt all non-essential state employee travel;

Recover millions of dollars in uncollected salary and travel advances;

Stop spending taxpayer dollars on free giveaway and gift items;

Cut state cell phones and the passenger vehicle fleet in half; and

Freeze hiring across state government.

Independents Are Not Moderates

By: Sarah Lyons
Posted: 6/2/2011

Pew Research Center released a survey last month which was encouragingly called “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” Encouraging, that is, for the growing number of Americans eager to find a way out of the partisanship which has come to dominate public policy making at nearly every level of government.

The study—an 150 page analysis—was quickly digested by reporters eager to get a leg up on the latest political trends just as the Republicans held their first televised Presidential debate in South Carolina which, notably, holds both an early primary and an open primary in which independents are allowed to vote.

“Voters More Complex than Red/Blue” wrote ABC political director Amy Walter. “The Misunderstood Independent,” echoed Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post.

The fifth study of its kind conducted by Pew since 1987, the survey aims to give a broad overview of the character of electorate and sorts Americans into eight cohesive groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation.

Three of the eight classifications that emerged from this year’s study were dedicated to independent voters—up from 2 classifications in the 2005 survey. More importantly, the presence of independents was evident across all five of the remaining classifications including those meant to define Democratic and Republican voters. In those groups, independents comprised 15% - 34% of their total makeup. Independents are everywhere it seems.

Pew acknowledged this in their report stating, “In recent years, the public has become increasingly averse to partisan labels… There has been a sharp rise in the percentage of independents—from 30% in 2005 to 37% currently.”

The survey also encouragingly pointed out that—contrary to much theorizing that independents comprise “the center” of American political life—they remain a diverse lot with strong opinions. “The growing rejection of partisan identification does not imply a trend toward political moderation, however. In fact, the number of people describing their political ideology as moderate has, if anything, been dropping,” wrote Pew, acknowledging that while independents have come to played a central role in the last three national elections—this does not a “center” make.

Pew’s findings amplify our own, discovered not through polling, but through the activity of organizing independents over the course of two decades. Independents are not in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Rather, they want to move beyond the confines of parties altogether.

Perhaps more so than any other group of American voters, independents are attuned to the fact that partisanship is not a behavioral issue—it is a structural one. Since partisanship is produced by the structure of politics, addressing the issue of partisanship meaningfully means changing the political structure. That’s why reforms like open primaries and nonpartisan elections are so popular among independents.

Sarah Lyons is the Director of Communications for IndependentVoting.org, a national association of independent voters and activists.

Early Prisoner Release is Not a Solution for the Safety of Californians

By Senator Doug LaMalfa
Posted: 6/2/2011

“The formula for releasing prisoners and cutting cops is not a smart one.” Attorney General Jerry Brown, Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2009.

I agree, and I trust that now-Governor Brown will stand behinds those words. For without a doubt, the principle responsibility of government is to protect its citizens from those who would do us harm.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that California must somehow reduce its prison population by approximately 33,000 inmates, and the first question becomes: Which ones?

Felons convicted of murder, manslaughter, violent or serious crimes against the person total 63,500. There are 19,000 inmates that are in prison for kidnapping and/or sex-related crimes. Property and theft related offenses account for 30,000 inmates. For drug related crimes, of the 23,000 serving time, 15,000 have been convicted of manufacturing or dealing drugs. Other offenses include arson, felons found in possession of firearms and driving the under influence.

Almost 60 percent of all inmates were on parole or probation at the time they committed their most recent felony. Tens of thousands of inmates currently serving time for other (perhaps non-violent) offenses have violent criminal histories. These numbers belie common assumptions that our prisons are full of petty thieves and drug addicts.

More than 70 percent of felons will commit another crime within three years of their release. On average, fourteen percent of re-offenders will commit 13 felonies before being re-apprehended, and 20 percent of those felonies will be violent.

Let’s take a closer look at just a handful of these “non-violent” offenders.

• In 2003, Rogelio Carlos-Zaragoza and Leonel Carlos-Zaragoza were arrested on charges of kidnapping, rape and gang rape. In a plea bargain the charges were reduced to one misdemeanor count of soliciting a prostitute, the other charges were dropped, and they were sentenced to two years of informal probation. In 2009, the men were again arrested for kidnapping with intent to commit rape; however, the prior case could not be used against them as evidence.

• In July, 2009, a Kerman couple in their 60’s was killed in a home invasion robbery in Fresno County by Jose Alfredo Reyes and three others. The 19-year-old man was in custody for vehicle theft and had been released from the Fresno County jail three days before the killing because of overcrowding.

• Charlie Samuel was classified as a “non-violent” offender due to his most recent conviction for petty theft with a prior. Having been given a pass to temporarily leave a drug rehabilitation center, within hours he abducted, robbed and brutally murdered 17-year-old Lily Burk.

• Anthony Sowell served 15 years in prison for choking and raping a 21-year-old woman, was a registered sex offender who conscientiously checked in with the sheriff’s office. He was not on parole or probation after his release from prison, so agents had no authority to check his home. In 2009, he was accused of rape and felonious assault. When officers went to his home with an arrest warrant, they found the bodies of six other women in various states of decomposition.

Sadly, there have been other similar accounts in the news. I refuse to support efforts that promote early release of convicted felons or to weaken state laws regarding penalties for serious or violent crimes.

There is an obvious alternative to releasing convicted felons: adding to our housing capacity. We have known for years about overcrowding and have pursued avenues to relieve overcrowding while keeping the public safe. In 2007, the Legislature approved Assembly Bill 900, which provided $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for construction to provide 50,000 new jail and prison beds. Four years later, it is reported that eleven jail projects have been approved, but only two have broken ground and none have been finished. What are we waiting for?

Our previous Governor let all Californians down when he and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation purposefully stalled construction of these projects. They had ample financing and direct legislative authority, yet failed to act.

Now is a time for action, not calls for more taxes or platitudes for more programs. We have a new administration and two years to demonstrate progress in meeting the high court’s directive. Let’s not wait to find out what the alternatives might look like.

"Behind that Smile is a Dagger"

Posted: 6/2/2011

In his attempt to balance the budget, Governor Brown decided to cut funding for the Commission on the Status of Women. On Tuesday May 24th, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 4 - State Administration- met to discuss the Governor's proposal to defund the Commission. Thursday May 26th, the Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 met for the same purpose.

A legislative budget subcommittee takes up all budgetary proposals by the governor and approves or denies them. Because the Commission falls under state administration, both the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittee 4 must hear it and all state administrative budget proposals.

The half a million dollar exclusively-tax-payer-funded supposedly nonpartisan Commission on the Status of Women supports an extreme agenda. They are advocates of making it easier for individuals to commit welfare fraud by eliminating current mechanisms intended to stop the misuse and abuse of our welfare system, they support restricting private sector autonomy through regulatory proposals, they believe in undermining our State Constitution with their opposition to Proposition 8, are avid advocates of condom distribution in prisons, and are not only in favor of, but advocates for increased access to abortions, including access for minors.

As Legislative Director of Capitol Resource Institute, I had the privilege and honor to testify, on your behalf, in front of the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees.

I strongly urge you to watch this video, which consists of the entire debate (beginning on 1:30:00) on defunding the Commission on the Status of Women. My testimony in favor of Brown's proposal to cut the Commission starts at 1:45:12. You do not have to wait for all of it to load because you may fast forward to the time listed above.

In our last email, Tim LeFever, Chairman of CRI, wrote, "All too often Capitol Resource Institute is the only organization testifying against legislation that will harm the family or in support of pro-family bills. CRI does not just follow and comment on proposed legislation. CRI is not afraid to take to the microphone and speak for you to those elected to pass or reject these bills." His words ring true. As representatives from the Western Center for Law and Poverty, California National Organization for Women, California Employment Lawyers Association, American Congress of OBGYNs, Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, and the Women's Foundation of California lined up to testify against cutting funding, I turned around to look back only to learn, once again, CRI stood alone.

After Tuesday's adjournment, Mary Wiberg, Executive Director of the Commission, came up to me and said, "You know, you have a beautiful smile, but behind that smile is a dagger!"

I was flabbergasted, speechless, shocked.

As Wiberg shook her finger and scolded me in the same manner a teacher scolds a misbehaving student, I respectfully challenged her. In fact, my entire testimony centered on material and emails disperse by the Commission. Following her lecture, I kindly asked her to tell me what they meant by family planning and if it included abortion, Wiberg conceded they favor state funding of abortion.

According to Wiberg I distorted the Commission's legislative proposals, misinterpreted their mission, and unfairly challenged their nonpartisan status to which I calmly responded, "The information written and dissipated by you and your Commission will try to paint the organization in the most positive light. However, what you may poetically call the 'absence of light' I will bluntly call 'darkness.'"

Both subcommittees approved funding for the Commission. The proposal to fund the Commission heads to both chambers and if approve requires Brown's signature. It is our hope, because Governor Brown proposed the cut, that he will line-item veto funding for this radical government agency.

I share with you this video and this story because it is important for you to know CRI is fighting on your behalf day in and day out! I simply ask you to pray for our state, our governor, our lawmakers, and our families.

Thank you and Lord Bless,

Paulo Sibaja
Director, Legislation & Communications
Matthew 7:7

Assembly Passes Dr. Pan’s Newborn Screening Bill to Save Lives and Prevent Costs

AB 395 Would Add ‘Bubble Boy Disease’ to California’s Newborn Screening Process
Posted: 6/2/2011

SACRAMENTO – The Assembly today approved AB 395, a bill authored by Dr. Richard Pan (D-Natomas) that would add Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), commonly known as “bubble boy disease,” to the list of genetic disorders identified in California’s newborn screening process. Dr. Pan discussed the story of a family in California affected by SCID.

“The roots of the effort to make AB 395 a reality began closer to home,” Dr. Pan said. “Many of you met Anne Marie Mullen when she was in the Capitol. She is a parent and has been a crucial advocate for SCID screening. Anne Marie Mullen watched as her son Shane died from SCID behind a protective barrier in a hospital. She could not hug or even touch Shane as his body was defenseless against disease. Fortunately, Anne Marie Mullen’s other son Kyle was screened and treated for SCID. Today, Kyle’s immune system now easily fights off the type of infections that took the life of his brother Shane, who like most Californian newborns was not screened for SCID. The Mullen family’s story is one of hope, but also of loss: the kind of loss that too many parents have had to endure without screening and treatment for SCID.”

Currently, the state already screens newborns in California for genetic diseases with threatening symptoms that can be prevented if treated soon after birth. AB 395 would simply add a cost-effective screening for SCID to that newborn screening process.

Since August 16, 2010, the cost-effective SCID screening has been used to screen all newborn babies in the state as part of a California Department of Public Health pilot program. The most current data shows the number of babies born in California each year with SCID is 12-14. Early screening can lead to over $1.1 million in health care cost savings for each SCID-diagnosed baby.

In May of 2010, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved the addition of SCID to the then ‘core’ panel of 29 metabolic or functional conditions as a part of her recommendation for a uniform screening panel as the national standard for newborn screening programs in the U.S. AB 395 is sponsored by the March of Dimes.

Dr. Richard Pan is a father, pediatrician, educator, small business owner and first-term Assemblymember. He represents Arden Arcade, Carmichael, the City of Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, the City of Folsom, Granite Bay, North Highlands, McClellan Park, Orangevale, Natomas and portions of the City of Sacramento. Website of Assemblymember Richard Pan: www.asmdc.org/pan

LaMalfa Argues in Favor of Second Amendment Rights

Opposes Measures to Outlaw and Register Most Ammunition
Posted: 6/2/2011

(SACRAMENTO) - Senator Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) spoke in opposition to SB 124 on the Floor of the State Senate today. The bill effectively makes mere possession of many popular calibers of rifle ammunition a new felony. In addition it would outlaw the sale of ammunition via the internet or catalog sales.

“This is a direct assault on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Senator LaMalfa. “What is the use of a gun to protect your family or enjoy shooting and hunting if you cannot own ammunition? The purpose of this bill is to make ammunition difficult and expensive to obtain.”

The bill was introduced after retired Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker won his lawsuit against the State of California for enacting a similar law restricting “handgun ammunition” that was struck down for being unconstitutionally vague. SB 124 was passed with only Democrat votes 22-16.

“This bill will not protect the public or remove “Cop Killer” bullets from criminals but will effectively disarm law abiding citizens. By redefining “handgun ammunition” and “armor piercing ammunition” to include virtually every bullet and shotgun shell ever produced, this legislation could, in effect, bring an end to all hunting, competition and other lawful shooting activities.”

View Senator LaMalfa’s Floor Speech http://cssrc.us/web/4/multimedia.aspx?media=1699 or http://vimeo.com/24534963

Representative Denham Official Statement On High Gas Prices Affect On California’s Tourism Industry & Unemployment Rate

Posted: 6/1/2011

Yosemite National Park is a significant driver of the local tourism industry in Representative Denham’s district. This year, tourists may need to change their plans because of high gas prices. Rep. Denham’s district is also facing unemployment rates as high as 18.4% in Fresno County, 17.2% in Madera County and 18.4% in Stanislaus County. (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Rep. Denham is working in Congress to increase American production of oil and gas in order to ease the burden travelers feel at the pump and create American jobs.

Rep. Denham, member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and House Energy Action Team (HEAT), submitted the following statement at a Natural Resources hearing addressing rising gas prices and the impacts on working families and tourism:

“High gas prices are a big problem for my constituents in the Central Valley of California. As I saw a few weeks ago when I visited Wawona, a local community in my district, gas prices are hovering around $5.00 a gallon. One employee at the station told me that gas prices are now beyond what he can pay to commute. I am worried about the negative consequences high gas prices will have on tourism and the family-owned and operated farming industries in the 19th district, not to mention the hardships rising prices are causing for families every day.

“Central Valley farmers have felt the rising diesel prices and cost of petroleum-based fertilizer as well. My district is home to the most productive agricultural land in the world, and the added burden of high fuel prices will have a detrimental impact on people everywhere.

“At a time of double-digit unemployment in the Valley, we cannot afford to lose more jobs because farmers, paying more for gas, are not able to operate their farms. Crops will be left in the ground and farms will not be able to hire workers.

“The tourism industry, a driver of the local economy in the 19th district, has also been impacted by rising gas prices. Yosemite National Park, which is the most visited National Park in the Nation, is in my district and draws many out-of-state visitors. While speaking with constituents at gas stations around my district the past few weeks, folks told me that they had planned their trip to Yosemite a while ago and had they known gas prices were going to be so high, they would have reconsidered their decision. They mentioned that they may be forced to reconsider their plans for this summer and next year as well.

“High gas prices are posing a real problem for the local mom and pop shops, gateway communities, and the jobs that are dependent on tourism.

“The Federal Government needs to implement an energy policy that promotes the development of our resources here in the United States. Our country will continue to struggle in its economic recovery if we do not eliminate policies that close off oil exploration, natural gas development, and timber harvesting. This is why I joined my Republican colleagues in launching The House Energy Action Team (HEAT) in early May. We are committed to promoting Republican energy policies that will address rising energy prices, create thousands of good jobs and enhance our national security by increasing American production of oil and gas.”

ICYMI: Denham: “Gas Prices Affecting California Tourism, Farming and Families”

Rep. Denham Floor Speech WATCH: http://bit.ly/jzkNxa

Denham: “…It is not just tourism, if you go to one of the farms in my district, diesel gas has gone up. If you are frustrated about paying higher gas prices wait until you start paying higher grocery prices because in California’s great Ag economy the prices are going up. In fact some crops are going to stay in the field this year simply because we cannot afford to have the gas to bring them to market. Parent’s feeling the same thing you know I was going to swim practice over the weekend talking to parents frustrated about just being able to get their kids to go to school every day. You think this bill won’t do something for gas prices? Its common sense to know that if we’ve got a greater supply here in our great nation, gas prices are going to go down; we want American jobs. We want to be self-reliant.”

California Association of Enterprise Zones Warns Governor’s Proposal Will Cost Taxpayers

Posted: 6/1/2011

California Association of Enterprise Zones president Craig Johnson issued the following statement today after the Senate and Assembly budget committees approved Governor Jerry Brown’s misleading attempt to undermine the state’s successful Enterprise Zone program.

“Governor Brown’s recently released May Revise decimates the Enterprise Zone program, retains and strengthens barriers to employment and will end up costing the state money and jobs. The Enterprise Zone program was designed to empower residents currently utilizing taxpayer-funded services by giving them steady employment. By eliminating these targeted hiring incentives, the governor’s proposal eliminates employment opportunities for tens of thousands of Californians already struggling to find a job. Instead, these residents will be forced to continue using our already limited government-assistance programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps.

“In fact, while the governor claims his ‘reforms’ will save the state approximately $93 million, the program currently saves the General Fund more than $120 million annually.

“The California Association of Enterprise Zones applauds the members of the Legislature who today stood up for businesses and employees struggling to survive this prolonged recession. We are extremely disappointed that these alleged reforms passed out of committee but look forward to continue educating the Legislature about the governor’s misguided attempts to undermine the successful Enterprise Zone program.”

CA Retailers Applaud Assembly Appropriations Committee's Steps To End Meth Production

E-Tracking Legislation Will Reduce Crime & Protect Law-Abiding Californians
Posted: 5/19/2011

Sacramento, CA - California Retailers Association (CRA) President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Dombrowski today released the following statement in response to the vote by the Appropriations Committee in the California Assembly in support AB 1280 (Hill-District 19), which would block attempts to purchase more than the legal amount of pseudoephedrine-based medicines (PSE), a critical ingredient in the illegal substance methamphetamine.

"Today's vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in favor of electronic tracking legislation has brought California one step closer to becoming one of many states that have seen a dramatic drop in meth production thanks to common sense legislation that requires all retailers and pharmacies in the state to implement real-time technology that stops illegal sales," said Bill Dombrowski, president and chief executive officer of the California Retailers Association (CRA). "We are also pleased that this solution does not unnecessarily limit consumer access to basic, over-the-counter medicines. In light of today's hearing, we are hopeful that this bill continues to progress through the legislature and receives support from elected leaders seeking a solution to the meth problem that does not punish California's working families."

Obama's Schizophrenic Energy Policy

By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Posted: 5/19/2011

With gasoline prices near $4 a gallon in a sluggish economy, it's no surprise that energy policy is a major theme for the Obama administration. The president put energy policy at the center of his State of the Union speech this year, and on a recent trip to Brazil, energy was his main message.

"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely," the president told Brazilians. "And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

What? Could this really be the same president who's made it as difficult as possible for oil companies to tap our reserves right here at home? How nice of Obama to encourage the creation of jobs in Brazil -- at the same time his anti-energy agenda is displacing them here in the United States.

This isn't the first example of Obama's seemingly schizophrenic approach to energy. At a recent press conference seeking to reassure the public about increasing gas prices, the president vowed that the United States would be "producing more oil and importing less." But actions speak louder than words, and this administration is hiding its opposition to increased energy production behind empty promises and platitudes.

Let's take a look at what his government is actually doing.

Obama's knee-jerk shut-down on deep-water drilling in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the most obvious way he's limited the home team. The blanket ban went on for months, despite the fact that most Americans still supported offshore drilling. A U.S. District judge then rejected the moratorium, but no permits emerged. Last month, that same judge issued an order insisting that the Interior Department process offshore drilling applications in a timelier manner, finding the delays were "increasingly inexcusable." A few permits resulted, but the ban, which technically expired last November, has rightfully come to be known by the name "permitorium."

Oil isn't the only consumer friendly energy source that Obama is trying to keep from Americans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing punitive orders in its multi-front attack against coal. In January, the EPA took the unusual step of revoking a coal-mining permit granted two years before by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Arch Coal in West Virginia - potentially scuttling a $250 million investment and killing 250 jobs.

The oil and natural gas sector provides more than 9.2 million jobs around the country. But Obama is hobbling the industry with delays and bans, while directing government subsidies into artificial, bubble "green jobs." The 2009 economic stimulus package gave renewable energy companies direct grants totaling $16.8 billion, while the fossil fuels were left (as they should be) with only marketplace (nontaxpayer) support.

A job that requires taxpayer funding offers no real improvement to our employment problem. A job supported by the market, on the other hand, is a real contribution.

Witness North Dakota's unemployment rate -- the lowest in the country. The state actually has a worker shortage, and hasn't had a budget shortfall in the last four years. That's the result of its thriving petroleum industry. But Obama ignores what's working, preferring to focus on green mirages that have failed in the past and show little prospect in the future.

To reassure a public concerned about gasoline prices, Obama has raised the political palliative of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But such quick fixes misdirect the debate from the real deal: higher flows of homegrown oil from ongoing development. We have plenty of oil and the good jobs that come with it -- if only the president would end the backdoor war on oil and gas resourceship and let freedom ring.

Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the CEO & Founder of the Institute for Energy Research and author of six books on energy history and public policy.

Beth Gaines Takes Oath of Office

Posted: 5/18/2011

Assemblywoman Beth Gaines Starts Work in State Assembly, Won’t Accept Per Diem, State-issued Car. Photo courtesy of the office of Assemblywoman Beth Gaines.

Sacramento – Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, R-Roseville, today (May 12th) took the oath of office as the new representative for the 4th Assembly District at the State Capitol, pledging to work hard on the issues that matter most to her constituents.

“I was honored today to take the oath of office in Sacramento to represent the people of the 4thAssembly District,” Gaines said. “As their representative, my door will always be open to listen to their ideas and concerns on how we can solve California’s toughest challenges. I look forward to working with my Assembly colleagues to make government more accountable to the people, defend taxpayers from job-killing tax increases and implement policies that help Californians get back to work.”

Gaines said she will remain fully committed to protecting taxpayer’s resources during her tenure in the Assembly.

“I have chosen to voluntarily not accept per diem or use a state-issued car to carry out my responsibilities as your Assemblywoman,” Gaines said. “We as legislators should lead by example and tighten our belts and cut costs where we can to save taxpayer money.”

Even before she was sworn into office, Gaines hit the ground running to represent the 4thDistrict. She sent a letter to Governor Brown urging him to declare a state of emergency in response to the recent breach of the Bear River Canal. The breach, which occurred on April 19, has significantly impacted the region’s agriculture economy, including local mandarin, rice and wine production. Gaines said she will work closely with the Brown Administration to help the region recover from the disaster.

Prior to her election, Gaines served as a successful marketing consultant for her family’s business, Point West Insurance Associates. She also previously worked in sales and marketing for a business supply company and gained management experience at a local branch of a national workforce employment firm. An active member of the community, she has volunteered for numerous charities and groups including the Child Abuse Prevention Council. Gaines was born and raised in Sacramento County, and is the mother of six children. She resides with her family in Roseville.

Gaines fills the vacancy left by the election of Ted Gaines to the State Senate in January. The 4th Assembly District includes the communities of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Cameron Park, Placerville, Auburn, Loomis, South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe City.

RENTERS’ RIGHT TO REDEMPTION BILL MOVES FORWARD

Posted: 5/4/2011

California’s renters are one step closer to gaining a “right to redemption.” A new bill, AB 265, would provide tenants being evicted for nonpayment the right to pay the rent due and specified costs during eviction proceedings in order to “redeem” the tenancy and prevent eviction. Similar rights exist in over a dozen states, but not in California. The bill, AB 265, cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week, despite an intensive lobbying effort by landlord groups.

A right to redemption already exists under California law for property owners (including landlords) who default on mortgage payments. Proponents of the new bill argue that tenants deserve a right to redemption as well.

This would be a significant change in California law. In contrast to many other states, California provides a mere 3-day pay or quit period and no right to redemption after that period expires. Tenants who are just four days late on rent can be thrown out of their homes notwithstanding their willingness to pay rent, even if they have lived there for years. Landlords are under no legal obligation to accept the rent after the 3-day notice expires and can move forward with eviction even if tenants are willing and able to pay the rent and any costs incurred by the landlord.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D – San Francisco), the author of the bill, noted that many states already have a right to redemption for tenants. “Why should tenants in Mississippi, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Washington D.C. have a right to redemption, but not California tenants?” asked Ammiano. “With the second highest rents in the nation, California tenants are suffering in the current economy. Despite their best efforts, some tenants cannot pay the rent on time, but with the help of family, friends or nonprofit rental assistance programs are able to come up with the money soon after it is due. These tenants should be protected from eviction.”

Desiree Zavala, Staff Attorney at Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, testified at the committee hearing about a recent case showing the need for the law. “My client, Jorge, is a former Marine and automotive tech who lived in his rent-controlled apartment for thirteen years with his wife and three children paying rent timely each month.” In February, the family was not able to pay the rent until the 10th of the month, and so advised the landlord. The landlord served a 3-day notice to pay or quit and immediately filed an eviction action, refusing to accept this one-time late payment of rent. The tenants now have an eviction on their record and will likely become homeless. When the judge at trial noted that the landlord’s actions were extremely harsh, the landlord’s lawyer replied, “that is what the law permits.”

Landlord lobbyists turned out in force to oppose the bill. One lobbyist characterized the Los Angeles case as “unfortunate,” but still opposed the bill arguing that it unfairly burdened landlords. Bill proponents maintain that landlords get the rent and reasonable costs if tenants exercise the right to redeem, so there would be no harm to landlords from passage of the bill.

The Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 to move the matter to the full Assembly for a vote. Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) broke with her fellow Democrats on the Committee to oppose the bill.

“The time for a right to redemption for California tenants has arrived,” commented Dean Preston of Tenants Together. “We are pleased with the Judiciary Committee’s vote of confidence on this important bill.”

Governor Brown Announces Appointment

Posted: 4/28/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. today announced the following appointment.

Sue Burr, 57, of Rancho Murieta, has been appointed by the State Board of Education to serve as the executive director of the board. In addition to her responsibilities as executive director, Burr will also advise the Governor on education policy, legislation and budget matters, student college readiness, teacher credentialing, early childhood education issues and school construction. Burr has served as the executive director of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association since 2006, after serving as the association’s governmental relations director from 2003 to 2006. She was the assistant superintendant for business services with the Elk Grove Unified School District from 2000 to 2003. She served as the undersecretary of education under Governor Gray Davis from 1999 to 2000, also serving as interim secretary from March 2000 to August 2000. Burr was the co-director of the California State University Institute for Education Reform from 1995 to 1999, a principal consultant for the Senate Education Committee from 1991 to 1994, and a principal consultant for the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1986 to 1991. Burr currently serves as secretary of the board of directors for EdSource and serves as president of the board of directors for Sacramento Children’s Home.

This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $175,000. Burr is a Democrat.

Lungren: 112th Congress Achievements

From the Office of Congressman Dan Lungren
Posted: 4/19/2011

Congressman Dan Lungren

The 112th Congress has gotten off to one of the fastest, most decisive and effective starts of any Congress in memory. Responding to the mandates and message of the Nov. 2, 2010 election, the majority party has made amazing strides using a one-two-three approach during its first 100 days: focusing on a sound fiscal future by executing the largest non-defense spending cuts in American history; removing regulatory shackles that restrict job growth; identifying and dealing with threats to our national security.

Leading the way right out of the block was Congressman Dan Lungren (R-Gold River, CA), who set the anti-spending tone on the second day in session when he managed the bill to cut 5 percent from Congressional spending accounts, House Leadership offices, Committees and House Operations.

“The best way to lead with spending cuts is to start with ourselves,” he said on Jan. 6, 2011.

But Congressman Lungren was just warming up. While he and colleagues were preparing legislation for spending cuts, he was also working to rid the economy of obstacles to job creation and growth.

On Jan. 10 he introduced H.R. 4, a bill to repeal some onerous paperwork mandates that had been slipped in to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by 111th Congress. Lungren had identified language within section 9006 of the health care bill that would force all businesses, large and small, to issue 1099 forms for transactions of $600 or more. He knew that fulfilling that busy work rule would cripple many small businesses and hamper the economic recovery.

Though he was the only supporter of the bill when he first introduced it in the 111th Congress, things had changed profoundly. The peoples’ mandates of November 2010 were now the mandates of an emboldened 112th Congress. As dozens signed on to the bill, Lungren mused on the change in fortunes. “I knew this had grass roots support from hosting sessions with businesses and chamber groups in our Third District. It’s gratifying to see the support now.” Within a week H.R. 4 had 263 colleagues sign on, including 12 Democrats.

Just a few weeks into the new Congress Lungren and colleagues made good on an election promise to vote to repeal President Obama’s health care reforms. Though that legislation did not win approval in the Senate, Lungren took solace in the fact that President Obama made positive reference to his H.R. 4 bill during his State of the Union message. He was optimistic his bill could at least repeal one of the most punishing aspects of the health care bill, and he was right.

H.R. 4 passed the House in March by a vote of 314-112. In April his bill passed in the Senate 87 -12. President Obama signed H.R. 4 into law on April 14.

“Placement of this tax provision into the government run health care law was ill advised,” Lungren said. “This provision demonstrated that the bill’s authors did not consider the job creators of America and those who lay awake at night trying to figure out how to make payroll.”

The remainder of January and the arrival of February and March were met with unyielding focus on more cost-cutting, national security and removing regulatory obstacles to economic recovery.

After responding to the tragic murders and shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson on Jan. 8, Lungren, Chairman of the House Administration Committee, worked to shore up security for fellow Members. Back on the cost-cutting mission, he sacked a composting program begun by Democrats in the House that didn’t produce the advertised savings and, in fact, was costing half a million dollars to operate.

The security-minded Lungren introduced a bill Jan. 26 to make it a federal crime to point lasers at aircraft. The next day he was named Chairman of the Homeland Security Sub-Committee for Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies. His experience and work on the Judiciary and Homeland Security came in handy as part of the panel that examined the “Extent of Radicalization in American Muslim Community” in March.

Just as Lungren spoke out against an onerous IRS mandate and achieved repeal with H.R. 4, he is ready to wage a fight against H.R. 1161, which could have a devastating effect on California wineries by restricting their ability to make interstate direct-to-consumer sales. Lungren will be in a key position to do that now since he joined Rep. Mike Thompson’s (D-CA) as Co-Chair of the Congressional Wine Caucus. He’s already organized listening sessions with vintners and grape growers who operate the 100 wineries in his district, and more are planned.

Other clear signs of Lungren’s work to defeat unwarranted regulation and create jobs include his bill to keep tax schemes out of internet commerce, and the recognition he received from the National Association of Manufacturers, who honored him for his pro-manufacturing voting record.

Lungren was a steady hand and confidant to House Leadership during the Continuing Resolution and Budget negotiations earlier this month. In addition to all of his other duties he was busy behind the scenes drafting a plan in the event that the government would have had to shut down. As Chairman of the House Administration Committee it was his job to offer guidance and policy for an orderly shut down, a shut status and the eventual start-up. Though no such plan was needed on this occasion, the Lungren plan now exists.

Just this week Lungren stood with his majority in passing Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Bill, which calls for steady spending cuts and reforms over the next decade that will begin to reverse our foreign indebtedness and bring economic sanity and sustainability to the country. It is not an easy or painless path, but it is the responsible thing to do – especially in the face of the news that Standard and Poor’s adjusted its long-term outlook on U.S. Debt to “negative.”

“My constituents understand that we cannot continue to spend money that we do not have,” said Lungren. “I have an obligation to my family, my constituents and the country to do what I can to help put America on a sustained path to prosperity.”

Remebering Our Nation's Heroes

Memorial Day Message From Assemblyman Gaines

This Memorial Day, I had the honor to speak at a remembrance held at Roseville Community Cemetery. I am proud to honor our courageous armed forces who have served and sacrificed so much for our freedom and our security. Our freedom is only possible because of the bravery and commitment of the countless men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. During the ceremony, I also had the opportunity to spend some time with Rich Silva. Rich and his wife, Sherry's son, Army Pvt. Sean A. Silva of Roseville was killed in Iraq at the age of 23 in 2003.

Sean was on patrol in Baghdad, Iraq when his unit was ambushed by individuals using small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. Sean's devastating loss tugged at the hearts of many Roseville residents and I am still touched by his unwavering courage to our country. Memorializing our brave fallen heroes like Sean for their service and sacrifices is just one way we can keep their memories alive and show how much they mean to us, those who cherish the freedom they have given.

Assembly Committee Rejects Gaines' Family Tax Relief and Job Creation Bills Two Gaines measures that would have provided tax relief to millions of Californians were recently defeated by the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee. Assembly Bill 1700 would have repealed most of the costly increased sales and personal income taxes that were increased in February of 2009 and Assembly Bill 2225 would have immediately repealed the 10 percent increase to tax withholding schedules.

"During a time when many hard-working California families are struggling to make ends meet, the Legislature made life harder last year by passing the largest tax increase in state history," Gaines said. "My bills would have given families a break and provided them the financial relief they need."

Assembly Bill 1700 would have saved taxpayers billions of dollars overnight by repealing the following February 2009 budget tax increases that totaled more than $12 billion:

• Personal income tax increase of .25 percent
• Sales tax increase of 1 percent
• Child dependent exemption credit reduction from $309 to $98

Last month, Assembly Democrats also defeated Gaines' measure, Assembly Bill 2603, which would have required state agencies to both streamline and reduce the number of state regulations on the books, and make it easier and less costly to create and retain jobs in California. "I will continue to introduce similar measures that relieve the burden on our taxpayers and make it easier for people to do business here in California," Gaines said. "It is time we start taking real action to alleviate the problems that plague the potential prosperity of our great state."

Assembly Passes Gaines Measure to Cut Bureaucracy, Protect Homeowners Assemblyman Gaines recently announced that the Assembly has passed his legislation that will help cut down on unnecessary government bureaucracy, and give a break to consumers.

The measure, Assembly Bill 2022, would make it easier for California families to see for themselves if their homes are underinsured prior to a catastrophic event.

"By making insurance disclosure forms shorter and easier for homeowners to understand, more Californians will be able to take proactive steps to insure themselves from a potential devastating wildfire, flood or earthquake," Gaines said. "The last thing families need to worry about after a major disaster is learning that they may not have enough insurance to rebuild their homes and get their lives back on track." Sponsored by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner's administrations, the measure will shorten the California Residential Property Insurance Disclosure form.

The California Residential Property Insurance Disclosure was first adopted in 1992 in response to the insurance claims arising from the Oakland Hills Fire, where more than 3,000 homes and apartments were destroyed and many homeowners were underinsured. The disclosure was meant to serve as a way to alert policy holders to the various forms or coverage available and has since become outdated.

"My bill will help families easily understand the disclosure form and make sure that they are adequately covered by their home insurance policies," Gaines said. "Homeowners now have the chance to make sure they are prepared for any insured disasters they may face."

Assemblyman Gaines hosting a town hall near you!

Join Assemblyman Gaines at an upcoming town hall near you! Let your voice be heard about issues important to you. Check back next month for more dates and locations!

Rocklin
July 1
6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Rocklin City Council Chambers 3970 Rocklin Road

Placerville
July 15
6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Chambers 330 Fair Lane

Mobile District Office Hours: Featuring New Outdoor Locations Assemblyman Gaines' staff will continue hosting Mobile Office Hours every other month. Staff will be available at the following locations for Mobile District Office Hours to assist you with any state-related matters. We hope to see you there!

Auburn
6/7/10
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Raley's, 13384 Lincoln Way

Lincoln
7/1/10
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Raley's, 765 South Hwy 65

Placerville
6/14/10
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Bell Tower, Main Street

Cameron Park
7/9/2010
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Bel Air, 3510 Palmer Dr.

Rocklin
6/16/10
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Bell Air, 2341 Sunset Blvd.

Roseville
7/27/10
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Bel Air, 4008 Foothills Blvd.

Staff will also be available at the following chamber offices to help small businesses cut through the red tape of state government. The office hours will be held from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the following locations:

Auburn
7/30/10
Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
601 Lincoln Way, Auburn

Lincoln
6/1810
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
540 F Street, Lincoln

Placerville
7/16/10
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
542 Main Street, Placerville

Rocklin
8/4/10
Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce
3700 Rocklin Road, Rocklin

Roseville
8/6/10
Roseville Chamber of Commerce
650 Douglas Blvd., Roseville

Assembly Passes 49 Fire Bill The Assembly recently passed legislation authored by Assemblyman Gaines to help Placer County recover the costs it spent helping the victims of the recent devastating 49 Fire in Auburn.

Assembly Bill 1766 would provide reimbursement to Placer County for the approximately $200,000 in costs it spent on clean-up, incident response and management, and various administrative costs following the 49 Fire

"Placer County's first responders worked tirelessly to help the victims of the 49 Fire in the immediate aftermath of the devastating fire," Gaines said. "In order to help this community fully recover, we need to give Placer County the relief by recovering these costs which left them financially burdened by the fire."

The August 2009 fire destroyed more than 60 homes and businesses in Auburn. Shortly after the fire, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state-of-emergency in Placer County due to the fire's destructive impact. Overnight, Placer County representatives set up terminals and phone banks for residents whose homes were lost to facilitate the rebuilding effort.

Assembly Bill 1766 now heads to the Senate for committee votes.

Gaines Celebrates California Bike Commute Week by Riding to State Capitol In recognition of California Bike Commute Week, Assemblyman Gaines rode his bicycle to the State Capitol in Sacramento May 21. Gaines, a long-time runner and fitness advocate, is looking to lead by example and promote cycling as a form of commuter travel and recreation. "Cycling is a very popular form of exercise and recreation throughout my district," Gaines said. "While I understand and appreciate the fact that California is 'automobile-centric,' the state should do its part to promote a form of transportation that offers multiple benefits." Gaines' ride spanned roughly 30 miles of the American River Bike Trail beginning at Beal's Point State Recreation Area and some arterial streets in downtown Sacramento leading to the Capitol.

California Bike Commute Week is organized locally by ride share agencies, cities, counties, employers, bicycle advocacy groups, bike shops and others who support bicycle transportation in California's communities.

Gaines Honors Woody's Grill and Bar as 4th District Small Business of the Year Assemblyman Gaines honored Woody's Grill and Bar, a small business leader in the restaurant industry, as "California Small Business of the Year" for the 4th Assembly Districtin Sacramento last month.

"I applaud President Jim Haggart, and his company, Woody's Grill and Bar, for exemplifying the contributions of California's millions of small business owners to the California economy," Gaines said. "Woody's has consistently demonstrated customer service leadership in its industry and has developed a unique concept that customers have loved over the years."

Located in Rocklin, Woody's was opened by Haggart in 1988. With a foundation of proven operating systems in the restaurant industry, Haggart created the new innovative, casual dining restaurant concept known as Woody's Grill and Bar.

Woody's now has two locations operating in Sacramento as well as Rocklin. Haggart's company also owns and operates the River City Queen, Sacramento's premier private charter party boat.

"This award is a tribute to the Woody's team for their winning attitude in tough economic times," Haggart said. "Success today demands innovation, renewed enthusiasm and uncompromising guest service. I'm proud of our team-members for constantly raising the performance bar. Receiving this honor also makes all of us at Woody's extremely grateful for the support we've received from the wonderful people of Rocklin and greater Placer County."

The award was announced at the annual California Small Business Day in Sacramento, where Haggart joined a crowd of 500 business leaders, legislators, corporate partners, and small business dignitaries to celebrate small businesses of the year identified in each of the 80 state legislative districts.

"As a small business owner myself, I am privileged to honor those who make a significant impact on the benefit California's small businesses bring," Gaines said. "I thank Jim Haggart and the small business owners like him for the contributions they make to help our state become a better place."

Assemblyman Gaines presents Jim Haggart, owner of Woody's Grill and Bar, with the 4th District Small Business of the Year Award.

Community Coffees: Meet with Assemblyman Gaines
Assemblyman Gaines will continue to host a series of informal community coffees to get in touch with you directly. Please stop by and say hello, or get help with state-related matters at any of the following locations:

Roseville
6/29/10
9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
Bloom, 1485 Eureka Road

Rocklin
6/9/10
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Woody's Bar & Grill, 6502 Lonetree Blvd.

Lincoln
6/8/10
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Kim's Country Kitchen, 537 G Street

Auburn
6/21/10
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Tsudas, 103 Sacramento Street

Placerville
7/13/109:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Centro Coffee, 385 Main Street

Cameron Park
8/3/10
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Caffe Santoro, 2531 Merrychase Drive

Loomis
8/30/10
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Wild Chicken Coffee, 3640 Taylor Road

Welcome to the gaines gazette
This is a free publication brought to you from The Office of Assemblyman Ted Gaines. This monthly e-newsletter provides updates and information on what is happening in the State Capitol and the 4th Assembly District. I trust you will find it informative and invite you to share it with your friends.

This Issue

• Assembly Passes 49 Fire Bil
• Memorial Day Message From Assemblyman Gaines
• Assembly Committee Rejects Gaines' Family Tax Relief and Job Creation Bills
• Assembly Passes Gaines Measure to Cut Bureaucracy, Protect Homeowners
• Gaines Celebrates California Bike Commute Week by Riding to State Capitol
• Gaines Honors Woody's Grill and Bar as 4th District Small Business of the Year
• Assemblyman Gaines hosting a town hall near you!
• Mobile District Office Hours: Featuring New Outdoor Locations
• Community Coffees: Meet with Assemblyman Gaines

DISTRICT OFFICE
1700 Eureka Road, Suite 160
Roseville, CA 95661
916-774-4430, 916-774-4433 fax

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol, Room 4144
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2004, 916-319-2104 fax

Atheists Misread the Role of Religion in American Society

by Allan C. Brownfeld

Early in July, both the House and Senate passed resolutions directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the words “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance at the new Capitol Visitor Center. Shortly thereafter, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit claiming that taxpayer-funded engravings would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based, Freedom from Religion Foundation is one of many groups that have sought to excise God from our public discourse and our lives. Those who have embarked on such a crusade often speak as if they were embracing the philosophy of the Founding Fathers with respect to the separation of church and state. This, however, is at variance with the historical record.

The fact is that the United States was founded on the concept that our rights, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, come from our “Creator.” The intent of the First Amendment was to make government neutral among religious sects, rather than neutral between religion and non-religion.

What the First Amendment was really saying has been all but forgotten. Judge Thomas Cooley, a leading constitutional scholar of the l9th century, put it this way in his Principles of Constitutional Law:

“By establishment of religion is meant the setting up or recognizing of a state church, or at least the conferring upon one church of special favors and advantages which are denied to others. It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, or that religious worship should never be provided for in cases where a proper recognition of Divine Providence in the workings of government might seem to require it, and where it might be done without drawing invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, organizations or sects. The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law; and so far as that law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and the same extent as formerly.”

The intent of the First Amendment, states Professor Charles Rice in his book, The Supreme Court and Public Prayer, was to make government neutral among religious sects. He writes: “... the public life of the American states was based upon the unapologetic conviction that there is a God who exercises a benevolent providence over the affairs of men. This is not to say that all Americans then recognized God, or that there was agreement on all the details of his attributes. But to those who assert that the First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from recognizing God and praying His aid, it can rightly be said that they will have to find evidence for their claim elsewhere than in the history of the period prior to l787.”

Reference to God has been present in our public life from the beginning. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God in four separate places. The Framers of that instrument announced that the colonies were assuming “the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them.” The Declaration states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those who signed the Declaration proclaimed: “And for the support of this Declaration, with the firm reliance in the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

The Continental Congress opened its sessions, beginning in l774, with prayer delivered by a clergyman. In l776, Congress authorized and appointed regular chaplains. In l778, Congress provided an annual salary for chaplains. In l787, Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory. Article 3 proclaimed: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall ever be encouraged.”

The overwhelming majority of Americans -- more than 90 percent -- consists of believers. They attend church and synagogue and mosque with greater regularity than people in any other Western country. Many of the “elites” who dominate so much public discourse, however, are decidedly secular, if not hostile, to religion.

Indeed, sociologist Peter Berger of Boston University notes that India is the most intensely religious country in the world and Sweden is the least. He declares that America “is a nation of Indians ruled by an elite of Swedes.”

In his book, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion, Yale law professor Stephen Carter argues that over the past 30 years religious devotion has been mistakenly trivialized in public life. And because the U.S. was founded on the concept that our very liberties come from God, the official banning of God removes the foundation on which we base our belief in other people’s rights.

Those extreme sectarians who want to impose their own form of religion on the American society must be resisted. The imposition of an extreme version of secularism is in itself a form of religious “establishment.” The Framers of the Constitution would be opposed to either imposition, as any reading of the historical record clearly shows. Despite the wishes of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center is the perfect spot to have “In God We Trust” engraved.

The Conservative Curmudgeon is copyright ©2009 by
Allan C. Brownfeld and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved. Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. He is associate editor of The Lincoln Review and a contributing editor to such publications as Human Events, The St. Croix Review, and The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

No Child Left Inside

By Bill Schneider

When I was a kid, about all I ever did inside was sleep, eat, and torment my grade school teachers. Every other waking moment was spent outside – not just fishing, hunting, and camping, but doing all the little things I thought up myself, like catching nightcrawlers, investigating anthills, watching toads come out on a rainy night, or making my first backpack from wood scraps, wire and burlap (that was before they invented duct tape).

I never even thought about what was happening, nor did my parents. But during those critical, formative years, I was becoming an outdoor person, a conservationist, a person who'd never enjoy inside toys like TV, computers, or game stations as much as fly rods, bicycles or binoculars, still among my favorite toys.

Kids today aren’t so lucky. Most are under a societal, parental, or self-imposed form of house arrest, with access to a wild world shrunk down to the size of a computer screen. Little wonder they've been called the Screen Generation.

Which is largely why one of every three U.S. kids are overweight and headed toward an adulthood likely dogged by diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. And things are getting worse, says the Institute of Medicine, which blames the problem on a junk food diet, too much TV/computer use, urban and suburban environments that discourage walking, and decreased opportunities for exercise in or out of school.

But for once, there is good news out of Washington: a bill meant to reverse this dire state of affairs. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD) have introduced Senate and House versions of the historic No Child Left Inside Act of 2009 (S. 866 and H.R 2054). If passed, it would mark the first environmental education legislation to pass Congress in more than 25 years, and would begin to get kids back outside.

The bill (currently referred to the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education) authorizes $500 million over five years for states to offer higher-quality environmental education and to support outdoor learning activities. Similar bills died a silent death during the Bush Administration.

Now, though, this bill might have enough political tailwind behind it to advance through the new, blue Congress. The legislation’s primary promoter is the No Child Left Inside Coalition (NCLIC), a massive combine of 1,300 conservation and education nonprofits representing over 50 million people. Adding to that support is a long list of congressional co-sponsors, 16 senators and 72 representatives.

NCLIC describes the Act as a “non-partisan effort,” but that is, regrettably, a push. Out of 88 sponsors, 83 are Democrat. Republicans have, in fact, already panned it as wasteful spending and as a way to spread environmental propaganda through the public school system, setting up another partisan fight in Congress.

But truly, the Act is an outgrowth of a movement started by Richard Louv, author of a best-selling book called Last Child in the Woods, where he describes the dramatic decline in our children’s ability to connect with nature because of what he describes as Nature Deficit Syndrome.

This disorder, he says, “describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses. The disorder can be detected in individuals, families, and communities.” Though research is still scanty, Louv argues that less nature in our children’s lives can lead to higher crime rates, depression, and other urban maladies.

Louv points to still another serious likely result of Nature Deficit Disorder. The long-term impact is fewer grown-up children connected to nature and willing to work to protect it. With the problems we now face, ranging from climate change to disappearing natural resources and wildlife, the No Child Left Inside Act is an important step toward protecting our nation’s future.

“Environmental education must be a part of the formal pre-K-12 education system if we are to fully prepare students to become lifelong stewards of our natural resources and compete in a green economy,” says bill sponsor Congressman Sarbanes.

So take a moment and contact your senator or representative and urge him or her to support the bill’s passage. Yes, it’s extra tax dollars, but a $100 million per year seems like pocket change compared to the billions Congress has devoted to Wall Street bailouts.

As someone put it to me: This is not a conservationist's issue, or a left-leaning environmentalist's issue. This is everyone's issue. It’s a small investment in the health of our children and our planet.

And one last thought. After you send that email to Congress, shut down the computer, and go take the kids for a walk in the park. It’s good medicine!

Montana writer Bill Schneider pens a weekly column called Wild Bill for NewWest.Net, an online magazine where a version of this commentary was originally published. © 2009 www.blueridgepress.com

Assembly Bill 1066 to help California Timber Industry

SACRAMENTO –Assembly Bill 1066, co-authored by Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, passed the Assembly today, (June 4) helping reduce timber industry regulations and save jobs in El Dorado County and statewide. Assembly Bill 1066, authored by Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, extends harvesting permits from three years to ten years, allowing landowners more flexibility to take advantage of stronger markets when they occur.

The timber industry has been significantly effected by ever-increasing government regulations. More than 80 sawmills have closed since 1989. Most recently, Sierra Pacific Industries announced that it would close its mill in Camino, resulting in the layoff of 164 employees. “This is the most important step we could be taking right now to save timber jobs at the Sierra Pacific mill in Camino and throughout the state,” Gaines said. “I will work hard to make certain that this bill succeeds in the Senate and becomes law as quickly as possible so that jobs at Camino can be restored and we can get people back to work.

As a result of the recent closures throughout California, the state now imports 80 percent of wood products consumed here.“I am pleased with this opportunity to create jobs in California forests,” Gaines said. “Families and business owners are really hurting and this bill will give them the flexibility they need to operate more efficiently.”

The bill will also help offset increasing production costs and reduce California’s reliance on imports. “Costly and burdensome permitting requirements have discouraged landowners from managing their timberlands for years,” Gaines said. “Now California can take advantage of an improved permitting process which will encourage the purchase of California-grown products.”

Assemblyman Ted Gaines represents the 4th Assembly District, which includes portions of Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento & Alpine counties.

Another California Employer says “I Quit”

by Senator Sam Aanestad

At least 400 people will file for unemployment benefits this month – guaranteed.

That number is probably a bit higher – but I personally know of at least 400 who will not only file for benefits, they will be forced to start looking for new jobs, courtesy of the State of California.

What do all of these people have in common? They are all former employees of Gregg Industries in El Monte. The Southern California foundry closed in late April after more than sixty years of operation.

Why should a State Senator who represents Northern California care about a small business firm in the heart of Southern California? I care because the same set of circumstances that shut Gregg Industries down in El Monte is shutting down businesses in my district.

I care because this is just one small example of job-killing regulations that are strangling small business owners from one end of the Golden State to the other. It’s why I traveled to Reno, Nevada late last month to speak personally with business owners like Bob Ostendorf, who made the painful decision to shut his El Monte foundry down.

You see, Ostendorf didn’t want to leave California. His business wasn’t failing. That would be understandable. No, in this case, the State of California forced Ostendorf out. They shut him down. They ran him out of town.

Ostendorf and other company officials say they decided to shut the business down due to “repeated, unwarranted and confrontational visits by South Coast Air Quality Management District’s inspectors.”

Why would officials with SCAQMD shut down a facility that provides 400 badly needed jobs? Good question. But Ostendorf and others claim these government bureaucrats have been sending inspectors to the El Monte facility for years to investigate alleged odor complaints, causing disruptions and potentially dangerous volatility in the work environment.

In the past month, Ostendorf claimed the confrontational tactics used by state air quality regulators reached “shocking new levels.” He feared for the safety of his employees. Although he had already made the decision to close his company due to years of harassment, he made another painful decision to close up operations a week early. What about the 400 employees at Gregg Industries? They are now unemployed.

Unfortunately, this story isn’t unique. The job loss forum that I attended in Reno featured a number of very successful business owners who all had one thing in common: All of them were “former” business owners who had been forced out of California by job-killing regulations and overzealous state government regulators.

The owner of a metal finishing industry, METALAST International, still loves California. In fact, he went so far to tell California legislators that “California is a great place to visit.” But David Semas says he’ll never make the mistake of moving his business back to where it started.

“Opening a business like mine would have taken three plus years in California due to the environmental review process,” Semas told legislators. “But in Nevada we pulled permits in three months. Three months later we were open for business.”

California has been bleeding jobs like this for a decade or more. The Employment Development Department reports the state has shed nearly 30% of its manufacturing base – a loss of more than 500,000 jobs. Some, like Gregg Industries, have shut down for good. Others, like American AVK Company, Patmont Motor Werks, and T&D Machine Products have moved to greener pastures like Nevada.

At a time when the state unemployment rate sits at 11.2% and is poised to go even higher, I find these stories troubling. How did we let it get this bad? Better yet, what can we do as legislators to reverse this trend?

In the words of one former California business owner: “California is a state with many special interests and not enough common interests.”

Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) represents the 4th Senate District and serves as Vice-Chair of the Senate Rules Committee.

Aanestad Returns With Hope Following Push for Forestry Reform

North State Senator at Western States Forestry Task Force Hearing

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) returned to California last night with hopes for new job and business opportunities after pushing for changes in philosophy and vision when it comes to the management of California forestlands. The North State Senator attended the Western Legislative Forestry Task Force summit in Washington DC this week, and held meetings with influential national forest policymakers who are part of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. His message was simple:

“My message is that changes and reform are needed when it comes to the management of our precious forestlands in California,” said Senator Aanestad. “The goal of the Western Legislative Forestry Task Force is to promote forest policy decisions that represent the best balance of ecological and economic uses of forest resources.”

Senator Aanestad is convinced that changes in state and national forestry policy are needed following last summer’s devastating wildfires in Northern California that left many forest areas looking like the moon. Nearly 1.5 million acres burned in California last year, the highest total in at least four decades, and the wildfires also claimed the lives of 15 people.

“I wanted our national leaders to understand that the health and welfare of my Northern California constituents suffered greatly last summer, largely due to the mismanagement of our forests,” said Senator Aanestad. “Some of my constituents still haven’t completely recovered after breathing a summer’s worth of bad air tainted by wildfire smoke, and I don’t want to see a repeat of the same problem this summer.”

Senator Aanestad held personal meetings this week with key policymakers from the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of the Interior and Natural Resources and the Environment (NRE). These policymakers have direct influence over and responsibility for the U.S. Forest Service, which manages 193 million acres of National Forest System lands.

“I’m pleased with the reception I received, and I think they understand the challenges we face in Northern California and other western states,” said Senator Aanestad. “I believe these meetings could possibly result in a new economic stimulus program out of Washington DC, targeting our forestlands. This is a stimulus program that could create badly needed forestry jobs in my Senate District, which in turn will lead to better and more responsible management of our national forestlands.”

The mission of the Western Legislative Forestry Task Force is to promote forest policy decisions that will assure the full productivity of western forests, recognizing the public's interest in sustainable forestry, and a balance in ecological and economic use of forest resources.

Aanestad Awards Program Honors North State Students

4th District Schools Encouraged to Participate in Recognition Program

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) is searching for the top academic performers at all Northern California schools in his 4th Senate District as part of his Academic Achievement Awards Program. All public, private and charter schools are eligible to take part in the awards program, which recognizes the top performing students at more than 250 grammar schools, middle schools and high schools in the 12 Northern California counties that comprise the 4th State Senate District.

“These outstanding achievements should not only be recognized publicly, but each student should be commended for outstanding performance,” said Senator Aanestad. “Maintaining a high grade point average or exhibiting leadership skills takes hard work. These students deserve the recognition.”

All schools in Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba Counties are eligible for the Academic Achievement Awards Program.

Each student will be nominated by local administrators during the month of May and the top two performers from each campus are recognized during graduation ceremonies or end-of-school-year functions in June. Each award winning student will receive a Certificate of Recognition as well as a personal letter from Senator Aanestad.

The letter states, in part, “Your academic excellence is something for which you and your family can be very proud. As you know, a solid education is essential to achieving your goals and realizing your dreams. Keep up the good work as you move into the next phase of the educational process.”

“Education is of the utmost importance,” said Senator Aanestad. “Letting students know that we appreciate and reward excellent performance in the classroom is one of the most effective ways to encourage academic excellence.”

Senator Aanestad started the Academic Achievement Awards program more than a decade ago while serving as an Assemblyman in the 3rd Assembly District. The program continues to grow with every passing year.

Schools in the 4th Senate District that wish to join the Academic Achievement Awards program should contact Cheri Fry at Senator Aanestad’s main District Office in Nevada City at (530) 470-1846. Please direct all media requests to Bill Bird in Senator Aanestad’s Capitol Office at (916) 651-4004.

Aanestad Laments Passage of Tax Laden Budget

State Senate Approves $13 Billion in New Taxes-Aanestad Votes No

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) voted against a package of tax hikes in a new State Budget that passed the State Senate early Thursday morning. The North State leader, who led the fight against new taxes through a weekend and mid-week lockdown, fears this tax hike will cost California thousands of jobs.

“More than a half million homes went into foreclosure in California last year alone, and that includes 20,000 homes in my Northern California District,” said Senator Aanestad following the budget vote. “I have unemployment rates in my Senate District that are twice the statewide rate, which is now close to 10%. Unemployed constituents are losing their homes and can’t pay higher tax rates. Raising taxes is akin to kicking them while they’re down.”

The new budget means nearly $13 billion in new taxes for all Californians. It includes a 1% increase in the state sales tax, a quarter-percent surtax on personal income taxes and a near doubling of the Car Tax, or vehicle license fees. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association estimates the new taxes will cost the average family of four an extra $1,100 per year. A recent Board of Equalization study found that a one percent increase in the sales tax rate would cost the state 58,000 jobs.

“Families in my district are struggling to put food on the table,” said Senator Aanestad. “This is no time to burden them with higher tax rates, and I’m disappointed that the Legislature didn’t work harder on behalf of all taxpayers. Instead, we took the easy way out.”

Senator Aanestad predicts the tax-laden budget package, a series of more than 30-bills, will cause mass confusion among constituents. The budget fix calls for a special election this May to approve many of the so-called “reforms,” which include a spending cap and a proposal to extend the tax hikes for another two years. If voters reject the measures, which they have in the past, there will be nothing to stop the Legislature from repeating the same mistake of spending more money than it has.

“Many of the legislators who approved this budget fix tonight will not be in office when these taxes are due to expire, thanks to term limits,” said Senator Aanestad. “What’s to stop a new legislature from making these taxes permanent? What’s to stop them from making new spending permanent?”

Senator Aanestad asked the State Legislature to hold off on approving the package over the weekend, and urged lawmakers to put the budget before a series of public hearings. His plea fell on deaf ears.

“These bills should have been sent to a policy committee where they could have been given a hearing where the public at least had some input,” said Senator Aanestad. “The people of California should have had the right to decide whether they wanted to raise taxes by $13 billion.”

Aanestad Introduces “Patient Safety Act of 2009”

SB 58 Reforms Peer Review Process for California Physicians

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) has introduced new legislation designed to improve patient safety in California by reforming Medical Peer Review -- the process by which a committee of physicians examines the work of a peer and determines whether the physician under review has met accepted standards of care in rendering medical services.

Senator Aanestad introduced SB 58 because he believes the current system does not fully identify doctors who have delivered sub-standard medical care in California.

“I am very concerned that many peer review cases are often reviewed by close colleagues of the physician in question,” said Senator Aanestad. “These colleagues may have a personal relationship with the physician who is under investigation, which in my opinion can create a conflict of interest.”

Senator Aanestad introduced SB 58 following the conclusion of several studies on the medical peer review process, including the 2008 Lumetra Comprehensive Study of Peer Review in California and a congressional investigation on Peer Review.

Aanestad, a licensed Oral Surgeon, who owned and operated his own practice in Grass Valley, says the conclusions cited in both studies could lead to some helpful reforms of the Peer Review process.

The Lumetra study, for example, concluded that “the present peer review system is broken for various reasons and is in need of a major fix, if the process is to truly serve the citizens of California.” Furthermore, the congressional investigation found that “…the legislation governing the federal and state regulatory agencies so inadequate that prompt amendment of laws and regulations to protect the public is imperative.

”Senator Aanestad believes the process of Medical Peer Review can be reformed to a point where fears of professional ties, personal relationships and malpractice lawsuits can be avoided. The North State Senator says he would like to see a Peer Review process that allows for honest, open and forthright examination. The safety of patients, he says, should outweigh all other factors.

“The establishment of an unbiased third party in the investigation process, for example, would solve a lot of the problems currently facing California,” said Senator Aanestad. “I look forward to working with the Medical Board of California, the California Medical Association and all other interested stakeholders to craft a series of reforms we can all accept -- reforms that place patient safety first.”

Aanestad Bill Extends Health Coverage to Uninsurable

SB 57 Aims at “Medically Uninsurable” Program Reform

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) has reintroduced legislation to reform California’s Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP), which provides quality, affordable health coverage for thousands of Californians who are currently uninsurable. MRMIP offers access to health insurance for Californians who cannot buy coverage in the individual health insurance market due to pre-existing medical conditions. SB 57 is similar to SBX1 27, which Senator Aanestad introduced in the First Special Session last year.

Senator Aanestad believes the problem with MRMIP is poor design. It minimizes consumer choice, is very expensive for those currently enrolled and offers inadequate benefits. The waiting list for MRMIP grows almost every year, with up to 1,000 Californians who are unable to obtain coverage under MRMIP because of the program’s enrollment cap. SB 57 proposes a series of reforms that will allow access to needed coverage at an affordable cost.

“There is a significant population of Californians who are medically uninsurable, and this includes a number of small business owners and others who are self-employed,” said Senator Aanestad. “If they suffer from conditions like diabetes, cancer or heart disease, they can’t buy insurance on the open market. Without these reforms, private carriers cannot afford to cover thousands of Californians with high risk health problems.”

In addition, people enrolled under MRMIP now face tremendous out of pocket expenses. Enrollees pay an average of $600 per month for coverage, with benefits limited to $75,000 per year. Senator Aanestad says that the current plan is the most expensive for the lowest benefits in any state high risk program.

“SB 57 allows private insurers like Blue Cross, Kaiser and many others to offer individual packages or plans to people with pre-existing medical conditions,” said Senator Aanestad. “It’s a win-win scenario for both consumers and insurers. My plan means that people get the coverage they need at an affordable price without driving health carriers out of the state. The last thing our state needs is to threaten another California industry.”

SB 57 brings much-needed reform to the private health care market. It expands consumer choice and allows carriers to offer individual, customized healthcare plans to Californians who are currently uninsurable. It also allows for the creation of individual medical accounts similar to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) or 401K plans.

“Private insurance companies have indicated to me that they need this common-sense reform in California law to provide needed coverage,” said Senator Aanestad. “This allows families and children to get the care and coverage they need without hurting California taxpayers.”

The Secret Bailout of J. P. Morgan:

How Insider Trading Looted Bear Stearns and the American Taxpayer
By Ellen Brown, WebofDebt.com

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature's Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.

The mother of all insider trades was pulled off in 1815, when London financier Nathan Rothschild led British investors to believe that the Duke of Wellington had lost to Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. In a matter of hours, British government bond prices plummeted. Rothschild, who had advance information, then swiftly bought up the entire market in government bonds, acquiring a dominant holding in England’s debt for pennies on the pound. Over the course of the nineteenth century, N. M. Rothschild would become the biggest bank in the world, and the five brothers would come to control most of the foreign-loan business of Europe. “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” Rothschild boasted in 1838, “and I care not who writes its laws.” [More]

Lungren Praises Unveiling of American Energy Act

Bill Includes prize for fuel efficient car

Earlier this afternoon, (July 23) Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), along with other House Republicans, gathered on the West Front Steps of the U.S. Capitol to unveil the American Energy Act, a landmark measure to lower gas prices and break our dependence on foreign oil. Beginning today, House Republicans will demand an up-or-down vote on this “all of the above” energy legislation before the Congress adjourns for the month of August.

“Today, House Republicans are taking an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy and putting it into a single bill: H.R. 6656, the American Energy Act. The American Energy Act is a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies. In addition to lowering gas prices, this landmark measure moves America in a direction that is less dependent on foreign oil. “Lungren said.

The energy bill would open offshore regions, sections of the ANWR and oil shale deposits to environmentally safe drilling; trims red tape that impedes the construction of new refineries; give tax incentives and a cash prize for the development and use of alternative energy sources; create a renewable energy trust fund from new drilling revenues, and promote the expansion of safe nuclear power generation. The bill also includes a provision, first introduced by Congressman Lungren, to provide a prize for the first 100 mpg production automobile.

Lungren continued, “Our message to leaders of the Majority and to the American people struggling with record gas prices couldn’t be clearer: House Republicans are demanding an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act before the Democratic Congress adjourns for the month of August.”

“With the pain at the pump showing no signs of letup, the American people are looking for meaningful solutions and demanding their congress do something to ease this burden. I believe we have a solemn responsibility to the American people to meet this energy challenge.” Lungren concluded.

To Govern Well, Return to the Basics

Lee Hamilton Commentary

Lee H. Hamilton
Director, The Center
on Congress

We are at a profoundly unsettled time in our nation’s history, with more than two-thirds of Americans professing in surveys that they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. They are partly reflecting concerns of the moment — the Iraq war, high gas prices, our economic travails — but polling also shows a more deep-seated dismay at the track our political system has taken.

Our politics is fragmented and often mean-spirited. Americans are disappointed by a sense that we lack unity and national purpose. They are disillusioned by a political leadership that has failed to instill these things, and many believe they and their concerns are unrepresented in the halls of power. Faith in our system is ailing.

So while out on the hustings the talk is mostly of policy — what to do about the economy or our standing in the world or our dysfunctional health-care system — there is a more fundamental conversation that ought to be happening, as well: If we are to fix our government so it works competently, effectively, and democratically, how should we go about it? What would it take not only to revive our system, but also our people’s faith in it?

My answer may seem odd, given how badly askew most Americans believe things have gotten: Rather than “fix” our representative government, we need to let it function as designed. We have to return to the basics of our constitutional system, understanding and appreciating its intent and contemplating how this might apply to our vastly changed circumstances today.

It’s worth remembering that the basic operating manual for our government was written some 220 years ago, when we were a much smaller, less complicated, less diverse nation, when communications and events moved much more slowly, and when the sheer breadth and scope of challenges facing the government — while hardly minor — were more manageable. If anything, it’s remarkable that our system continues to work even reasonably well.

Still, things are out of whack. Too much power has come to rest in the president’s hands, and it needs to be spread more widely again — the “balance of power” should be observed in actuality, not merely in seventh-grade civics class. As Alexander Hamilton said at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself against the other.”

We also need to accept that there will inevitably be conflict — our system presupposes it — but that winning political battles is not the highest good; rather, resolving conflict within the confines of the Constitution and according to democratic principles trumps the victory-at-all-costs mentality that has been so prevalent in recent years. Compromise and accommodation, especially in a nation with so many varied interests at play, are the key to policy success and political legitimacy.

This, in turn, means tolerating and encouraging lively debate and thorough deliberation — both in Washington and among a population that seems to be losing the habit of listening to those with whom we disagree. For lawmakers and Americans in general to accept the results of political compromise, they have to feel they’ve been represented in the discussion.

All of which is to say that what our Founders knew, and tried to ensure, was that in governance, the means are more important than the end. The process matters more than the result, in part because a legitimate process is the only way to ensure that those in government collectively focus on the common good, and in part because resolving our policy dilemmas requires a focused and functioning representative government.

Yet even if all these things happen, restoring Americans’ faith in the system will require one other thing: patience. While our government needs to respond to the demands of its citizens, under our system the response is typically slow because it’s meant to be slow.

Our government was not designed to respond to every passing fancy of the people, but rather to give judicious consideration to the nation’s needs. Nor can it solve all of our problems. Our representatives may strive to sort out the hopes, desires, and dreams of the American people, and to come up with the best solutions they can, but the plain fact is that some problems are so difficult and our perspectives so varied that only stalemate is possible.

Our expectations, in other words, need to be high but realistic. We should expect a government that encourages cohesion and political stability, and safeguards individual freedom, prosperity, and peace. If it can do that, then the fact that it can’t resolve every problem we confront will come to seem a tolerable imperfection, rather than the dismaying infirmity that so many Americans believe it to be today.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Field Poll Understates Support for Proposition 8

But Latest Poll Shows Initiative Gaining Among Likely Voters

SACRAMENTO, Christian Newswire/-- A new Field Poll released today (July 18th) shows Proposition 8 - the Marriage Protection ballot initiative - is gaining among likely voters, although the survey continues to significantly understate support for the initiative, officials with the Proposition 8 campaign said today. The poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, compared to the last Field Poll released on May 28.

"While the current Field Poll shows support for Proposition 8 has increased and opposition has dropped since their last survey, the Field Poll continues to be an outlier among publicly published polling on this initiative," said Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager for Proposition 8.

The latest Field Poll reports support for Proposition 8 is at 42% (up two points since May) and opposition at 51% (down from 54%).

"The Field Poll has consistently understated the support of Californians who believe the definition of marriage should be upheld," Schubert said. "During Proposition 22, the Field Poll reported that support for that initiative was approximately 50% in the months leading up to the election, while the measure received more than 61% of votes at the ballot box," Schubert noted. "In May when Field was reporting that support for the initiative was at 40%, the Los Angeles Times survey found support at 54%. Over the years Field has consistently understated support for the initiative by a minimum of 10 percent. The current findings continue to substantially understate the true support for the initiative."

Bush White House Hides True Scope of Federal Deficit

Richard Viguerie

MANASSAS, Va., July 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, regarding the White House projection of a $482 Billion deficit for Fiscal Year 2009:

"The White House has issued figures indicating that President Bush and his enablers in Congress will leave his successor with a budget deficit of $482 Billion for Fiscal Year 2009, which is a record. How's that for a legacy?

"As shocking as this deficit figure is, that's still not the true scope of our budget woes because it excludes $80 Billion in war costs and $227 Billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

"The real budget deficit is therefore $789 Billion.

"Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund-- and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.

"It's way past time for Washington politicians to have their own Sarbanes-Oxley.

"But this is how corrupt Washington has become. Besides the dangerous practice of massive deficit spending, which will saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, the Bush White House and Congress are conspiring to conceal the true nature and scope of the problem.

"This year's budget deficit will actually be $307 Billion worse than the politicians are saying. This fraud on the American people is a conspiracy of silence by both major political parties.

"In stunning hypocrisy, the White House blamed the record budget deficit on the slowing economy and the $150 Billion stimulus package passed earlier this year. "No, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. Stand up and accept the responsibility--and your legacy--for massively expanding government."

NOTE TO EDITORS: Richard A. Viguerie pioneered political direct mail and has been called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation magazine) and one of the "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times). His latest book is Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books), which, Jerome Corsi wrote in WorldNetDaily, is "destined to become a classic of conservative thinking" and "may be the most important conservative book written in the last quarter century."

Pro Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage Debate:

Openly Homosexual Parents Influence Sexuality of Children

SAN DIEGO, Calif., June 30 /Christian Newswire/ -- This November, California voters will be asked to decide by ballot if marriage in their state is to be defined as solely between one man and one woman. No doubt voters in other states will soon face that same decision. With such a radical cultural change hanging in the balance, it's more important than ever that voters be aware of important social-science research that sheds light on the issue.

Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, recently reviewed the available research on homosexually parented children and reports findings relevant to the same-sex marriage debate: Children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves. And some self-described pro-homosexual researchers who uncovered such results attempted to conceal them by declaring that no differences were found.

The findings of Dr. Hansen's review are revealed in a newly released article entitled, "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely To Engage in Homosexuality." This latest piece is the second in a series of articles concerning same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and children. The first article in the series is entitled, "Love Isn't Enough: Five Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children." Both articles, as well as information on the research Dr. Hansen reviewed for her current piece, are available on her website at http://www.drtraycehansen.com.

The Legislature Needs a Spending Limit Nanny

By Jon Coupal

Here's a riddle. What is 150 years old, but has less self control than a toddler?

That's right, it's the California Legislature, whose profligate spending has put our state almost $20 billion in the red. Over and over again it has proven Ronald Reagan's maxim that "government is like an infant -- an insatiable appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."

Fiscal incontinence is nothing new to Sacramento. Back in 1979, Proposition 13 co-author Paul Gann put a reasonable limit on the ballot that tied new spending to inflation and population growth. Voters agreed and the system worked so well that, in 1987, Governor George Deukmejian actually returned money to the taxpayers.

Tellingly, Senate Pro-tem David Roberti, objected, saying, "When you've got it, you spend it." Problem is lawmakers have shown a willingness to spend it even when they don't "got it."

Those who look at spending other people's money as the most delicious of all privileges and those who directly profit from state spending combined in 1990 to make the Gann limit go away. The transportation lobby placed Proposition 111 on the ballot, a gas tax increase, and funded a campaign that promised to virtually solve state transportation problems in perpetuity. Voters were so pleased to learn freeways would be clear of traffic, that they overlooked what was buried in the initiative: A reconfiguration of the Gann limit that made it irrelevant.

In the beginning of this decade, Gray Davis showed how much mischief can be wrought when an irresponsible governor colludes with our spend-happy representatives and there are no constraints. During Davis' tenure he managed to take a surplus that he inherited from the previous administration and turn it into a double digit billion dollar deficit that we continue to pay for today.

Unlike Senators and Assembly Representatives, whose sheer numbers give them some anonymity, Davis had no place to hide and his poor fiscal performance was a major factor in his losing his job to a recall.

Lesson learned? Hardly.

Three years ago, I got together with then-Senator, now Congressman John Campbell to develop a long-term solution to the problem of runaway state spending. Together we crafted a ballot measure, "The Deficit Prevention Act" that would have reestablished spending limits with teeth.

At this time, Governor Schwarzenegger was still showing what seemed to be a sincere willingness to stand up to spending interests and we urged him to adopt our plan. Perhaps due to the advice of his handlers, he rejected it in favor of a much milder proposal that would have allowed significant growth in government, which he made part of a package of four "reform" measures. His reform package was soundly defeated by a confused public trying to sort out four unrelated measures during a special election.

So the state and taxpayers are back to square one, facing a huge deficit that can only be addressed through reduced spending or massive tax increases, or both.

Now Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines and Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill have stepped forward with a constructive proposal that would prevent recurrence of our annual budget dilemma. Although even they admit the plan is not new, its elements could not be more timely.

Villines and Cogdill would restore spending limits based on population growth and inflation. They would also mandate the creation of a significant rainy day fund to protect programs when the economy and state revenues go into decline, and use surpluses to retire state debt, whose repayment currently drains billions annually from the general fund.

Reasonable adults should recognize that establishing strict spending limits combined with a prudent reserve is the best way to protect all Californians, both taxpayers and those who depend on state services. But because this assumes reasonable adult behavior, this plan's chances of actually being adopted by the current Legislature are -- well, about the same as the snowball's.

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.

A Disastrous Budget Process

Lee Hamilton Commentary

Lee H. Hamilton
Director, The Center
on Congress

Congress has slipped into uncharted and dangerous waters this summer. According to the rule books, this should be a time when the federal budget gets scrutinized and pieced together by a broad array of congressional committees and members on the floor. The last time Congress actually played by these rules for all of its spending bills was 14 years ago. This year, it’s barely even trying.

To be sure, both the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution in June, the first time since 2000 that they’ve adopted this formal guide to what lies ahead in an election year. This may be a small sign of growing dedication to the regular budget process, but it is still just a blueprint for spending, not the actual decisions to spend.

Setting the actual appropriations for the year looks much less promising. The Democratic leadership in Congress does not want a repeat of last year’s budget “negotiations,” in which they felt the White House essentially refused to negotiate. Since the White House is once again showing little sign that it is willing to find common ground, the Democratic leadership has signaled that it is comfortable waiting until next year for a new President, and possibly more Democratic seats in the House and Senate.

What seems to be a momentary standoff, though, is in fact a symptom of true political illness. Congress has lost the institutional ability to follow an orderly budget process. As a result it has undermined its own committees, shunted most of its members to the policy sidelines, failed to maintain the constitutional balance of powers, condemned the people who administer federal programs to season after season of uncertainty, and eroded the consensus-building, transparency, and accountability that keep our democracy vital.

Preparing the budget and setting the spending lies at the heart of what Congress does. It is how the Congress puts its stamp on the federal government. So its failure to adhere to effective process weakens it as an institution and weakens the country.

What should the process look like? As it evolved over many decades, it came to involve hearings and consultations by a multitude of committees, which would “authorize” spending by the federal agencies and departments for which they were responsible. Then appropriations subcommittees and the full appropriations committees would take up the task of actually approving the money to be spent, before sending separate bills for the various federal departments to the floor.

It was an orderly process that gave committee members a chance to examine the operations of the federal government and allowed ordinary House and Senate members to debate and amend the appropriations bills at several steps along the way. In other words, it promoted deliberation and the democratic give-and-take essential to a free society.

These days, we’re lucky if there’s more than one bill. The massive omnibus bills that Congress has gotten into the habit of passing wreak havoc with good governance and the democratic process. By shoving the entire budget into a single measure comprising thousands of pages, the leadership makes it virtually impossible for members of Congress to read through — let alone understand — what they’re being asked to vote on; undercuts members’ ability to ask hard questions and offer policy alternatives, represent their constituents, or file amendments; and makes planning ahead nearly impossible for everyone from the people who administer federal heating assistance to local school boards to federal contractors.

So why does Congress bypass transparency and accountability for a secretive and undemocratic form of policy-making bedlam? As the Congressional Quarterly Weekly put it not long ago, “There is a growing realization these days that the most powerful forces in the process — the congressional majority leadership, appropriators in both parties, the outside advocates who focus on spending-bill line items, and the president — actually stand to benefit.”

The leadership likes it, of course, because it focuses power in their hands; same with members of the appropriations committees, who find it easier to slip language into the bill behind closed doors. Lobbyists much prefer to focus on just a handful of members out of the limelight. And when the president needs to negotiate with only a few people on a single measure, his power is much greater than if his representatives are trying to juggle a multiplicity of members and bills. The only losers seem to be ordinary members of Congress and the American people.

There is a simple solution to all this. It’s called “the regular order.” For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging consensus among diverse regions and constituencies.

If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate in these challenging times, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Congress has slipped into dangerous waters this summer. According to the rule books, this should be when the federal budget gets pieced together by a broad array of congressional committees and members on the floor. The last time Congress played by these rules for all of its spending bills was 14 years ago. This year, it’s barely even trying.

What we have these days on Capitol Hill is a disastrous budget process. This matters, because preparing the budget and setting federal spending lies at the heart of what Congress does. It is how the Congress puts its stamp on the federal government. So its failure to adhere to effective process weakens it as an institution and weakens the country.

For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging a national consensus. If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

ProtectMarriage.com Urges Supreme Court to Reject Effort Denying Voters Right to Vote on Marriage Amendment

SACRAMENTO, June 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com today sent a letter to the California Supreme Court urging the Court to reject a last minute filing by backers of gay marriage to prohibit voters from enacting the California Marriage Amendment this November. The amendment restores the vote of 61% of the electorate who previously approved Proposition 22 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The organization "Equality California" with support for liberal groups including the ACLU filed a petition late Friday demanding that the justices prohibit voters from considering the proposed amendment.

"Backers of gay marriage have never secured anything close to a majority of Californians to support their position," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. "They have had to rely on activist judges to do their bidding because voters do not support them. However, the People's right to vote on critical measures like this is of paramount importance and we believe the Supreme Court will rightfully allow voters to have their say."

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment, said the Equality California lawsuit does not hold any merit and consists of flimsy legal arguments that will not hold up in court.

The suit contends said that the Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment, cannot be legally accomplished by a voter initiative, but instead must be passed through a different process for constitutional "revisions," which would stop the initiative all together.

A similar request to block such an initiative in Oregon was denied by that state's Court of Appeal as it was found not to be a revision under almost identical provisions to the California state constitution.

"We are confident that the California courts will throw this lawsuit in the round file so voters can reaffirm the decision they made several years ago when 61% of the electorate voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," said Prentice.

Senator John McCain Endorses California Protection of Marriage Initiative

SACRAMENTO, June 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- United States Senator John McCain today announced his support for the California Protection of Marriage initiative on the state's November ballot, leaders of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign announced. In an email received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, Senator McCain issued the following statement:

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

Commenting on the endorsement of Senator McCain, ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice said, "We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain. As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain's position will be an important factor to millions of Californians. Senator McCain has articulated a key feature of the initiative campaign, which is that voters and not judges should be determining this issue. Over 61% of the electorate has already voted to reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman. Four activist judges on the California Supreme Court in San Francisco wrongly substituted their own narrow views for the opinion of over 4 million California voters. Fortunately, voters will be able to correct that mistake in November and restore the definition of marriage to our constitution. We look forward to working with Senator McCain and many other elected leaders to accomplish this. We hope that U.S Senator Barack Obama will join Senator McCain in endorsing the initiative, and would welcome his support as well."

Opponents of Marriage Amendment File Suit to Remove it From the November Ballot, Silencing the Voters

SACRAMENTO, June 20 /Christian Newswire/ -- Opponents of the California Marriage Amendment, which would restore marriage in California as only a man and a woman, filed a petition today asking the California Supreme Court to remove the proposed initiative from the November ballot, thereby silencing voters on this important issue.

Based on the recent California Supreme Court's ruling that led to the issuance of marriage licenses to same- sex partners this week, today's lawsuit contends that restoring the definition of marriage in the State Constitution cannot be legally accomplished by voter initiative, but rather must be passed through a different process for constitutional "revisions

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment, said the lawsuit seeking to remove the initiative from the ballot is based on "flimsy" legal arguments and will likely be rejected by the court.

"This is an act of desperation," said Ron Prentice chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment. "The voters deserve a chance to vote on this important issue, but our extremist opponents want to silence the voters. This will only energize public support for overturning the court's decision."

Judge Alex Kozinski Must Resign

California judge overseeing obscenity trial admits his website contains explicit material

WASHINGTON, June 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has admitted to the Los Angeles Times that a website he maintains contains sexually explicit pictures and videos. His severe lack of moral judgment demands that he either resign or, if he refuses, that Congress begin impeachment proceedings.

"Judge Kozinski's admission to maintaining a website with explicit and degrading pictures is enough to determine that he is morally incapable of providing objective judgment, especially over obscenity cases. Judge Kozinski must resign," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "If he refuses, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against him. And the Department of Justice should immediately conduct an investigation against him."

Judge Kozinski is presiding over an obscenity trial that was to begin today against Ira Isaacs for distributing sexual fetish videos, featuring acts of bestiality and defecation. Yesterday the prosecutor requested a delay to look into "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a ... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here." Kozinski granted a 48-hour stay.

According to the Times, Kozinski's website includes images of masturbation, public sex, a transsexual strip tease, photos of women's private areas in tight clothing, naked women painted and posed as cows, a half-dressed man with a sexually-aroused farm animal, and a man performing fellatio on himself.

Several years ago, Judge Kozinski led an effort to remove filters that deny access to pornography from appeals court computers. He told the Times that he began saving sexually explicit materials on his website years ago and would pass items he found interesting or funny to others.

"For Judge Kozinski to remain not only as a judge but as the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would make a mockery of justice and of our justice system. If he has any respect for the judiciary, for the law, and for America he would remove himself from this honorable position," stated Wendy Wright.

Concerned Women for America opposes pornography through community activism, lobbying for legislation, regulations against obscenity and pressing for vigorous prosecution of obscenity laws. Judges who follow and uphold the laws in the courtroom and their personal lives are fundamental to a just and decent society.

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

Black robes trash traditional marriage

Now California statutes limiting institution to opposite-sex couples 'unconstitutional'
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The California Supreme Court today trashed society's traditional institution of marriage, opening it up for same-sex duos because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

In a 4-3 decision replete with concurring and dissenting opinions filed by individual members of the court, the majority opinion determined state laws specifying marriage as being between a man and a woman were unconstitutional

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples," the court opined. "Permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights."

Second, the court said, "Retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children...

"Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples," the court said. "Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens'…"

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, accused the court of usurping the role of the legislature.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the absurd notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off," he said.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable," he said. "The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies."

"The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined," said Karen England, of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is certainly disappointing that the court, in declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, has shown an outrageous lack of respect for a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said legal counsel Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, one of the organizations that worked on the case.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said, "With the passage of Proposition 22, the voters of California agreed that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.' PERIOD. The court's decision today is further proof that some activist judges value their own beliefs over the will of the people."

"This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom," said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which also worked on the case.

He cited a dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, which concluded, "In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error."

Another individual opinion called the majority opinion "legal jujitsu."

The ruling disposed of several individual challenges to California's marriage statutes that arose after the state's voters, by a margin of 4.6 million to 2.9 million, adopted a law that states California would recognize only marriages involving one man and one woman.

That same plan now is being proposed for a constitutional amendment by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, a broad-based coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals. The organization already has collected about 1.2 million signatures to put the issue on the ballot this fall, although those still must be verified.

That's now needed, the campaign says, because even though voters overwhelmingly passed the Proposition 22 law, that was a "regular statute" within the outlines of the California Family Code. But politicians and judges have been bypassing it, and chipping away at it, to ignore the will of the voters, the campaign says.

For example: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples and court decisions have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by affirming legislative plans to give "domestic partners" the full legal status of married spou

The battle dates to 1996, when then-Assemblyman William J. "Pete" Knight introduced legislation to protect traditional marriage. It failed by one vote in the state Senate.

He later led the Protection of Marriage Coalition to gather more than 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Prop 22 for the ballot, an effort that was approved by 61.4 percent of the voters in 2000.

It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

State lawmakers, however, immediately began passing laws to give same-sex "domestic partners" the legal status of married spouses in various sections of the state law, and outgoing Gov. Gray Davis in one of his final acts, signed into a law a plan conferring the full legal status of married spouses on homosexual "domestic partners."

A judge who heard the resulting legal challenge found that Proposition 22 limits only the word "marriage," not the legal status of marriage.

Then came Newsom's San Francisco action, openly defying Proposition 22 by issuing 4,000 "licenses" to same-sex duos. The state Supreme Court stopped that, finding Newsom didn't have the authority to rewrite state law, but left the door open for new legal challenges, which prompted the cases decided today.

And the dispute has continued. Just weeks ago WND reported that a new San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society was being advanced in the California State Senate.

SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gained approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This bill functionally abolishes marriage," warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "Why get married, since you can get all the 'goodies' of marriage without the commitment of marriage?"

He also said the decision will galvanize the people of California to participate in the amendment campaign. "The people will have the last word," he told WND.

The proposal, according to Concerned Women for America of California, "extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…"

"The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws," the group said. "Migden asserts that SB 1066 is 'a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'"

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's School of Law, was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage before the high court.

Staver suggested the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other," he said. "While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society's interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children."

Supporters of the constitutional amendment plan say that is the only way to stop politicians and courts from "re-defining marriage." They note that about two dozen other states already have added such provisions to their constitutions. In fact, of 28 states where such a vote has come before voters, it had been approved 27 times.

Staver told WND earlier the state has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage, which predates government, in order to encourage responsible procreation among opposite-sex couples.

"Among opposite-sex couples, procreation is sometimes planned and sometimes unplanned. Children are thus the natural consequence of opposite-sex relationships. Providing for the next generation is essential to any society, but providing an environment that encourages stable relationships for the well-being of children is critically important," he said. "Marriage thus provides encouragement for opposite-sex couples to unite for the sake of children. Same-sex couples do not need marriage to encourage their unions, because such relationships never produce unplanned children."

When Newsom launched his activism for same-sex marriages, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Campaign for Children and Families and its executive director Randy Thomasson.

The California Supreme Court eventually ruled 7-0 that the mayor lacked the authority to issue licenses to same-sex couples. But the court voted only 5-2 to overturn the licenses that already had been issued. Then several of those duos, as well as the city and county of San Francisco, filed a series of lawsuits challenging the state's marriage laws.

Props Fail to Remedy Eminent Domain and Threaten City and County Rent Control

(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 6, 2008--The California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance ("CCEEB"), a coalition of business, labor and public leaders agreed today to oppose Proposition 98, a statewide ballot proposition that aims to prohibit rent control. CCEEB also voted to take no position on Proposition 99 because existing laws already provide property owners with the protections offered in the proposition.

"We agree that eminent domain concerns exist but California's system of protections largely provides adequate due process and fair evaluations but Prop 98 goes overboard and puts at risk essential public works. Our board of directors concluded that this just isn't the way to address the issue," said Gerald Secundy, CCEEB president

In a related action, CCEEB determined that Prop 99 is a strategic attempt to counter Prop 98 and does not provide any new significant eminent domain reforms or any required changes to existing law. As a result, CCEEB declined to adopt a position on the initiative.

CCEEB strives to advance collaborative strategies for a sound economy and a healthy environment. Founded in 1973 by Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, CCEEB is the only statewide private, nonprofit, nonpartisan association to represent the interests of both industry and labor. CCEEB members include dozens of "Fortune-500" companies as well as leading state and local labor unions.

Kinney High of Rancho to Receive $679,860 for Safe School Routes

Senator Dave Cox today announced the awarding of $679,860 to Kinney High School of Rancho Cordova. The grant money is to be used to make school routes safer for students.

“Kinney High School is deserving of this state funding to make their community’s streets and sidewalks safer for the students they serve,” said Senator Dave Cox. “I applaud the school board, Kinney High administrators, teachers and parents for their efforts.”

Under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is a program aimed to increase the number of children who walk or bike to school. SR2S funds projects that remove barriers and promote walking and bicycling through education/encouragement programs aimed at children, parents, and the community.

Kinney High School was one of 139 applications for approximately $52 million in available funding selected from a competitive pool of almost 500 applicants statewide.

“With safe school routes, parents will have the peace of mind that their children can get to school safely,” Cox added.

Senator Dave Cox represents the residents of the First Senate District, which includes all or portions of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Placer, Plumas, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Sacramento and Sierra Counties. Contact his office at 916-651-4001, or via email at senator.cox@sen.ca.gov.

Steroids Foul Foods Children Love Best - Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, Milk

by Philip Shabecoff

The news has been filled with stories about the surreptitious use of performance enhancing drugs by many of our sports heroes. Superstars like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones reportedly have used steroids to give them a competitive edge. Others, such as New York Yankee pitcher Andy Pettitte have had growth hormones injected into their bodies. Much of the public has been saddened and dismayed by these stories. These gifted athletes are supposed to be role models for our children and youth.

What the news reports have not told us is that all of us, unless we are vegans or observe a strictly organic diet, are unwittingly taking these or similar potentially hazardous substances regularly into our bodies. The same kinds of hormones outlawed for athletes are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for use in the cattle that supplies our meat. We are all Barry Bonds-except we are not taking these substances voluntarily and we are not rewarded with millions of dollars a year for subjecting ourselves to the attendant risks.

We ought to worry about what these substances do to us-and especially to our children. The kinds of foods our children love best, hamburgers, chicken nuggets, milk, are often filled with these kinds of substances. Beef, chicken, milk, and other foods we consume daily are laden with anabolic steroids and growth hormones, not to mention antibiotics and arsenic, all to increase production and profits for agribusiness.

An estimated 80 percent of our beef cattle are treated with anabolic steroid hormones, either in their feed or, most often, with a controlled released implant in their ears. (The ears of slaughtered cattle are then often sold for use in animal feed, pet food and in formulating cosmetics.) The hormones increase the weight of the cattle sufficiently to give the cattle growers an additional profit of $40 per head after deducting the price of the additives.

Then there is milk. Industrial dairy farms keep their cows perpetually pregnant with artificial insemination, a process that produces sky-high levels of hormones including progesterone, estrogen and a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor or IGF-1. The levels of IGF-1 in dairy cattle are raised still more by injection. The process, according to Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University, "ignites the fire that increases the likelihood of cancer."

The FDA also approves of the use of arsenic and antibiotics in the diets of chickens, hogs and other animals. Levels of these chemicals can build up in the small bodies of children. "Americans who consume chicken, such as my son who appeared to exist largely on chicken wings during high school, may be exposed to arsenic at levels far higher than recommended," said Ellen Silbergeld a toxicologist at the John Hopkins school of public health.

Agribusiness insists that hormone-treated food is safe. The dairy industry, for example, vehemently disputes that cows treated with IGF-1 present elevated health risks. It contends there is no proof that it does pose a risk, and that "milk is milk" with or without the substance.

The industry is right that there is usually no proof-it is rarely possible to prove conclusively that a given substance causes a specific illness in a specific human. But there is a substantial body of evidence that the substances put into our food can and do have serious health effects.

Studies have shown that consumption of hormones by a pregnant woman may distort her baby's sexual, intellectual and behavioral development. Hormone residues have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which puts them at a greater risk of developing breast cancer and other forms of cancer. Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester found that the consumption of beef by pregnant mothers could affect their son's sperm quality, even causing infertility. Steroids have also been linked to prostate cancer in some studies.

Americans enjoy an ample supply of relatively cheap food. There is no reason this cannot continue without subjecting us to potentially dangerous anabolic steroids and other hazardous substances on our dinner plates. These substances are used so that agribusiness can grow its livestock in mammoth factory farms where hundreds of thousands of animals are packed together in unsanitary conditions or produce extra pounds of meat or milk so that its profits can increase. Agribusiness is able to do so because government, which is supposed to look after the health of its citizens, has instead given industry a free rein to do as it will.

We can have a clean and naturally raised food supply. It is time for a whole new ballgame.

© 2007 Blue Ridge Press

Philip Shabecoff is a journalist and author. His latest book, Poisoned Profits, co-authored with his wife, will be published by Random House in August 2008.

Clarence Thomas' My Grandfatehr's Son -

Story of an Extraordinary American Life
The Conservative Curmudgeon column by Allan C. Brownfeld

The life of Clarence Thomas, as set forth in his memoir, MY GRANDFATHER'S SON, is destined to become an American classic, not dissimilar to the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.

This book, which chronicles an extraordinary life, describes the education of an inquiring mind seeking to make sense of the racial politics and ideological divisions that confronted him during the turbulent l960s and l970s.

In an era when "Identity" politics dictated a particular political, economic, and social stance for black Americans, those individuals who persisted in thinking for themselves and following an often lonely path to discover their own view of truth were frequently isolated and often bitterly attacked.

Clarence Thomas was born in rural Georgia in l948, and was abandoned by his father. His mother was left to raise him and his brother and sister on the $10 dollars a week she earned as a maid. At the age of seven, Thomas and his six-year-old brother were sent to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, and her stepmother in their Savannah home. This was a move that would change Thomas' life.

His grandfather, whom he called "Daddy," had a strict work ethic. He owned his own fuel-oil business and he immediately subjected the two boys to a regime of sacrifice and hard work. His response to the poverty and segregation of black Savannah was the American ethic of self-help, faith in God, delayed gratification, and individual initiative. Thomas writes: "In every way that counts, I am my grandfather's son."

From Catholic elementary and high school, on to a seminary, and later to the College of the Holy Cross and the Yale Law School, Thomas went through many political transformations ? from altar boy to seminary student to campus radical and racial militant ? before coming back to the values his grandfather taught him and eventually arriving at his own understanding of society.

Slowly, Thomas came to oppose race-based affirmative action programs because such programs increase dependence on government: "That would amount to a new kind of enslavement, one which ultimately relied on the generosity ? and the ever-changing self-interests ? of politicians and activists. It seemed to me that the dependency it fostered might ultimately prove as diabolical as segregation, permanently condemning poor people to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder by cannibalizing the values without which they had no long-term hope of improving their lot... I began to suspect that Daddy had been right all along: the only hope I had of changing the world was to change myself first."

Thomas remembers that the more he read, the less inclined he was to conform to the cultural standards that blacks imposed on themselves and on one another. "Merely because I was black, it seemed, I was supposed to listen to Hugh Masekala instead of Carole King, just as I was expected to be a radical, not a conservative. I no longer cared to play that game... The black people I knew came from different places and backgrounds... yet the color of our skin was supposed to make us identical in spite of our differences. I didn't buy it. Of course we had all experienced racism in one way or another, but did that mean we had to think alike?

After law school, Thomas went to work for John Danforth, who was serving as Missouri's attorney general. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington. Thomas later worked at the U. S. Department of Education and as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before being named a federal judge

Along the way, he discovered the writings of leading black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. He reports that, "One of the first people in Washington who talked sense to me about race was Jay Parker, the editor of a new magazine called THE LINCOLN REVIEW... Jay was friendly, energetic, unflappable, and unapologetically conservative. I'd never known a black person who called himself a conservative, and it surprised me that we rarely disagreed about anything of substance."

Thomas provides this assessment of the black conservatives who had influenced his thinking and became his friends: "They were all smart, courageous, independent-minded men who came from modest backgrounds. Politics meant nothing to them. All they cared about was truthfully describing urgent social problems, then finding ways to solve them. Unhampered by partisan allegiances, they could speak their minds with honesty and clarity... I'll never forget the time when Jay reminded me that freedom came from God, not Ronald Reagan. For Jay politics was a part of life, not a way of life. It was an attitude I sought to emulate."

There is much in this book about Clarence Thomas's personal life as well as a lengthy description of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. In Washington, he writes, he was being pursued "not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flow ing sanctimony. For all the fear I'd known as a boy in Savannah, this was the first time I'd found myself at the mercy of people who would do whatever they could to hurt me and institutions that once prided themselves on bringing segregation and its abuses to an end were aiding and abetting in the assault."

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the assault upon him and triumphed over his adversaries. He has lived the American Dream, and this book is an eloquent testimony to both that life and that dream.

THE CONSERVATIVE CURMUDGEON is copyright © 2008 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use this column if credit is given to the author and the Foundation.

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

In l980, Allan Brownfeld served with Clarence Thomas and Jay Parker as a member of President Ronald Reagan's transition team at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and wrote that group's report of policy recommendations.

Nina May

New Documentary on Ronald Reagan in Production

Nina May, has been writing and producing a daily commentary for radio and the internet for over 10 years. She produced and hosted, “American Renaissance,” founded Renaissance Women Productions, and is currently producing, directing, writing and editing films.

The most recent is an award-winning independent documentary film on the history of the civil rights movement in America, “Emancipation Revelation Revolution”.  She was with Salem Communications (WAVA radio) for 3 years, writing and hosting a daily political show (website was oneplace.com). 

Currently, Nina is producing a documentary on former president Ronald Reagan.  She continues to write political and social commentaries which can be found on RWNetwork.net and Townhall.com.

Phony Homeowners Group Fronts Phony Ballot Measure

By Jon Coupal

The story is told that to fool Catherine II, Russian minister Grigori Potemkin constructed hollow facades of villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River. When the monarch and her entourage sailed by, they were impressed with the prosperity in her new territories.

Backers of a phony property rights measure, Proposition 99 on the June ballot, have borrowed a page or two from Potemkin's book.

Last year, taxpayers, farmers and small business owners began qualifying a measure for the ballot -- Proposition 98 -- that would bar cities and counties from seizing private property from unwilling sellers so it can be turned over to favored developers for strip malls and other for profit projects.

To protect local officials' power over private property, the League of California Cities drafted their own initiative, Proposition 99 -- which is as fake as a three dollar bill. Although designed to be cosmetically attractive, a closer examination reveals that it is just another hollow shell. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office states Proposition 99, "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices." In other words, Proposition 99 does nothing. Well, it does one thing. If it passes with more votes than Proposition 98, which is the "real deal" for property owners, it invalidates all the protections contained in that measure

Here is why the League of California Cities and their developer allies should be sending a royalty check to Potemkin for using his ideas. Not only have they constructed an initiative that has nothing of substance on the inside, but to further confuse the voters, they are featuring its support by the League of California Homeowners, Inc. While this attractive name may cause many voters to think this is a broad-based statewide homeowners organization, it is actually a corporation whose primary function is to act as a contractor referral service.

In fact, this organization is essentially a one-man-band headed by its president, Upland City Councilman Ken Willis. Apparently, Willis values his power to take property in his community because he is willing to violate his organization's bylaws to back the fake Proposition 99, and oppose the genuine Proposition 98. The bylaws of the League of California Homeowners clearly state, "...the Corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or for or against any cause or measure being submitted to the people for a vote."

However, the website for the deceptive Proposition 99 lists the League of California Homeowners on the top of the list of endorsers. The same website shows this "homeowners group" as an opponent of Proposition 98, which would actually curtail abuses of governments' right to take private property.

What we have here is a contractor referral service with a misleading title being used to screen a phony property rights initiative. Potemkin would be proud. Property owners will get more protection from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" than they will from the League of California Cities, the League of California Homeowners and their fraudulent Proposition 99.

Proposition 98, proudly sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, will allow governments to take property only for genuine public purposes, like schools and roads and will bar the seizure of property so that private developers can make a profit.

With the passage of Proposition 98 in June, property owners will get real protection, not just happy talk.

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. www.hjta.org

Corn Can't Save Us:

Debunking the Biofuel Myth, By David Pimentel

Dwindling foreign oil, rising prices at the gas pump, and hype from politically well-connected U.S. agribusiness have combined to create a frenzied rush to convert food grains into ethanol fuel. The move is badly conceived and ill advised. Corporate spin and pork barrel legislation aside, here, by the numbers, are the scientific reasons why corn won't provide our energy needs:

First, using corn or any other biomass for ethanol requires huge regions of fertile land, plus massive amounts of water and sunlight to maximize crop production. All green plants in the U.S. - including all crops, forests, and grasslands, combined - collect about 32 quads (32 x 1015 BTU) of sunlight energy per year. Meanwhile, the American population currently burns more than 3 times that amount of energy annually as fossil fuels! There isn't even close to enough biomass in America to supply our biofuel needs.

Second, biofuel enthusiasts - including agribusiness lobbyists and PR firms - suggest that ethanol produced from corn and cellulosic biomass (like grasses), could replace much of the oil used in the United States. But consider that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, but that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption. If the entire national corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would replace a mere 7% of U.S. oil consumption - far from making the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Third, ethanol production is energy intensive: Cornell University's up-to-date analysis of the 14 energy inputs that go into corn production, plus the nine energy inputs invested in ethanol fermentation and distillation, confirms that more than 40 percent of the energy contained in one gallon of corn ethanol is expended to produce it. That expended energy to make ethanol comes mostly from highly valuable oil and natural gas.

Some investigators conveniently omit several of these energy inputs required in corn production and processing, such as energy for farm labor, farm machinery, energy production of hybrid corn-seed, irrigation, and processing equipment. Omitting energy inputs wrongly suggests that a corn-ethanol production system offers a more positive energy return. In reality, corn is an inefficient choice from an energy-cost and transport standpoint.

Cellulosic ethanol is also touted loudly as a replacement for corn ethanol. Unfortunately, cellulose biomass production requires major energy inputs to release minimal amounts of tightly bound starches and sugars needed to make fuel. About 70 percent more energy (coming again from precious oil and gas) is required to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced. That makes cellulosic ethanol an even poorer performer than corn ethanol.

Also, the production of corn ethanol is highly subsidized: state and federal governments pay out more than $6 billion per year in subsidies, according to a 2006 report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Geneva, Switzerland. These subsidies for a gallon of ethanol are more than 60 times those for a gallon of gasoline.

Moreover, the environmental impacts of corn ethanol production are serious and diverse. These include severe soil erosion of valuable food cropland, plus the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that pollute rivers. Fermenting corn to make one gallon of ethanol produces 12 gallons of noxious sewage effluent. Making ethanol requires the use of fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to global warming.

Finally, using food crops, such as corn, to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60 percent of the people on earth are currently malnourished according to the World Health Organization. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water, and energy vital for human food production.

The use of corn for ethanol has led to major increases in the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk - a boon to agribusiness and bane to consumers. Director General of the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization Jacques Diouf reports that using 22 pounds of corn to produce one gallon of ethanol is already causing food shortages for the world's poor.

One last set of statistics: The global population stands at 6.6 billion: a quarter-million mouths to feed are added daily. Energy experts report that peak oil production has already been reached. As cheap oil supplies decline, fuel prices will rise, causing food prices to climb too (because maximum agricultural production requires fossil fuel inputs).

As global population soars to 8 or 9 billion toward mid-century, and as we burn more grain as fuel, shortages and production costs could cause grain prices to skyrocket, taking food from the mouths of the world's poorest people.

The science is clear: The use of corn and other biofuels to solve our energy problem is an ethically, economically, and environmentally unworkable sham.

David Pimentel is a professor of entomology at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University.

© 2008 Blue Ridge Press www.blueridgepress.com

Health Care Tough Love

by Ron Getty

In 1941, a woman was given a one-page, hand-written hospital bill for $73.75 after an 11-day stay following the caesarian birth of her son. Based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index, the same hospital bill today should be $1,023. However, the actual hospital bill would be closer to $13,300. This means that since 1941 medical costs have risen at twice the rate of the CPI.

Is it possible to make health care as affordable as it was back in 1941?

First, two truths need to be understood about basic economics. Prices rise when demand exceeds supply. Prices fall when supply exceeds demand

Achieving the increased supply of health care needed with a concurrent reduction in the bureaucracy in claims processing can reduce the cost of health care. However, let's acknowledge some relevant factors affecting health care costs and provide some health care tough love.

With aging Baby Boomers hitting retirement, demands on the health care system will increase and health care prices will rise. The uninsured create another dynamic that affects health care prices.

The witches' brew of HMOs, Medicare, Medicaid, and private and group medical insurance induces increases on the costs and supply of health care through the reimbursement process of what is and isn't covered. The massive paperwork and administration needed to process claims and payments by government agencies, insurers, and health care providers causes further ripples in the cost of medical care. Legislation dictating to medical insurers and providers what is to be covered also adds to health care costs.

The Food and Drug Administration creates additional disruption. The FDA's red-tape ridden bureaucratic process for approving new medications and medical equipment dramatically increases health care costs for medicine and medical equipment.

Overall, the biggest and gravest major factor that must be addressed is in the health care personnel needed to provide medical services

Thousands of retiring Baby Boomer personnel will reduce accessibility to trained and experienced medical staff, and cause long lines and lessened competition. To offset the loss of retirees, more people must enroll in training programs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, and medical lab personnel. This means more training facilities for medical personnel and qualified medical teachers.

Public schools will have to stop graduating functional illiterates who need remedial math and English at the college level if we hope to have the number of necessary people capable of entering those medical training programs.

The American Medical Association and state licensing requirements further exacerbates the cost of medical care. The extensive mandatory training standards place barriers – some medically necessitated – in the way of additional health care personnel entering the field and competing for patients.

We need a physician-light program without the 12-year doctoral training program. A physician could specialize in specific types of medicine, like podiatrists are doing, with reduced training required. We also need an accelerated licensing program for qualified foreign-trained health care professionals, and we need to allow RNs to run bumps, bruises, scrapes, and basic shots medical clinics where MDs aren't needed.

More community hospitals, medical clinics, and medical training facilities must be opened to increase consumer options for health care, which will reduce costs through competition. As a result, we will need to rethink zoning and building permit processes to allow more such facilities.

Yes, these things can happen. However, to make an omelet, eggs are going to get broken. The biggest eggs to break will be politicians and their misguided efforts to omnisciently determine how health care must be provided for everyone at taxpayers' expense.

Radical measures are called for to increase the supply of health care and reduce prices through competition. This means doing the following:

• Eliminate licensing standards for hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, nurses, medical personnel, medical colleges and medical clinics
• Eliminate the FDA
• Deregulate the medical insurance industry
• Repeal the HMO Act of 1970
• Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and all other involuntarily, taxpayer-funded, government programs providing medical benefits at the federal or the state level and
• Eliminate legislatively mandated employer health insurance

The tough love solution to the health care crisis is getting politicians and the government out of the health care business. Let free enterprise medical providers address the market demands for health care at a price anyone can afford. Affordable health care can happen when there are no politicians or government agencies infecting the medical marketplace.

Ron Getty is the senior staff member of a tax attorney with his practice located in San Francisco. His background includes an electrical engineering degree and 30 years of sales, marketing and advertising with small to large corporations. A Vietnam Veteran of Chu Lai - I Corps, he brings personal perspectives on veterans and their treatment by the government.

Libertarian Party of California | 14547 Titus Street | Suite 214 | Panorama City | CA | 91402-4935 | www.ca.lp.org

The Mercury | Copyright Notice
The Mercury | Paul V. Scholl, Publisher
7405 Greenback Lane, #129 | Citrus Heights, CA 95610-5603 | Telephone: 916-773-1111 | Fax Line 916-773-2999
Email: publisher@PlacerMercury.com | Site Designed and Hosted by TheSiteBarn.com
ISSN#: 1948-1934

View PDF files of Back Issues