|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PoliticsRemebering Our Nation's Heroes 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 Assembly Bill 1700 would have repealed most of the costly increased sales and personal income taxes that were increased in February of 2009 and Assembly Bill 2225 would have immediately repealed the 10 percent increase to tax withholding schedules.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:
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
Placerville 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 Lincoln Placerville Cameron Park Rocklin Roseville 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 Lincoln Placerville Rocklin 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 Roseville Rocklin Lincoln Auburn Placerville Cameron Park Loomis Welcome to the gaines gazette This Issue
DISTRICT OFFICE CAPITOL OFFICE Atheists Misread the Role of Religion in American Society 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 No Child Left Inside 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” 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 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 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 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” 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 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: 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 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 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 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." Schubert said that internal campaign polling is consistent with other polls such as the LA Times survey. "Support for Proposition 8 is right where it needs to be at this stage of the campaign."Bush White House Hides True Scope of Federal Deficit 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? 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: 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 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 A Disastrous Budget Process 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 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 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 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 - 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 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: 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 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:
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 Archives... |
|
|
The Mercury | Copyright Notice |
