Your "Local Sunday Newspaper" Seven Days a Week!

Politics

Lungren Family Forges Gambian Link

By Susan Maxwell Skinner
Posted: 1/19/2012

Big day. Congressman Dan Lungren and wife Bobbi (fourth and fifth from right) join the wedding party at their daughter Kathleen’s wedding. The groom is Gambian Ousman Jobe. Photo by the Lungren family.

Third District Congressman Dan Lungren has augmented his family from an unexpected source.

Parents of three and grandparents of six, Dan and Bobbi Lungren recently gave away their youngest daughter, Kathleen (35). The bride’s choice was Ousman Jobe, from the small African nation of Gambia.

Over 200 family and friends came from all over the world for the Washington DC wedding. The bridal party wore tail coats and formals (emerald bridesmaids’ gowns nodding to Irish Lungren roots) and jigged till the wee hours at the Congressional Club. An event highlight, whispered insiders, was the Congressman’s dance floor gyrations to the wild beat of Gambian pop music.

“Like all parents, we imagined the future paths of our children,” confided the bride’s papa. “They each surprised and impressed us.” The patriarch never imagined a world so small that such diverse people as Kathleen and Ousmon might meet. “But I’m happy (she met) this wonderful man,” he said.

The son of a Gambian diplomat, Ousman Jobe attended UC Berkeley and Northwestern University. The newlyweds now work in Southern California — he for an ethics and compliance consultancy; she for a non-profit. They recently added to their family with a golden retriever. Well rested from the DC nuptials, the couple plans an even bigger bash in the Gambia this spring. So the Congressman will again be father of the bride and debut on the African dance floor with renewed vigor.

“We always wanted our children to grow up and meet someone special,” approved the Congressman. “I properly vetted the young man. Bobbi and I could not be happier with our daughter’s decision. I can tell you, she chose a great man in Ousman.”

The Rich Are Getting Richer; So Are the Poor

By Jarrett Skorup
Posted: 12/14/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is the research associate for online engagement for Michigan Capitol Confidential at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Centers are properly cited. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

Governor Brown Takes Action to Promote Renewable Energy and Protect the Environment

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that he has taken action on legislation to protect California's environment and natural resources.

The following bills have been signed by Governor Brown:

AB 291 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Underground storage tanks: petroleum: charges.

AB 320 by Assemblymember Jerry Hill (D-South San Francisco) – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): determination: dispute.

AB 358 by Assemblymember Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) – Hazardous substances: underground storage tanks: releases: reports.

AB 359 by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – Groundwater management plans.

AB 408 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Environment: hazardous substances and materials: hazardous waste transportation: paint recycling.

AB 525 by Assemblymember Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Solid waste: tire recycling: architectural paint recovery program.

AB 681 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Aboveground storage tanks: funds.

AB 703 by Assemblymember Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Property taxation: welfare exemption: nature resources and open-space lands.

AB 712 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Recycling: beverage containers.

AB 849 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Water: use efficiency: graywater building standards.

AB 913 by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) – Hazardous waste: source reduction: certified green business program.

AB 964 by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – Water rights: appropriation.

AB 1027 by Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) – Local publicly owned electric utilities: utility poles and support structures.

AB 1036 by Assemblymember Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – Parks: regional park, park and open-space, and open-space districts: employee relations.

AB 1077 by Assemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) – State parks: Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park.

AB 1112 by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – Oil spill prevention and administration fee: State Lands Commission. A signing message can be found here.

AB 1414 by Committee on Natural Resources – Forestry: timber harvesting.

SB 152 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Public lands: general leasing law: littoral landowners.

SB 170 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Air districts: adverse effects of air pollution: intellectual property.

SB 224 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Public contracts: Department of Water Resources.

SB 267 by Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield) – Water supply planning: renewable energy plants.

SB 328 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Eminent Domain Law: conservation easement.

SB 436 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Land use: mitigation lands: nonprofit organizations.

SB 454 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) –Energy efficiency standards.

SB 456 by Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) – Household hazardous waste: transportation.

SB 482 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Public beach contamination: standards: testing: closing.

SB 489 by Senator Lois Wolk (D -Davis) – Electricity: net energy metering.

SB 567 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Recycling: plastic products.

SB 595 by Senator Lois Wolk (D -Davis) –Tidelands and submerged lands: removal of vessels.

SB 618 by Senator Lois Wolk (D -Davis) – Local government: solar-use easement.

SB 679 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Energy: energy conservation projects: financial assistance: local governments and public institutions.

SB 771 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.

SB 790 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Electricity: community choice aggregation.

SB 836 by Senator Alex Padilla (D -Pacoima) – Renewable energy resources: cost reporting.

SB 909 by Senator Doug La Malfa (R-Butte) – Treated wood waste: disposal.

The Governor also announced that he has vetoed the following bills:

AB 306 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Energy: piezoelectric transducers: study. A veto message can be found here.

SB 263 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Wells: reports: public availability. A veto message can be found here.

SB 752 by Senator Tom Berryhill (R- Stanislaus) – Entitlements: voluntary donations. A veto message can be found here.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.

Governor Brown Takes Action to Maintain and Improve Transportation Systems

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that he has taken action on legislation to maintain and improve transportation systems in California.

The following bills have been signed by Governor Brown:

AB 238 by Assemblymember Alyson L. Huber (D-El Dorado Hills) – Motor vehicle conditional sale contracts.

AB 427 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Transportation bond funds: transit system safety.

AB 529 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Vehicles: speed limits: downward speed zoning.

AB 607 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) – Vehicles: public transit buses: illuminated signs.

AB 615 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – High-speed rail.

AB 621 by Assemblymember Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) – Vehicle rental agreements.

AB 628 by Assemblymember Connie Conway (R-Visalia) – Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County of Inyo.

AB 706 by Assemblymember Norma J. Torres (D-Pomona) – Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority.

AB 716 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Transit districts: prohibition orders: Sacramento Regional Transit District: Fresno Area Express: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.M

AB 957 by Committee on Transportation – Transportation omnibus bill.

AB 1143 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Sacramento Regional Transit District: bonds.

AB 1298 by Assemblymember Robert Blumenfield (D-Van Nuys) – Vehicles: parking: mobile billboard advertising displays.M

SB 468 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Department of Transportation: north coast corridor project: high-occupancy toll lanes.

The Governor also Announced that he has vetoed the following bills:

SB 29 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) – Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems. A veto message can be found here.

SB 910 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance. A veto message can be found here.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.

Governor Signs Dr. Pan Bill Controlling Workers’ Compensation System Costs

AB 1168 Creates a Fee Schedule for Vocational Experts, Relieving Employers and Injured Workers
Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – The Governor has signed AB 1168, legislation Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) authored to grant the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation the flexibility needed to appropriately regulate vocational expert fees and control costs for California’s employers. Dr. Pan, who runs a small business with his wife, discussed how AB 1168 will help businesses lead the state toward economic recovery.

“By signing AB 1168, the Governor creates more certainty for California businesses,” Dr. Pan said. “The workers’ compensation system was established to provide stability for businesses, and protects workers so they can return to the job. AB 1168 makes the workers’ compensation system more effective so our business owners can hire with more confidence.”

The California workers’ compensation system requires employers to pay the cost of services provided by vendors that are related to claims and appeals. If statute or regulations do not establish fee schedules for particular services, employers are responsible for whatever amount is charged. As the system evolves, new types of services that do not fit existing fee schedules create spikes in the cost to employers.

“A class of consultants known as ‘vocational experts’ counsels disabled workers about their level of permanent disability,” Dr. Pan explained. “While they have an important role in the workers’ compensation system, some counselors are charging exorbitant fees for their services.”

AB 1168 makes workers’ compensation costs more predictable and creates certainty for employers by directing the Division of Workers’ Compensation to develop a fee schedule for vocational experts that do not meet the criteria for existing fee schedules.

“Public agencies – cities, counties, and even the state – also pay workers’ compensation costs related to workplace injuries,” Dr. Pan added. “As state and local governments struggle with budget deficits, AB 1168 will help ensure that these public funds are spent primarily to help injured workers.”

In February 2009, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued a decision in Ogilvie vs. City and County of San Francisco allowing injured workers to rebut the amount of disability benefits for which they are eligible. This court decision created a demand for vocational experts to be used as witnesses in cases where injured workers are contesting their level of disability. These expert witnesses charge on an hourly basis and are paid directly by the employer or the employer’s insurer. There is currently no cap on the rate charged by these vocational experts, which is in direct contrast with most other services provided in the workers’ compensation system. Because there is no fee schedule, employers routinely receive invoices for tens of thousands of dollars without warning.

Dr. Richard Pan is a father, pediatrician, educator, small business owner and first-term Assemblymember who lives in Sacramento. He also represents the Cities of Citrus Heights and Folsom and surrounding areas. Website of Assemblymember Richard Pan: www.asmdc.org/pan

Governor Brown Acts to Protect Oceans and Environment

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed legislation to protect the oceans and the environment. AB 376, by Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino), bans the possession and sale of shark fins in California. The practice of “finning” for culinary purposes has led to substantial declines in shark populations worldwide.

“The practice of cutting the fins off of living sharks and dumping them back in the ocean is not only cruel, but it harms the health of our oceans,” said Governor Brown. “Researchers estimate that some shark populations have declined by more than 90 percent, portending grave threats to our environment and commercial fishing. In the interest of future generations, I have signed this bill.”

While many countries have already banned the practice, it continues unabated in unregulated international waters. By banning the possession and sale of shark fins, California joins Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and Guam in an effort to reduce demand and protect shark populations.

In addition to AB 376, Governor Brown also signed a companion bill by Assemblyman Fong, AB 853, which allows existing stocks of on-hand shark fins to be sold until July 1, 2013.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.

Stop Special Interest Money Now Campaign Turns in More Than 900,000 Signatures

Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz joins Californians from around the state to say “yes” to real campaign finance reform
Posted: 10/19/2011

(SACRAMENTO, CA)—The Stop Special Interest Money Now campaign, which will enact real campaign finance reform in California, today began submitting more than 900,000 signatures to county registrars across the state in support of the initiative, well over the 505,000 needed to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Long-time Californian and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz has joined a growing grassroots coalition of taxpayers, good government advocates and business leaders in support of this initiative that will fundamentally reform the state’s campaign finance system—a system that is at the root of Sacramento’s dysfunction.

“The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act is a vital step toward reforming California’s dysfunctional political system. This initiative gets to the heart of one of the most corrosive elements in politics: campaign contributions,“ said former Secretary of State Shultz. “For too long, special interest money has dominated our politics, muting the voice of average Californians. So often a law is passed not because it’s good for California, but because it will benefit one well-heeled campaign contributor or another. Politicians have become less responsive to the people and far too concerned with their contributors. Stop Special Interests will reform corrupt pay-for-play politics in our state."

According to the nonpartisan Fair Political Practices Commission, the top 15 special interest groups have spent more than $1 billion on influencing the political process in the past ten years while the state’s fiscal and economic climate has reached historic lows. At the same time, more than 40 percent of the legislation introduced in Sacramento is written by special interest lobbyists, and these bills are much more likely to become law.

“Campaign finance reform is the first step. Stop Special Interests will go a long way toward returning balance to our politics. This reform will weaken the grip of special interests on our government. When we curb that power, we’ll help to free legislators to do their jobs – dealing with problems that have plagued Californians for decades,” continued Shultz.

The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act will fundamentally dilute the corrosive nature of this system by altering the relationship between politicians and their campaign contributors. Specifically, the initiative accomplishes this by:

1. Banning both corporate and labor union contributions to candidates;

2. Prohibiting government contractors from contributing money to government officials who award them contracts;/

3. Prohibiting corporations and labor unions from using the inherently coercive means of payroll deduction to collect political funds from employees and union members; and

4. Making all employee political contributions by any other means strictly voluntary.

The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act is currently scheduled to be on the June 5, 2012 ballot. However, should Governor Brown sign SB 202, legislation currently sitting on his desk, the measure will go before voters in November 2012.

For more information on the initiative, please visit www.stopspecialinterestmoney.org

Governor Brown Signs Legislation to Protect Californians From Pipeline Explosions

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed legislation to strengthen maintenance and oversight of natural gas transmission pipelines and improve coordination between gasline operators and first responders. This legislation was developed in response to the explosion in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, which killed eight people, injured numerous others and destroyed dozens of homes.

“We learned very important lessons from the tragic explosion in San Bruno. Pipeline operators and the Public Utilities Commission must take every possible step to keep it from happening again,” said Governor Brown. “These bills protect California’s communities by setting new standards for emergency preparedness, placing automatic shut-off valves in vulnerable areas and ensuring that gas companies pressure test transmission lines.”

The following bills have been signed by Governor Brown:

AB 56 by Assemblymember Jerry Hill (D-South San Francisco) – Gas corporations: rate recovery and expenditure: intrastate pipeline safety.

SB 44 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) – Public utilities: gas pipeline emergency response standards.
SB 216 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) – Public utilities: intrastate natural gas pipeline safety.
SB 705 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Natural gas: service and safety.
SB 879 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Natural gas pipelines: safety.

Ethanol Subsidies Are Raising Cost of Feed And Killing Jobs In The Valley

Posted: 10/19/2011

Washington D.C. – Representative Jeff Denham today issued the following statement in response to a Central Valley business, Fulton Valley Farms, announcing that it will close its doors due to the high price of feed. The high cost of feed is a direct result of the ethanol mandates and subsidies, and has forced many job creators in California to shut down.

“Fulton Valley Farms will be forced to close its doors as a result of the high price of feed for its chickens and 185 Californians will lose their jobs as a result. The use of corn grown for ethanol to meet a government mandated ethanol requirement has increased cost, and as a result, consumers are paying higher prices for food at the grocery store and family farms are being forced to shut down.” said Congressman Jeff Denham.

The government has created an artificial market for ethanol by creating a Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) mandate that requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. It is projected that 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol production this year. This means that an ever increasing amount of corn, which is used for feed for livestock, is being diverted into fuel.

"Ethanol subsidies are raising the cost of feed, stifling job creation, harming business growth and hurting America’s economic competitiveness," added Congressman Denham.

Rep. Denham co-sponsored legislation, H.R. 3098, introduced by Rep. Goodlatte on Wednesday which eliminates the RFS and makes ethanol compete in a free market.

Farmers in California cannot afford to pay unnecessarily high prices for feed, and with double digit unemployment in his area, Rep. Denham knows families cannot afford to pay more for groceries.

"The California Poultry Federation supports Congressman Denham's efforts to eliminate the Renewable Fuel mandates which artificially drive up the cost of feed on farmers," says Bill Mattos, president. "We also join the Congressman in his support to end corn ethanol subsidies and the tariff that are both set to expire at the end of the year."

Fulton Valley Farms was established in 1925 as the main processor for Central Coast Farms. Fulton Valley Farms processes their product in the heart of California near the farms where the chickens are raised.

THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT ISSUES STATEMENT COMMENDING GOVERNOR BROWN FOR SIGNING AB 581 TO BRING HEALTHY FOOD CLOSER TO NEIGHBORHOODS

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (October 6, 2011) - Robert K. Ross, M.D., President and CEO of The California Endowment, released the following statement regarding today's announcement that Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 581 (Perez), which creates the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative.

“On behalf of The California Endowment, I commend Governor Brown for signing AB 581, and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez for his exemplary leadership on this important issue. This bill will create the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative and work toward the goal of improving access to healthy, affordable foods in underserved communities,” said Dr. Ross. “AB 581 is a valuable complement to the California FreshWorks Fund, which was created by The California Endowment and a coalition public and private sector partners and launched by First Lady Michelle Obama at a White House event earlier this year.

At The California Endowment, we believe that increasing access to healthy affordable foods must be an important part of any comprehensive effort to make our neighborhoods healthier. AB 581 takes an important step toward realizing that goal. The bill recognizes that it takes more than doctor visits to keep our people healthy—health happens in neighborhoods, too.”

Governor Brown Acts to Protect Pregnant Women and New Mothers

Posted: 10/19/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed four bills to protect pregnant women and new mothers. The bills ensure maternity services are covered by health insurers and new mothers can no longer lose their health insurance as a result of taking maternity leave.

“Healthy mothers mean healthy babies. I want the next generation of Californians to get the best possible start in life. The bills I signed today require that insurance companies cover maternity services for pregnant women,” said Governor Brown, “and ensures that mothers who take maternity leave no longer have to fear losing their medical coverage.”

The following bills have been signed by Governor Brown:

SB 222 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and AB 210 by Assemblymember Roger Hernandez (D-Baldwin Park) – Together, these bills require that every individual and group health insurance policy must provide coverage for maternity services.

SB 299 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) – This bill prohibits employers from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under group health plans for women who take maternity leave.

Governor Brown also signed SB 502 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), the Hospital Infant Feeding Act. This bill will help hospitals promote breast feeding.

Brian Williams Never Loses Sleep

By Robert Morrison
Posted: 9/29/2011

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

Gov. Perry responded, "No, sir."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Punished for Christian Beliefs About Homosexuality Pushes Back

Source: Liberty Counsel
Posted: 9/29/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Brown Acts to Help Californians Save Money and Clean the Air With Solar PowerGovernor Brown Acts to Help Californians Save Money and Clean the Air With Solar Power

Posted: 9/22/2011

FOWLER – On a day when the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District issued its third dirty air alert in a week, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. visited Marshall Elementary School in Fowler and signed three bills that bolster the state’s commitment to clean energy.

“California’s children deserve clean air and a bright future,” said Governor Brown. “They deserve good jobs and a strong economy. The bills I signed today are part of a solar energy revolution that is sweeping our state. These bills will help create jobs, lower electric bills and clean up the air we breathe.”

One bill signed by Governor Brown will help schools in the Fowler Unified School District save approximately $14 million in energy costs over the next 25 years. SB 585, authored by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), helps school districts to finance solar installations at local schools by authorizing $200 million for the California Solar Initiative (CSI). The solar panels, slated for construction on parking structures and playground equipment at Marshall Elementary, are expected to save $439,000 in energy costs during the first year alone.

These projects will help meet the state’s goal of getting 20,000 megawatts (MW) from renewable sources by 2020. The CSI program, funded through investor-owned utilities, provides rebates for solar installations on commercial, industrial, non-profit, government and other non-residential spaces. Energy produced by these installations dramatically cuts participants’ energy bills. CSI has been extremely successful, helping to generate nearly 900 MW of solar energy to date.

Governor Brown also signed two other bills today in Fowler: AB 1150 by Assemblymember Victor Manuel Perez (D-Coachella) and SB 16 by Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield).

AB 1150 authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission to collect funds for the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) through December 31, 2014. The SGIP program makes approximately $83 million in rebates available each year. Since it began in 2001, the SGIP program has made over $619 million in rebates for the installation of 348 MW of clean, renewable energy.

SB 16 requires the Department of Fish and Game to expedite their permitting process for renewable energy projects. It also gives developers the option to pay a fee to expedite government review, a solution that balances a responsible review of proposed projects with a timely approach to the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America Must Stand With Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Brown Signs Executive Order to Establish Tribal Advisor Position

Posted: 9/20/2011

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

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

American Workers Deserve Respect

By Roger Smith
Posted: 9/20/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT IS BIGGEST LAW BREAKER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama's Patriotism, and Everyone Else's

By Rob Schwarzwalder
Posted: 9/14/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________

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

Divided Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on ObamaCare Lawsuit

Resource: Liberty Counsel
Posted: 9/14/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bedroom in the Classroom: Clio is Not Amused

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

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

The crime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOXER CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION TO HELP RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for States to Take Action on Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted: 8/20/2011

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

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

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

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

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

Politicians in a Panic

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 8/16/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Pan: California Children’s Services Important to Building a Healthier Sacramento

Sacramento Pediatrician and Assemblymember Moves AB 301 through Senate to Ensure Area Kids Receive Care for Serious Conditions
Posted: 8/13/2011

SACRAMENTO – Dr. Richard Pan (D-Natomas) was joined by Sacramento families and physicians at The Effort Oak Park Clinic today to highlight why it is important to continue the California Children’s Services (CCS) program, which ensures that children with serious and chronic health conditions have access to the specialized care they need. Dr. Pan’s AB 301, now moving through the State Senate, would prevent CCS from sunsetting at the end of 2011, extending the program to 2016.

“Building a healthier Sacramento starts with our children,” Dr. Pan said. “As a pediatrician in Sacramento for the last decade, I have seen children struggling with chronic, debilitating diseases find physicians and specialists who can focus on their particular needs because they are supported by California Children’s Services.”

Through an organized delivery system, CCS provides quality standards for providers that ensure critically sick children are referred to the appropriate pediatric-trained specialists and requires physicians, hospitals and other providers meet strict quality and volume standards in order to participate in the program. Without CCS support, many physicians caring for children with severe and uncommon conditions could find themselves unable to maintain their practices. While major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have patient loads that can support specialists for uncommon conditions, smaller cities like Sacramento could find themselves without enough specialists able to treat particular conditions.

Dr. Dennis Hart discussed how CCS helps families and patients he sees as part of his pediatric rehabilitation practice.

“CCS does not just provide needed access to specialty physicians, it provides care coordination between physicians that is not available in any other setting,” Dr. Hart said. “Without CCS these families would be forced to navigate a maze of services and facilities adding to their already stressed and over-burdened lives.”

“As a Councilmember for Oak Park and The Effort, I know firsthand the need to protect children that face serious and chronic diseases,” said Jay Schenirer, Sacramento City Councilmember. “I am happy that AB 301 will allow The Effort to continue coordinating programs under CCS.”

During the 1990s, as California began enrolling families into managed care, policymakers became concerned that children transferred out of CCS would fail to receive the same quality of care as they had through CCS. Therefore in 1994, a “carve-out” for CCS eligible conditions for children who are enrolled in Medi-Cal managed care was established in law. By extending the sunset date for the CCS carve-out, AB 301 will preserve a system of care that protects roughly 185,000 California children with conditions such as congenital heart disease, spina bifida, cancer, cleft palate, premature birth and other life-threatening conditions.

AB 301 is currently before the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

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

Representative Denham’s Statement on Tragedy in Afghanistan

Posted: 8/13/2011

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

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

Bernanke and the Potemkin Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Make Democrats Heroes for Medicare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Need to Restructure the DoD: Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Cheer and a Half for the Tea Party

by Sheldon Richman
Posted: 8/3/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted: 8/3/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denham Statement on Budget Control Act

Posted: 8/3/2011

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

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

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

A Free Speech Challenge for Parents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urge Governor Brown To Veto AB120 And Save Thousands Of Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

What’s The Problem And Why Should You Care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AB120, Section 12:

Background:

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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

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

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

See Facebook connection. Hit the Like Button.

Also LinkedIn Connect with American Land Rights.

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

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

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

STOMPING ON THE GRASS ROOTS WITH ACA 6

By Assemblyman Dan Logue
Posted: 7/21/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tony Perkins
Posted: 7/20/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the key report findings:

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

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

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

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

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

‘They are in Blatant Violation of the 4th Amendment’

Rage Against the Machines: Sheriffs asked to arrest airport security agents in Florida
By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND.com Reprinted by permission World Net Daily
Posted: 7/5/2011

Here is a photo of a recent TSA ‘enhanced pat-down’ Photo courtesy World Net Daily.

The issue of invasive physical pat-downs by federal Transportation Security Administration agents at airports across the nation isn’t going away anytime soon, with word that the Libertarian Party of Florida formally is demanding that sheriffs in the state’s 67 counties arrest TSA agents for sexual battery.

The enhanced pat-down procedures – or the optional full body scans that essentially create a nude image of passengers – were imposed on travelers across America in recent months, prompting a wide range of reactions.

Just last week a state law proposed in Texas that would have created charges against federal agents who impose those physical pat-downs – described by critics and “groping” – failed at the end of a special legislation session when representatives couldn’t assemble an enhanced quorum required during the special meetings of the lawmakers.

But they were expressing the sentiment of a lot of travelers across America – some of whom simply have refused to fly because of the invasive search procedures.

Today, (July 4th) a statement from the Libertarian Party of Florida took the dispute to a new level.

“As sheriff, you have the absolute duty to enforce the law uniformly and without prejudice. You are, at best, engaged in selective enforcement by choosing to further ignore these flagrant violations of federal and state law. At worst, you are complicit,” a message to the 67 sheriffs from the party, signed by chairman Adrian Wyllie, said.

“If you have TSA agents within your county that are violating the law, then you must act. Warn the TSA agents that they are subject to arrest if they continue to violate the law. Should they continue, then you must begin making arrests,” the letter said. “We urge you to remember the oath you took to support, protect and defend the Constitution of both the state of Florida and the United States of America. On behalf of all Floridians, the Libertarian Party of Florida calls on you to do exactly that.

“We turn to you, our constitutional sheriffs, to enforce the law in accordance with your sworn duty,” the letter said.

Videos of invasive searches, including physical contact with sex organs, have been all over the Internet since the “enhanced” procedures were imposed by the Obama administration.

But perhaps among the most dramatic expressions of concern came from Miss USA Susie Castillo, who was reduced to tears by federal agents assuring themselves that she is not a terrorist bent on homicide.

In a commentary at the Tenth Amendment Center by Connor Boyack with Brian Roberts and Michael Boldin, the organization said, “It was ... at the Dallas, Texas, airport where former Miss USA Susie Castillo tearfully produced a viral video describing the molestation she had just endured at the hands of a TSA agent.

“I mean, she actually… touched my vagina,” Castillo said through her tears. “They’re making me… choose to either get molested… or go through this machine that’s completely unhealthy and dangerous. I don’t want to go through it, and here I am crying.”

Continued the commentary, which was in support of Texas’ plans to address the traveling public’s concerns, “Castillo isn’t the only person who would be protected under this Texas legislation. All other innocent travelers would likewise be shielded. That includes the six year old girl who made the headlines last month for being groped by a TSA agent (an action which the TSA defended as being alright since it ‘followed the current standard operating procedures’), as well as the eight-month-old infant subjected to a pat down while cradled in the arms of her mother.”

The e-mail to sheriffs said, “The Libertarian Party of Florida is reaching out to you, and to all of Florida’s 67 constitutional sheriffs. We, The People of the State of Florida must turn to you as our last line of defense against a federal government that is usurping authority and ignoring the rule of law.

“I am referring specifically to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and their egregious violations of the United States Constitution, as well as the Florida Constitution and state law,” the message continued.

“Every single day, TSA employees conduct electronic and bodily searches upon tens of thousands of Florida citizens and visitors at airports, and more recently at bus terminals, rail stations, and highways. They are searching the persons and seizing the effects of travelers without warrant or probable cause. Specifically, they are in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the e-mail said.

The text of the Fourth Amendment then was provided:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It also cited violations of Article 1, Section 12 of the state constitution: “Searches and seizures. – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained.”

The federal agents’ search, the e-mail said, “is clearly within the definition of felony sexual battery, as codified in Florida Statute 794.011.”

Wyllie said, “I would like to point out that this statute clearly defines that it is a first-degree felony when sexual battery is committed by a law enforcement agent.”

The organization is the third largest political party in the state, and it explains it “is the only true alternative to the Republican/Democrat stranglehold on our economic freedom and individual liberty.”

The Texas law is expected to be replicated by lawmakers in other states who are hearing concerns from their constituents. It was withdrawn in the regular session of the legislature by one sponsor when federal authorities threatened to make Texas a “no-fly” zone by canceling flights to and from the state.

The threat to Texas air travel came from U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy, who warned state lawmakers, “Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.”

He said at that time that if state lawmakers would move forward with their plans to protect airline passengers from what critics have termed sexual assault in airport security lines, “TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights.”

Read more: Sheriffs asked to arrest airport security agents http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=318697#ixzz1RGbMtKkg

Transparency Measure Is Ripe For Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even the appearance of political favoritism would be a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted: 7/7/2011

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

Posted: 7/6/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the California Retailers Association

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

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

Posted: 6/21/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You, Secretary Vilsack

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth about Energy Profits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redistributing Wealth to Wall Street

By Gus West
Posted: 6/21/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denham Hearing Targets Wasteful $500 Million SEC Lease

Posted: 6/19/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Francisco Considers Circumcision—and Parental Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Pan to Announce Hundreds of Sacramento Families to Join National Children’s Study

Unprecedented Health Research Effort to Track Environmental Impacts on Development of Children in Their First 21 Years
Posted: 6/10/2011

SACRAMENTO – Dr. Richard Pan (D-Natomas) will join with Sacramento families, physicians, community leaders and UC Davis researchers on Saturday, June 11 to announce that the National Children’s Study has begun enrolling hundreds of Sacramento families in the most extensive study ever conducted in the United States focusing on how environmental factors affect health. Dr. Pan worked to bring the National Children’s Study to Sacramento so that researchers can learn more about local factors that contribute to healthy development, along with potential causes of many diseases and disorders.

Sacramento Zoo
Reptile House
Land Park Drive and 16th Avenue

Saturday, June 11, 2011
11:15 a.m.

Congress authorized the National Children’s Study with the Children’s Health Act of 2000. Sacramento was selected as a study site in 2007, with UC Davis researchers conducting the research locally. The study is led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — including the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nearly 40 communities throughout the nation have been selected to participate and are expected to generate vast amounts of information that could someday lead to new treatments and new health and safety guidelines that protect children’s health for generations to come.

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

Website of Assemblymember Richard Pan: www.asmdc.org/pan

Budgets, Appropriations and Priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Proposes to Eliminate Appeals Board

Posted: 6/7/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halt all non-essential state employee travel;

Recover millions of dollars in uncollected salary and travel advances;

Stop spending taxpayer dollars on free giveaway and gift items;

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

Freeze hiring across state government.

Dr. Pan Moves Bills to Bring Millions of Dollars for Sacramento Region

Posted: 6/2/2011

SACRAMENTO – With cities and counties in the greater Sacramento region facing steep budget cuts, Dr. Richard Pan (D-Natomas) today saw two of his bills pass the Assembly with bi-partisan support that will protect basic services without raising taxes. AB 678 would draw down up to $90 million in federal funding for California firefighters and AB 1121 would help animal control agencies license dogs so their operations are funded through licensing instead of tax dollars.

“AB 678 and AB 1121 are products of constituents and stakeholders coming together to put our fiscal house in order,” said Dr. Pan. “I’m hopeful these bills will become part of our state’s combined effort to protect basic services on which we all rely and keep our economic recovery on track.”

AB 678 would draw down federal funds to keep local fire stations open in California. The bill would empower fire departments to submit to the California Department of Health Care Services certified unpaid Medi-Cal ambulance transport expenses that could then be submitted to the federal government for reimbursement.

About one out of every 10 ambulance responses this year will be patients who are on Medi-Cal, the state’s medical care safety net for the poor – at least 300,000 calls. With the economic crisis forcing more and more working people into this safety net, those numbers are rising: Medi-Cal transports went up 19% between 2006 and 2009. In some fire departments, Medi-Cal transports can be up to 1/3 of its total.

AB 1121 would permit pet stores, non-profit animal shelters and rescue organizations, and high-volume dog breeders to provide to their local licensing agency a monthly list of licensing information regarding dogs they have placed. The local licensing agency may use the data to follow up with new dog owners to complete the licensing process. This type of reporting has helped the City of San Jose’s animal control agency increase licensing by 83 percent and revenues by $500,000 annually.

AB 1121 would also permit cities and counties to offer a puppy license to microchipped puppies under the age of four months. The puppy license shall be offered for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs.

AB 678 and AB 1121 will now to go the Senate.

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

Website of Assemblymember Richard Pan: www.asmdc.org/pan

Independents Are Not Moderates

By: Sarah Lyons
Posted: 6/2/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Prisoner Release is Not a Solution for the Safety of Californians

By Senator Doug LaMalfa
Posted: 6/2/2011

“The formula for releasing prisoners and cutting cops is not a smart one.” Attorney General Jerry Brown, Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2009.

I agree, and I trust that now-Governor Brown will stand behinds those words. For without a doubt, the principle responsibility of government is to protect its citizens from those who would do us harm.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that California must somehow reduce its prison population by approximately 33,000 inmates, and the first question becomes: Which ones?

Felons convicted of murder, manslaughter, violent or serious crimes against the person total 63,500. There are 19,000 inmates that are in prison for kidnapping and/or sex-related crimes. Property and theft related offenses account for 30,000 inmates. For drug related crimes, of the 23,000 serving time, 15,000 have been convicted of manufacturing or dealing drugs. Other offenses include arson, felons found in possession of firearms and driving the under influence.

Almost 60 percent of all inmates were on parole or probation at the time they committed their most recent felony. Tens of thousands of inmates currently serving time for other (perhaps non-violent) offenses have violent criminal histories. These numbers belie common assumptions that our prisons are full of petty thieves and drug addicts.

More than 70 percent of felons will commit another crime within three years of their release. On average, fourteen percent of re-offenders will commit 13 felonies before being re-apprehended, and 20 percent of those felonies will be violent.

Let’s take a closer look at just a handful of these “non-violent” offenders.

Sadly, there have been other similar accounts in the news. I refuse to support efforts that promote early release of convicted felons or to weaken state laws regarding penalties for serious or violent crimes.

There is an obvious alternative to releasing convicted felons: adding to our housing capacity. We have known for years about overcrowding and have pursued avenues to relieve overcrowding while keeping the public safe. In 2007, the Legislature approved Assembly Bill 900, which provided $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for construction to provide 50,000 new jail and prison beds. Four years later, it is reported that eleven jail projects have been approved, but only two have broken ground and none have been finished. What are we waiting for?

Our previous Governor let all Californians down when he and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation purposefully stalled construction of these projects. They had ample financing and direct legislative authority, yet failed to act.

Now is a time for action, not calls for more taxes or platitudes for more programs. We have a new administration and two years to demonstrate progress in meeting the high court’s directive. Let’s not wait to find out what the alternatives might look like.

"Behind that Smile is a Dagger"

Posted: 6/2/2011

In his attempt to balance the budget, Governor Brown decided to cut funding for the Commission on the Status of Women. On Tuesday May 24th, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 4 - State Administration- met to discuss the Governor's proposal to defund the Commission. Thursday May 26th, the Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 met for the same purpose.

A legislative budget subcommittee takes up all budgetary proposals by the governor and approves or denies them. Because the Commission falls under state administration, both the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittee 4 must hear it and all state administrative budget proposals.

The half a million dollar exclusively-tax-payer-funded supposedly nonpartisan Commission on the Status of Women supports an extreme agenda. They are advocates of making it easier for individuals to commit welfare fraud by eliminating current mechanisms intended to stop the misuse and abuse of our welfare system, they support restricting private sector autonomy through regulatory proposals, they believe in undermining our State Constitution with their opposition to Proposition 8, are avid advocates of condom distribution in prisons, and are not only in favor of, but advocates for increased access to abortions, including access for minors.

As Legislative Director of Capitol Resource Institute, I had the privilege and honor to testify, on your behalf, in front of the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees.

I strongly urge you to watch this video, which consists of the entire debate (beginning on 1:30:00) on defunding the Commission on the Status of Women. My testimony in favor of Brown's proposal to cut the Commission starts at 1:45:12. You do not have to wait for all of it to load because you may fast forward to the time listed above.

In our last email, Tim LeFever, Chairman of CRI, wrote, "All too often Capitol Resource Institute is the only organization testifying against legislation that will harm the family or in support of pro-family bills. CRI does not just follow and comment on proposed legislation. CRI is not afraid to take to the microphone and speak for you to those elected to pass or reject these bills." His words ring true. As representatives from the Western Center for Law and Poverty, California National Organization for Women, California Employment Lawyers Association, American Congress of OBGYNs, Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, and the Women's Foundation of California lined up to testify against cutting funding, I turned around to look back only to learn, once again, CRI stood alone.

After Tuesday's adjournment, Mary Wiberg, Executive Director of the Commission, came up to me and said, "You know, you have a beautiful smile, but behind that smile is a dagger!"

I was flabbergasted, speechless, shocked.

As Wiberg shook her finger and scolded me in the same manner a teacher scolds a misbehaving student, I respectfully challenged her. In fact, my entire testimony centered on material and emails disperse by the Commission. Following her lecture, I kindly asked her to tell me what they meant by family planning and if it included abortion, Wiberg conceded they favor state funding of abortion.

According to Wiberg I distorted the Commission's legislative proposals, misinterpreted their mission, and unfairly challenged their nonpartisan status to which I calmly responded, "The information written and dissipated by you and your Commission will try to paint the organization in the most positive light. However, what you may poetically call the 'absence of light' I will bluntly call 'darkness.'"

Both subcommittees approved funding for the Commission. The proposal to fund the Commission heads to both chambers and if approve requires Brown's signature. It is our hope, because Governor Brown proposed the cut, that he will line-item veto funding for this radical government agency.

I share with you this video and this story because it is important for you to know CRI is fighting on your behalf day in and day out! I simply ask you to pray for our state, our governor, our lawmakers, and our families.

Thank you and Lord Bless,

Paulo Sibaja
Director, Legislation & Communications
Matthew 7:7

Assembly Passes Dr. Pan’s Newborn Screening Bill to Save Lives and Prevent Costs

AB 395 Would Add ‘Bubble Boy Disease’ to California’s Newborn Screening Process
Posted: 6/2/2011

SACRAMENTO – The Assembly today approved AB 395, a bill authored by Dr. Richard Pan (D-Natomas) that would add Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), commonly known as “bubble boy disease,” to the list of genetic disorders identified in California’s newborn screening process. Dr. Pan discussed the story of a family in California affected by SCID.

“The roots of the effort to make AB 395 a reality began closer to home,” Dr. Pan said. “Many of you met Anne Marie Mullen when she was in the Capitol. She is a parent and has been a crucial advocate for SCID screening. Anne Marie Mullen watched as her son Shane died from SCID behind a protective barrier in a hospital. She could not hug or even touch Shane as his body was defenseless against disease. Fortunately, Anne Marie Mullen’s other son Kyle was screened and treated for SCID. Today, Kyle’s immune system now easily fights off the type of infections that took the life of his brother Shane, who like most Californian newborns was not screened for SCID. The Mullen family’s story is one of hope, but also of loss: the kind of loss that too many parents have had to endure without screening and treatment for SCID.”

Currently, the state already screens newborns in California for genetic diseases with threatening symptoms that can be prevented if treated soon after birth. AB 395 would simply add a cost-effective screening for SCID to that newborn screening process.

Since August 16, 2010, the cost-effective SCID screening has been used to screen all newborn babies in the state as part of a California Department of Public Health pilot program. The most current data shows the number of babies born in California each year with SCID is 12-14. Early screening can lead to over $1.1 million in health care cost savings for each SCID-diagnosed baby.

In May of 2010, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved the addition of SCID to the then ‘core’ panel of 29 metabolic or functional conditions as a part of her recommendation for a uniform screening panel as the national standard for newborn screening programs in the U.S. AB 395 is sponsored by the March of Dimes.

Dr. Richard Pan is a father, pediatrician, educator, small business owner and first-term Assemblymember. He represents Arden Arcade, Carmichael, the City of Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, the City of Folsom, Granite Bay, North Highlands, McClellan Park, Orangevale, Natomas and portions of the City of Sacramento. Website of Assemblymember Richard Pan: www.asmdc.org/pan

LaMalfa Argues in Favor of Second Amendment Rights

Opposes Measures to Outlaw and Register Most Ammunition
Posted: 6/2/2011

(SACRAMENTO) - Senator Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) spoke in opposition to SB 124 on the Floor of the State Senate today. The bill effectively makes mere possession of many popular calibers of rifle ammunition a new felony. In addition it would outlaw the sale of ammunition via the internet or catalog sales.

“This is a direct assault on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Senator LaMalfa. “What is the use of a gun to protect your family or enjoy shooting and hunting if you cannot own ammunition? The purpose of this bill is to make ammunition difficult and expensive to obtain.”

The bill was introduced after retired Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker won his lawsuit against the State of California for enacting a similar law restricting “handgun ammunition” that was struck down for being unconstitutionally vague. SB 124 was passed with only Democrat votes 22-16.

“This bill will not protect the public or remove “Cop Killer” bullets from criminals but will effectively disarm law abiding citizens. By redefining “handgun ammunition” and “armor piercing ammunition” to include virtually every bullet and shotgun shell ever produced, this legislation could, in effect, bring an end to all hunting, competition and other lawful shooting activities.”

View Senator LaMalfa’s Floor Speech http://cssrc.us/web/4/multimedia.aspx?media=1699 or http://vimeo.com/24534963

Representative Denham Official Statement On High Gas Prices Affect On California’s Tourism Industry & Unemployment Rate

Posted: 6/1/2011

Yosemite National Park is a significant driver of the local tourism industry in Representative Denham’s district. This year, tourists may need to change their plans because of high gas prices. Rep. Denham’s district is also facing unemployment rates as high as 18.4% in Fresno County, 17.2% in Madera County and 18.4% in Stanislaus County. (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Rep. Denham is working in Congress to increase American production of oil and gas in order to ease the burden travelers feel at the pump and create American jobs.

Rep. Denham, member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and House Energy Action Team (HEAT), submitted the following statement at a Natural Resources hearing addressing rising gas prices and the impacts on working families and tourism:

“High gas prices are a big problem for my constituents in the Central Valley of California. As I saw a few weeks ago when I visited Wawona, a local community in my district, gas prices are hovering around $5.00 a gallon. One employee at the station told me that gas prices are now beyond what he can pay to commute. I am worried about the negative consequences high gas prices will have on tourism and the family-owned and operated farming industries in the 19th district, not to mention the hardships rising prices are causing for families every day.

“Central Valley farmers have felt the rising diesel prices and cost of petroleum-based fertilizer as well. My district is home to the most productive agricultural land in the world, and the added burden of high fuel prices will have a detrimental impact on people everywhere.

“At a time of double-digit unemployment in the Valley, we cannot afford to lose more jobs because farmers, paying more for gas, are not able to operate their farms. Crops will be left in the ground and farms will not be able to hire workers.

“The tourism industry, a driver of the local economy in the 19th district, has also been impacted by rising gas prices. Yosemite National Park, which is the most visited National Park in the Nation, is in my district and draws many out-of-state visitors. While speaking with constituents at gas stations around my district the past few weeks, folks told me that they had planned their trip to Yosemite a while ago and had they known gas prices were going to be so high, they would have reconsidered their decision. They mentioned that they may be forced to reconsider their plans for this summer and next year as well.

“High gas prices are posing a real problem for the local mom and pop shops, gateway communities, and the jobs that are dependent on tourism.

“The Federal Government needs to implement an energy policy that promotes the development of our resources here in the United States. Our country will continue to struggle in its economic recovery if we do not eliminate policies that close off oil exploration, natural gas development, and timber harvesting. This is why I joined my Republican colleagues in launching The House Energy Action Team (HEAT) in early May. We are committed to promoting Republican energy policies that will address rising energy prices, create thousands of good jobs and enhance our national security by increasing American production of oil and gas.”

ICYMI: Denham: “Gas Prices Affecting California Tourism, Farming and Families”

Rep. Denham Floor Speech WATCH: http://bit.ly/jzkNxa

Denham: “…It is not just tourism, if you go to one of the farms in my district, diesel gas has gone up. If you are frustrated about paying higher gas prices wait until you start paying higher grocery prices because in California’s great Ag economy the prices are going up. In fact some crops are going to stay in the field this year simply because we cannot afford to have the gas to bring them to market. Parent’s feeling the same thing you know I was going to swim practice over the weekend talking to parents frustrated about just being able to get their kids to go to school every day. You think this bill won’t do something for gas prices? Its common sense to know that if we’ve got a greater supply here in our great nation, gas prices are going to go down; we want American jobs. We want to be self-reliant.”

California Association of Enterprise Zones Warns Governor’s Proposal Will Cost Taxpayers

Posted: 6/1/2011

California Association of Enterprise Zones president Craig Johnson issued the following statement today after the Senate and Assembly budget committees approved Governor Jerry Brown’s misleading attempt to undermine the state’s successful Enterprise Zone program.

“Governor Brown’s recently released May Revise decimates the Enterprise Zone program, retains and strengthens barriers to employment and will end up costing the state money and jobs. The Enterprise Zone program was designed to empower residents currently utilizing taxpayer-funded services by giving them steady employment. By eliminating these targeted hiring incentives, the governor’s proposal eliminates employment opportunities for tens of thousands of Californians already struggling to find a job. Instead, these residents will be forced to continue using our already limited government-assistance programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps.

“In fact, while the governor claims his ‘reforms’ will save the state approximately $93 million, the program currently saves the General Fund more than $120 million annually.

“The California Association of Enterprise Zones applauds the members of the Legislature who today stood up for businesses and employees struggling to survive this prolonged recession. We are extremely disappointed that these alleged reforms passed out of committee but look forward to continue educating the Legislature about the governor’s misguided attempts to undermine the successful Enterprise Zone program.”

Representative Denham Statement On Republicans Plan for Job Creators and Growth

Posted: 5/26/2011

Washington, D.C. – Representative Jeff Denham (CA-19) today issued the following statement about the Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators -- a package of common sense reforms that match Republicans’ ongoing commitment to promote job creation and economic growth.

“I came to Washington to get our fiscal house in order, grow the nation’s economy and put Americans back to work. The Republican plan for job creators and economic growth does exactly this. In the time I have been in office, Republicans have already changed the culture of spending in Washington. However, I know that we must also grow the economy through small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country.

“The Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators builds upon our Pledge to America and will help reduce burdensome regulations that have continued to hinder small businesses across the country. There are 3.2 million small businesses in California alone and we need to create an environment where these job creators can start hiring again.” – Representative Jeff Denham

Rep. Denham held several small business listening sessions in Fresno and Modesto last week. He talked with small business owners about the effect that burdensome government regulations have had on their industries throughout the district. Business owners throughout Rep. Denham’s district described how regulations and taxes on their small businesses are inhibiting their growth and as a result, the growth of the local economies.

CA Retailers Applaud Assembly Appropriations Committee's Steps To End Meth Production

E-Tracking Legislation Will Reduce Crime & Protect Law-Abiding Californians
Posted: 5/19/2011

Sacramento, CA - California Retailers Association (CRA) President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Dombrowski today released the following statement in response to the vote by the Appropriations Committee in the California Assembly in support AB 1280 (Hill-District 19), which would block attempts to purchase more than the legal amount of pseudoephedrine-based medicines (PSE), a critical ingredient in the illegal substance methamphetamine.

"Today's vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in favor of electronic tracking legislation has brought California one step closer to becoming one of many states that have seen a dramatic drop in meth production thanks to common sense legislation that requires all retailers and pharmacies in the state to implement real-time technology that stops illegal sales," said Bill Dombrowski, president and chief executive officer of the California Retailers Association (CRA). "We are also pleased that this solution does not unnecessarily limit consumer access to basic, over-the-counter medicines. In light of today's hearing, we are hopeful that this bill continues to progress through the legislature and receives support from elected leaders seeking a solution to the meth problem that does not punish California's working families."

Obama's Schizophrenic Energy Policy

By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Posted: 5/19/2011

With gasoline prices near $4 a gallon in a sluggish economy, it's no surprise that energy policy is a major theme for the Obama administration. The president put energy policy at the center of his State of the Union speech this year, and on a recent trip to Brazil, energy was his main message.

"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely," the president told Brazilians. "And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

What? Could this really be the same president who's made it as difficult as possible for oil companies to tap our reserves right here at home? How nice of Obama to encourage the creation of jobs in Brazil -- at the same time his anti-energy agenda is displacing them here in the United States.

This isn't the first example of Obama's seemingly schizophrenic approach to energy. At a recent press conference seeking to reassure the public about increasing gas prices, the president vowed that the United States would be "producing more oil and importing less." But actions speak louder than words, and this administration is hiding its opposition to increased energy production behind empty promises and platitudes.

Let's take a look at what his government is actually doing.

Obama's knee-jerk shut-down on deep-water drilling in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the most obvious way he's limited the home team. The blanket ban went on for months, despite the fact that most Americans still supported offshore drilling. A U.S. District judge then rejected the moratorium, but no permits emerged. Last month, that same judge issued an order insisting that the Interior Department process offshore drilling applications in a timelier manner, finding the delays were "increasingly inexcusable." A few permits resulted, but the ban, which technically expired last November, has rightfully come to be known by the name "permitorium."

Oil isn't the only consumer friendly energy source that Obama is trying to keep from Americans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing punitive orders in its multi-front attack against coal. In January, the EPA took the unusual step of revoking a coal-mining permit granted two years before by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Arch Coal in West Virginia - potentially scuttling a $250 million investment and killing 250 jobs.

The oil and natural gas sector provides more than 9.2 million jobs around the country. But Obama is hobbling the industry with delays and bans, while directing government subsidies into artificial, bubble "green jobs." The 2009 economic stimulus package gave renewable energy companies direct grants totaling $16.8 billion, while the fossil fuels were left (as they should be) with only marketplace (nontaxpayer) support.

A job that requires taxpayer funding offers no real improvement to our employment problem. A job supported by the market, on the other hand, is a real contribution.

Witness North Dakota's unemployment rate -- the lowest in the country. The state actually has a worker shortage, and hasn't had a budget shortfall in the last four years. That's the result of its thriving petroleum industry. But Obama ignores what's working, preferring to focus on green mirages that have failed in the past and show little prospect in the future.

To reassure a public concerned about gasoline prices, Obama has raised the political palliative of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But such quick fixes misdirect the debate from the real deal: higher flows of homegrown oil from ongoing development. We have plenty of oil and the good jobs that come with it -- if only the president would end the backdoor war on oil and gas resourceship and let freedom ring.

Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the CEO & Founder of the Institute for Energy Research and author of six books on energy history and public policy.

Representative Denham Civilian BRAC Proposal Receives Broad Support

Denham offers common sense legislation to reduce our federal footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars
Posted: 5/19/2011

WASHINGTON – Representative Jeff Denham, Chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, today received broad support for his Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA), common sense legislation to reduce our federal footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars.

Witnesses discussing Rep. Denham’s legislation focused on the potential for significant savings through the sale of high value properties, redevelopments and more efficient use of property, agreeing that the savings that can be achieved through selling unneeded surplus properties will be a very small fraction of the overall savings.

“I believe the potential to save billions of dollars is real, and our challenge is to create system where it will happen,” Chairman Denham said. “Just having a fire sale of surplus property in a bad real estate market is not going to generate significant savings for the taxpayer. Instead redeveloping, consolidating or selling certain high-value assets can unleash huge cost savings for taxpayers.” VIDEO : http://bit.ly/iukT7r

Chairman Denham first proposed exploring the use of a civilian BRAC process to address chronic problems and waste in federal real property management at a February 10th Subcommittee hearing. The President’s FY 2012 budget also proposed a civilian BRAC process. The Subcommittee held a hearing focusing on the topic on April 6th, and both the administration and Chairman Denham released their proposals on May 4, 2011. Both proposals have the same goal to develop an independent commission that will reduce our federal footprint, increase transparency and cut spending to save taxpayer dollars.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that the proposal could save taxpayers more than $15 billion. Daniel Werfel, OMB Controller, testified today and stated that the differences between the Denham and Administration proposals are bridgeable and that he looked forward to continuing to work together to establish a civilian BRAC process. VIDEO: http://bit.ly/jiw7XN

Michael Glossman, Managing Member of JBG Companies, which invests, develops and manages commercial real estate in the Washington, DC area, said, “We strongly support the Civilian Property Realignment Act. We are encouraged to see that Congress and the Administration are working to improve the efficiency of the Government real estate portfolio, while at the same time providing the opportunity for the private sector to compete for otherwise unavailable prominent sites throughout the United States.”

The witnesses also stressed the importance of private sector participation and expertise to the success of the initiative.

“Given the federal budget conditions, there should be increasing focus on public-private partnership to provide workplace solutions, agency consolidations and federal real property redevelopment,” said David Winstead, a real estate attorney and former General Services Administration Commissioner of Public Buildings.

Glossman urged the Subcommittee to empower a civilian BRAC commission to identify opportunities outside the scope of individual agencies. “Many undervalued properties or sites with excess density or alternative value-add opportunities are likely to be overlooked by Government agencies, which do not possess real estate expertise,” he said.

Glossman testified that if the private sector sees progress with a civilian BRAC process and the opportunity to work with the federal government, “you will see folks coming out of the woodwork” with proposals to better utilize federal properties and save taxpayers money.

At the April 6th hearing, Werfel had agreed to principles outlined by Denham for a civilian BRAC process. Restating some of those key principles today, Denham said, “To achieve these savings, any solution must incorporate key principles: consolidate the footprint of federal real estate, house more federal employees in less overall space, reduce our reliance on leased space for long-term requirements, sell or redevelop high value assets that are underutilized or too valuable for housing federal employees, and dispose of surplus property more quickly.” VIDEO: http://youtu.be/7LcQzTJMK2g

Sac County Releases Preliminary Impacts of Next Year’s Budget

Posted: 5/18/2011

Sacramento Region – Sacramento County released preliminary information about service level and staffing reductions that will be included in the Fiscal Year 2011/12 Budget. This information does not include staffing information for the elected offices of the Sheriff and District Attorney or the Public Defender, and the numbers will likely change before the complete Recommended Budget is released on May 27.

“These service reductions are significant, but it’s imperative that we size service levels with our current long-term revenue and there is no other choice but to continue to downsize,” said Steve Szalay, Interim County Executive. “Though difficult, we are making progress in using less one-time funds and positioning ourselves for success in the future.”

The county will continue to work on reducing impacts to services and department budgets. The budget shortfall for FY 11/12 was $69.4 M, down from $181M one year ago.

The shortfall is comprised of:

$30 M in one-time funding - 33.19%
$20 M in increased labor costs - 22.12 %
$19.4M department shortfalls - 21.46 %
$69.4 M Total Shortfall

In addition, the impact statements include $21M in known state reductions, bringing the total reduction amount to $90.4M.

Along with the reductions in services, there will be reductions in staffing levels. Of the current 11,500 full time employees, about 222 General Fund positions and 92 Non-General Fund positions will be reduced. This does not include the Sheriff and District Attorney’s staffing plans. Because of Civil Service rules that dictate seniority “bumping” and transfers combined with retirements, it is impossible to predict the number of people that will be laid off.

County budget documents can be found on the County Budget Website. Budget Hearings will be held the week of June 6, in the Board Chambers at 700 H Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Runner Sponsored Pro-Taxpayer Legislation Advances

Posted: 5/11/2011

A key Senate tax panel today voted 9-0 to advance legislation sponsored by Board of Equalization Member George Runner that would empower California's tax agencies to help struggling taxpayers.

Runner testified, "This measure will help California's job creators who are survivors of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

The measure, Senate Bill 228 (Wyland), would permit the Board of Equalization, Franchise Tax Board and State Controller to "withdraw" a lien when a taxpayer pays an outstanding liability in full—removing the lien from the taxpayer's credit record.

Under current law, when a taxpayer falls behind on payments, California's tax agencies may place a lien on that taxpayer's personal property.

Once a taxpayer pays the outstanding liability in full, California tax agencies may "release" the lien. However, the release does not remove the lien from a taxpayer’s credit record, and it may remain there for up to 10 years.

The bill's author, Senator Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad), described the measure as a "pro-consumer, pro- small business bill that conforms state tax law procedures to what the IRS has been doing for some time now."

Since 2001 the IRS has had the authority to withdraw liens in some cases. In February of this year the IRS changed its rules to help struggling taxpayers by withdrawing any fully paid tax lien upon request from the taxpayer, instead of merely releasing it.

Runner said, "This bill will give tax agencies the needed flexibility to deal fairly with taxpayers who are victims of California's economy."

He noted that due to the down economy the Board of Equalization has issued an increasing number of liens – more than 14,000 in the 2009-10 fiscal year. The Board typically releases only about 3,000 liens a year.

The bill received support from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Tax Reform Association.

Elected in November 2010, Senator George Runner represents more than nine million Californians as a member of the Board of Equalization. For more information, visit www.boe.ca.gov/Runner.

RENTERS’ RIGHT TO REDEMPTION BILL MOVES FORWARD

Posted: 5/4/2011

California’s renters are one step closer to gaining a “right to redemption.” A new bill, AB 265, would provide tenants being evicted for nonpayment the right to pay the rent due and specified costs during eviction proceedings in order to “redeem” the tenancy and prevent eviction. Similar rights exist in over a dozen states, but not in California. The bill, AB 265, cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week, despite an intensive lobbying effort by landlord groups.

A right to redemption already exists under California law for property owners (including landlords) who default on mortgage payments. Proponents of the new bill argue that tenants deserve a right to redemption as well.

This would be a significant change in California law. In contrast to many other states, California provides a mere 3-day pay or quit period and no right to redemption after that period expires. Tenants who are just four days late on rent can be thrown out of their homes notwithstanding their willingness to pay rent, even if they have lived there for years. Landlords are under no legal obligation to accept the rent after the 3-day notice expires and can move forward with eviction even if tenants are willing and able to pay the rent and any costs incurred by the landlord.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D – San Francisco), the author of the bill, noted that many states already have a right to redemption for tenants. “Why should tenants in Mississippi, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Washington D.C. have a right to redemption, but not California tenants?” asked Ammiano. “With the second highest rents in the nation, California tenants are suffering in the current economy. Despite their best efforts, some tenants cannot pay the rent on time, but with the help of family, friends or nonprofit rental assistance programs are able to come up with the money soon after it is due. These tenants should be protected from eviction.”

Desiree Zavala, Staff Attorney at Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, testified at the committee hearing about a recent case showing the need for the law. “My client, Jorge, is a former Marine and automotive tech who lived in his rent-controlled apartment for thirteen years with his wife and three children paying rent timely each month.” In February, the family was not able to pay the rent until the 10th of the month, and so advised the landlord. The landlord served a 3-day notice to pay or quit and immediately filed an eviction action, refusing to accept this one-time late payment of rent. The tenants now have an eviction on their record and will likely become homeless. When the judge at trial noted that the landlord’s actions were extremely harsh, the landlord’s lawyer replied, “that is what the law permits.”

Landlord lobbyists turned out in force to oppose the bill. One lobbyist characterized the Los Angeles case as “unfortunate,” but still opposed the bill arguing that it unfairly burdened landlords. Bill proponents maintain that landlords get the rent and reasonable costs if tenants exercise the right to redeem, so there would be no harm to landlords from passage of the bill.

The Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 to move the matter to the full Assembly for a vote. Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) broke with her fellow Democrats on the Committee to oppose the bill.

“The time for a right to redemption for California tenants has arrived,” commented Dean Preston of Tenants Together. “We are pleased with the Judiciary Committee’s vote of confidence on this important bill.”

Cattlemen in Strong Support of H.R. 1851

CCA President Attends McCarthy Event to Commend Effort to Reopen Lands for Public Use
Posted: 5/4/2011

SACRAMENTO, CALIF, – California Cattlemen’s Association President Kevin Kester, a rancher from Parkfield, Calif., joined Rep. Kevin McCarthy at his Bakersfield office today to announce introduction of H.R. 1851, The Wilderness Study Area & Roadless Release Act.

Kester said Representative McCarthy has always been a strong supporter of improving open spaces and protecting California agriculture but this bill specifically comes at a crucial time for all Californians and for the state’s public lands ranchers who rely on public lands grazing to supplement feed for their herds.

“This bill has been long-awaited by California cattle producers and CCA will follow it closely as it makes its way through the law-making process. Not only would this act be important to cattle producers, it would also provide many public benefits by keeping our open spaces healthy and vibrant,” Kester said. “There is a common misconception that when land is protected, it will retain its beauty and flourish, but that is simply not the case. Science has proven that the best way to keep land beautiful and productive is to responsibly manage it rather than discontinue use entirely. California has areas where the public lands are overgrown and severely damaged from a lack of management. This bill will provide the opportunity to change that.”

The bill, officially released earlier this month, aims to roll back the Clinton-era rule protecting 60 million acres of roadless Forest Service land and release wilderness study areas to multiple use. It would also bar future administrations from protecting new wilderness.

“Millions of acres of land across the United States are being held under lock and key unnecessarily,” said Congressman McCarthy. “My bill acts on recommendations made by the government agencies managing these lands so they are opened up for increased public use. This is just common sense. By opening these lands up to residents of our local communities and across the country for their use and enjoyment, we can help create jobs, boost local economies and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.”

Founded in 1917, the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) represents California’s $1.78 billion beef cattle industry on legislative and regulatory affairs and remains the number one voice for the industry today. CCA is an affiliate of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which represents America’s cattle farmers and ranchers.

President Obama Undermines His ‘Innovation Agenda’

Commentary by Merrill Matthews
Posted: 5/4/2011

On many occasions, Barack Obama has said, “The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.”

I agree. But in the president 2012 budget and elsewhere, he is undermining the very innovation he claims he wants to encourage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the president’s health care legislation, included a “data exclusivity” provision. The law permits brand name drug manufacturers of new biologic drugs to protect the data they create for 12 years before a competitor can use that information to create a generic version of the drug.

With standard prescription drugs, which usually come in pill form, patents give innovator drug makers the exclusive right to make and sell a new drug for several years, providing the economic incentive to invest hundreds of millions of dollars creating it. Once the patent runs out, a generic drug company can market a copy of the drug, and consumers get much lower prices.

But copying pills is much easier than copying complex, “large molecule” biologics, which are made from living material such as proteins. And so generic manufacturers need the innovator company’s data in order to copy the biologic accurately. Prior to ObamaCare, there was no law to determine how long drug companies could protect that data from their competitors. Now the law gives brand name manufacturers 12 years of data exclusivity-two more than Europe, a fact that could lure more drug innovation to the U.S.

So far so good. The brand name companies were content, and Obama’s “We win through innovation” agenda would seem to be taking a step in the right direction. Indeed, it was one of the few bright spots in the health care bill.

But then the president released his 2012 budget, where he proposes cutting the data-exclusivity provision down to seven years. So much for the innovation agenda.

And there will likely be many more such examples as the government, pressed for ways to find budget savings, pushes cheaper care over quality care. Take the current battle over Avastin vs. Lucentis, both made by San Francisco-based Genetech.

Avastin is a biologic that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use on several different cancers. Lucentis was especially developed and is FDA-approved for the treatment of eyesight loss due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Lucentis is expensive, about $2,000 a treatment. Avastin is also expensive, about $90,000 a year-when used for cancer. Because the two drugs are similar, many doctors have been using very small amounts of Avastin for the treatment of AMD. That reduced quantity means that an Avastin treatment for AMD costs about $50. But the treatment is off-label, because Avastin is not FDA-approved for age-related macular degeneration.

In an effort to determine if there is a therapeutic difference, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been conducting a three-year study comparing Avastin to Lucentis. Results may be released in March of this year.

The NIH has done these kinds of drug-to-drug comparisons for years, with the goal being therapeutic: to determine which therapy is more efficacious or has the fewest side effects. Cost has not been a consideration. And it probably isn’t in the current study either.

But that doesn’t mean the Obama administration won’t take cost into consideration when it makes its own decisions about what drugs will and will not be covered by Medicare and Medicaid, or even health insurance. Indeed, you can count on it.

And that is how a president can say one thing about winning the future with innovation, while completely undermining that effort with his policies-and hoping the public won’t notice.

It’s the battle we, as consumers, lost when ObamaCare passed. For several years the health care system had been slowly transitioning from a top-down system where the government, for those in Medicare and Medicaid, or an insurer limited patients’ choices. The goal was to move to a consumer driven system where the patient would be in charge.

When patients make their own health care decisions, in consultation with their doctors, they make trade-offs. They may be willing to pay more if they think a drug or other therapy is a good value for them. Not so with the government, budgets drive decisions-especially these days. And when budgets are king, the patient is just a pawn.

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

Governor Brown Announces Appointment

Posted: 4/28/2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. today announced the following appointment.

Sue Burr, 57, of Rancho Murieta, has been appointed by the State Board of Education to serve as the executive director of the board. In addition to her responsibilities as executive director, Burr will also advise the Governor on education policy, legislation and budget matters, student college readiness, teacher credentialing, early childhood education issues and school construction. Burr has served as the executive director of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association since 2006, after serving as the association’s governmental relations director from 2003 to 2006. She was the assistant superintendant for business services with the Elk Grove Unified School District from 2000 to 2003. She served as the undersecretary of education under Governor Gray Davis from 1999 to 2000, also serving as interim secretary from March 2000 to August 2000. Burr was the co-director of the California State University Institute for Education Reform from 1995 to 1999, a principal consultant for the Senate Education Committee from 1991 to 1994, and a principal consultant for the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1986 to 1991. Burr currently serves as secretary of the board of directors for EdSource and serves as president of the board of directors for Sacramento Children’s Home.

This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $175,000. Burr is a Democrat.

Lungren: 112th Congress Achievements

From the Office of Congressman Dan Lungren
Posted: 4/19/2011

Congressman Dan Lungren

The 112th Congress has gotten off to one of the fastest, most decisive and effective starts of any Congress in memory. Responding to the mandates and message of the Nov. 2, 2010 election, the majority party has made amazing strides using a one-two-three approach during its first 100 days: focusing on a sound fiscal future by executing the largest non-defense spending cuts in American history; removing regulatory shackles that restrict job growth; identifying and dealing with threats to our national security.

Leading the way right out of the block was Congressman Dan Lungren (R-Gold River, CA), who set the anti-spending tone on the second day in session when he managed the bill to cut 5 percent from Congressional spending accounts, House Leadership offices, Committees and House Operations.

“The best way to lead with spending cuts is to start with ourselves,” he said on Jan. 6, 2011.

But Congressman Lungren was just warming up. While he and colleagues were preparing legislation for spending cuts, he was also working to rid the economy of obstacles to job creation and growth.

On Jan. 10 he introduced H.R. 4, a bill to repeal some onerous paperwork mandates that had been slipped in to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by 111th Congress. Lungren had identified language within section 9006 of the health care bill that would force all businesses, large and small, to issue 1099 forms for transactions of $600 or more. He knew that fulfilling that busy work rule would cripple many small businesses and hamper the economic recovery.

Though he was the only supporter of the bill when he first introduced it in the 111th Congress, things had changed profoundly. The peoples’ mandates of November 2010 were now the mandates of an emboldened 112th Congress. As dozens signed on to the bill, Lungren mused on the change in fortunes. “I knew this had grass roots support from hosting sessions with businesses and chamber groups in our Third District. It’s gratifying to see the support now.” Within a week H.R. 4 had 263 colleagues sign on, including 12 Democrats.

Just a few weeks into the new Congress Lungren and colleagues made good on an election promise to vote to repeal President Obama’s health care reforms. Though that legislation did not win approval in the Senate, Lungren took solace in the fact that President Obama made positive reference to his H.R. 4 bill during his State of the Union message. He was optimistic his bill could at least repeal one of the most punishing aspects of the health care bill, and he was right.

H.R. 4 passed the House in March by a vote of 314-112. In April his bill passed in the Senate 87 -12. President Obama signed H.R. 4 into law on April 14.

“Placement of this tax provision into the government run health care law was ill advised,” Lungren said. “This provision demonstrated that the bill’s authors did not consider the job creators of America and those who lay awake at night trying to figure out how to make payroll.”

The remainder of January and the arrival of February and March were met with unyielding focus on more cost-cutting, national security and removing regulatory obstacles to economic recovery.

After responding to the tragic murders and shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson on Jan. 8, Lungren, Chairman of the House Administration Committee, worked to shore up security for fellow Members. Back on the cost-cutting mission, he sacked a composting program begun by Democrats in the House that didn’t produce the advertised savings and, in fact, was costing half a million dollars to operate.

The security-minded Lungren introduced a bill Jan. 26 to make it a federal crime to point lasers at aircraft. The next day he was named Chairman of the Homeland Security Sub-Committee for Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies. His experience and work on the Judiciary and Homeland Security came in handy as part of the panel that examined the “Extent of Radicalization in American Muslim Community” in March.

Just as Lungren spoke out against an onerous IRS mandate and achieved repeal with H.R. 4, he is ready to wage a fight against H.R. 1161, which could have a devastating effect on California wineries by restricting their ability to make interstate direct-to-consumer sales. Lungren will be in a key position to do that now since he joined Rep. Mike Thompson’s (D-CA) as Co-Chair of the Congressional Wine Caucus. He’s already organized listening sessions with vintners and grape growers who operate the 100 wineries in his district, and more are planned.

Other clear signs of Lungren’s work to defeat unwarranted regulation and create jobs include his bill to keep tax schemes out of internet commerce, and the recognition he received from the National Association of Manufacturers, who honored him for his pro-manufacturing voting record.

Lungren was a steady hand and confidant to House Leadership during the Continuing Resolution and Budget negotiations earlier this month. In addition to all of his other duties he was busy behind the scenes drafting a plan in the event that the government would have had to shut down. As Chairman of the House Administration Committee it was his job to offer guidance and policy for an orderly shut down, a shut status and the eventual start-up. Though no such plan was needed on this occasion, the Lungren plan now exists.

Just this week Lungren stood with his majority in passing Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Bill, which calls for steady spending cuts and reforms over the next decade that will begin to reverse our foreign indebtedness and bring economic sanity and sustainability to the country. It is not an easy or painless path, but it is the responsible thing to do – especially in the face of the news that Standard and Poor’s adjusted its long-term outlook on U.S. Debt to “negative.”

“My constituents understand that we cannot continue to spend money that we do not have,” said Lungren. “I have an obligation to my family, my constituents and the country to do what I can to help put America on a sustained path to prosperity.”

Homosexualization of Social Sciences Approved by Senate Education Committee

From Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute
Posted: 3/24/2011

Earlier today, March 23rd, State Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco presented Senate Bill 48 before the Senate Committee on Education.

SB 48 is sponsored by Equality California and the Gay Straight Alliance Network, the bill would require instruction in social sciences, such as geography, history, economics, communication, psychology, political science and more, to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Additionally, the bill would prohibit school districts from adopting accurate textbooks or instructional material that some may perceive as reflecting adversely upon a person's sexual orientation.

Leno has consistently introduced legislation undermining parental rights, forcing a radical LGBT agenda, and promoting special rights for the LGBT community. During the hearing Senator Leno disingenuously sought to frame the debate around LGBT bullying at schools.

Supporters of parental rights and traditional values came out in force against SB 48 with over 7 individuals, representing groups, testifying at length joined by an additional dozen vocally registering opposition.

Senator Robert 'Bob' Huff challenged the author of the bill several times during the committee hearing. Huff initially pointed to the bill's fiscal implications as a result of the bill's mandate.

"This is a paradigm shift from everyone being protected to actively promoting a lifestyle," stated Senator Huff. Several groups that testified made the same point. Senate Education Vice Chair Sharron Runner continued the point previously addressed by CRI's Legislative Director Paulo Sibaja, bullying should be addresses on a one on one basis.

After an hour of debate, the final vote was 6-3-1 with Democratic Senators Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian and Vargas voting in favor while Republican Senators Runner, Blakeslee and Huff voting against and Democrat Hancock as the sole abstaining/absent vote. During the committee hearing Senators Lowenthal, Alquist and Price told Leno they would like to be added as co-sponsors of the bill.

Because SB 48 passed out of the Sen. Education Cmte., it now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has yet to set a hearing date. Out of several of the organizations who spoke in support of SB 48 one must be noted: the California Teachers' Association. This is not the first time the CTA has supported radical and controversial public policies. For example in 2008, the CTA supported the efforts to defeat Proposition 8 thus defeat traditional marriage and in fact donated $1 million to the No on 8 campaign efforts. Their actions lead one to question the CTA's true agenda and whether it is to promote the well being of teachers and children or a radical agenda.

At today's hearing, CTA Legislative Advocate Isabelle Garcia testified in support of Leno's bill.

Call the CTA's Governmental Relations Division at 916.325.1500 and respectfully tell them you do not appreciate nor agree with the CTA's position on SB 48 or Isabelle Garcia's committee testimony in favor of Leno's bill.

If you are a teacher or know a teacher and you or they oppose SB 48 it is important that you let the CTA know you oppose their support of this agenda. Call your friends, family members, and others who are like-minded and tell them to call the CTA.

The CTA has gotten away with too much. They use their union dues, paid by traditional value voting teachers and others, to support and pay for legislative advocacy detrimental to our children and supportive of a radical agenda.

This Charade is Over

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions
How government-employee unions gain the power to tax while driving state and local governments to bankruptcy
Posted: 3/16/2011

The recent rally claimed “Fat Cats!” from both sides of the political debate. Photograph by Amanda Morello.

Commentary by Thomas DiLorenzo,
Professor of economics
Whiskey & Gunpowder,
Reprinted by permission

The main reason so many state and local governments are bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy, is the combination of government-run monopolies and government-employee unions. Government-employee unions have vastly more power than do private-sector unions because the entities they work for are typically monopolies.

When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. In contrast, when a city teachers’ or garbage-truck drivers’ union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers’ tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.

Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire “industry” they “work” in indefinitely. The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councilors to quickly cave in to the union’s demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction. This process is the primary reason why, in general, the expenses of state and local governments have skyrocketed year in and year out, while the “production” of government employees declines.

For decades, researchers have noted that the more money that is spent per pupil in the government schools, the worse is the performance of the students. Similar outcomes are prevalent in all other areas of government “service.” As Milton Friedman once wrote, government bureaucracies — especially unionized ones — are like economic black holes where increased “inputs” lead to declining “outputs.” The more that is spent on government schools, the less educated are the students. The more that is spent on welfare, the more poverty there is, and so on. This of course is the exact opposite of normal economic life in the private sector, where increased inputs lead to more products and services, not fewer.

Thirty years ago, the economist Sharon Smith was publishing research showing that government employees were paid as much as 40 percent more than comparable private-sector employees. If anything, that wage premium has likely increased.

The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their “demands,” it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction. They are the beneficiaries of a particular form of taxation without representation (not that taxation with representation is much better). This is why some states have laws prohibiting strikes by government-employee unions. (The unions often strike anyway.)

Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The “solution” to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.

As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived. The Wall Street Journal reports that state and local governments in the United States currently have $3.5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. They must either raise taxes dramatically to fund these liabilities, as some have already done, or drastically cut back or eliminate government-employee pensions.

Government-employee unions are primarily interested in maximizing the profits of the union. Consequently, they use civil-service regulations as a tool to protect the job of every last government bureaucrat, no matter how incompetent or irresponsible he or she is. Fewer employed bureaucrats means fewer union dues are being paid. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that government-employee unions will challenge in court the attempted dismissal of all bureaucrats save the occasional ones who are accused of actual criminal behavior. This means that firing an incompetent government school teacher, for example, can take months, or years, of legal wrangling.

Politicians discovered long ago that the most convenient response to this dilemma is to actually reward the incompetent bureaucrat with an administrative job that he or she will gladly accept, along with its higher pay and perks. That solves the problem of parents who complain that their children’s math teacher cannot do math, while eliminating the possibility of a lawsuit by the union. This is why government-school administrative offices are bloated bureaucratic monstrosities filled with teachers who can’t teach and are given the responsibilities of “administering” the entire school system instead. No private-sector school could survive with such a perverse policy.

Government-employee unions are also champions of “featherbedding” — the union practice of forcing employers to hire more than the number of people necessary to do the job. If this occurs in the private sector, the higher wage costs will make the firm less competitive and less profitable. It may even go bankrupt, as the heavily unionized American steel, automobile, and textile industries learned decades ago.

No such thing happens in government, where there are no profit-and-loss statements, in an accounting sense, and most agencies are monopolies anyway. Featherbedding in the government sector is viewed as a benefit to both politicians and unions — but certainly not to taxpayers. The unions collect more union dues with more government employees, while the politicians get to hand out more patronage jobs. Each patronage job is usually worth two or more votes, since the government employee can always be counted on to get at least one family member or close friend to vote for the politician who gave him the job. This is why, in the vast literature showing the superior efficiency of private versus government enterprises, government almost always has higher labor costs for the same functions.

Every government-employee union is a political machine that lobbies relentlessly for higher taxes, increased government spending, more featherbedding, and more pension promises — while demonizing hesitant taxpayers as uncaring enemies of children, the elderly, and the poor (who are purportedly “served” by the government bureaucrats the unions represent).

It is the old socialist trick that Frédéric Bastiat wrote about in his famous essay, The Law: The unions view advocates of school privatization, not as legitimate critics of a failed system, but as haters of children. And the unions treat critics of the welfare state, not as persons concerned with the destruction of the work ethic and of the family that has been caused by the welfare state, but as enemies of the poor.

This charade is over. American taxpayers finally seem to be aware that they are the servants, not the masters, of government at all levels. Government-employee unions have played a key role in causing bankruptcy in most American states, and their pleas for more bailouts financed by endless tax increases are finally ringing hollow.

Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of many books, including How Capitalism Saved America.