Politics

Was America Born in a Revolution or a War for Independence?
by Charles G. Mills

GLEN COVE, NY – In the century from 1607 to 1707, English colonies were established in America. Over time, some merged and some split. Some, such as Plymouth, Saybrook, and New Haven, permanently lost their identity. Most colonization was over by 1707; only Georgia was colonized after that. Most people who settled in the original colonies were English, Scots, or Welsh. A smaller number were Irish, German, or Dutch. The colonies had a variety of local elected legislative bodies as well as non-elected institutions. These elected and non-elected institutions generally survived in some form long after American Independence, and in many cases still exist.

In 1688, the English gave the name “revolution” to their violent and illegal overthrow of their Catholic King and establishment of a new Constitutional requirement that the King of England be Protestant. In 1707, England and Scotland were united into a single country, and Englishmen, Scots, and Welshmen became “British.” The English and Scots Parliaments were merged into a British Parliament. Simultaneously, the people in the colonies were gradually thinking of themselves less and less as Englishmen, Scots, and Welshmen, and more and more as Americans, as well as Virginians, Pennsylvanians, and others. Few thought of themselves as “British,” and their dislike of the British mercenary and impressed army is well known.

From 1775 to 1783, most Americans fought a war to gain the independence of their colonies from Britain. This was more a war between the colonial governments and Britain than a revolution. The history, however, is not completely one sided.

The Declaration of Independence was not a Declaration of Revolution. Although some of its general language can be read as revolutionary, many of the particular parts describing the tyrannical acts of Britain are a vindication of the traditional rights of the long-established colonial legislative bodies. Revolutions are the violent seizure of power by one group together with the killing, exiling, or otherwise mistreating of the losers. There was a little bit of this in Massachusetts and some British officials were sent home, but by and large the institutions of the colonial governments made peaceful transitions to new state governments.

America was soon divided into those who wanted a strong national government and those who did not. The resulting compromise was our Constitution and the two-party system. During the Napoleonic Wars, the conservative Americans in the Federalist Party sought an alliance with Britain, and the apologists for the radical French revolutionaries in the Republican Party sought an alliance with France. Although the Republicans won this specific argument, after the War of 1812 they gave it the conservative name “The Second War of Independence.” They opposed the nationalism of the Federalists, but ironically their war against Britain created greater nationalism. This established a battle that continues today as to whether we are a revolutionary country or one that respects its 400-year old political roots.

Between 1820 and 1860, the great American controversy became one between conservative states with political institutions based on honor, loyalty, justice, fear of God, agriculture, established freedoms, and status and between revolutionary states whose culture was one of commerce, greed, and equality. The states with large slave populations fell into the first group, and their enemies made slavery an obsessive national issue.

The revolutionaries won a major victory in the 1840s when they gained the upper hand in New York long enough to abolish the feudal agricultural lease system in the Hudson Valley.

By 1865, the victorious North had completely rejected the idea that our political institutions dating from the early 1600s -- the major reason we fought for independence -- had to be respected, and instead it adopted a completely revolutionary interpretation of America. Such radical attitudes open the door to tyranny because they allow everything to be overthrown. The refusal of George III and Lord North to respect the prerogatives of the Virginia House of Burgesses is no less a threat to liberty than the refusal of the federal government and the Northern army to respect such prerogatives.

It would be easy to say that the Northern victory established in practice that America was born in a Revolution, not a War of Independence. In 1876, 1920, and 1980, however, presidents were elected who took a step back from radicalism.

The issue is simple. If America had been born in a “Revolution,” then overthrowing governments would be a legitimate part of the political process. If, however, America had been born in a “War of Independence,” then governments like those of Virginia and Massachusetts could fight back if a central government violated the rights established in the early 1600s. The first theory justifies the killing of millions of innocent people by the French Revolutionaries, Soviets, and Chinese Communists. The second theory justifies the states fighting for their rights against the central government as they did in the War Between the States.

It was unjust for George III and Lord North to impose taxes without the consent of the colonial legislatures, to quarter soldiers in civilian houses, to close the port of Boston, and to move colonial criminal trials to London. It is equally unjust for Congress to impose arbitrarily different percentages of Medicaid costs on different states, and indeed state attorneys general are investigating what can be done to stop this. Just as the colonial legislatures were the champions of freedom once, the state governments that continue their function may turn out to be today’s champions of liberty. The battle against revolution continues.

What Makes A Good Politician?
Lee Hamilton Commentary

Members of Congress play a central role in our lives. They shape our health-care system, make crucial decisions about the U.S. economy, and represent the hopes and interests of every American in Washington. Given this fact, I’m always surprised that relatively little attention is focused on examining closely whether someone serving in or running for Congress has the personal attributes it takes to be an effective member of the institution. If someone’s behavior is shady or unsavory, that will make the news. But the qualities and skills that set good politicians apart should draw more notice.

Chief among those qualities is honesty. The public may believe that politics is a dirty business, but effective members of Congress must be trustworthy. They understand that to work together over the course of years, they must level with their colleagues. The same is true in their dealings with constituents, who are on the lookout for hyperbole and misleading statements.

The best politicians also sustain an unusually high energy level and an ability to focus on the task at hand. They tend to have few hobbies, for the simple reason that public office is all-consuming; there’s always another item on the to-do list.

Most good politicians are also ambitious, on fire with the wish to make something of themselves, and though many see this in personal terms, it usually means policy ambitions as well. They want to have a hand in contributing to the success of the nation and in finding ways of making life better for the people they represent.

While most politicians — good and indifferent — are adept at identifying and seizing on issues that will work to their own or their party’s benefit, the better ones possess an additional skill: they know how to use the system to achieve results. They understand where in the federal bureaucracy to get help for a constituent, and they think creatively about how to use the congressional process and their colleagues’ interests to advance a policy goal.

Perhaps just as important, they also understand the limits of their power — both what a legislator can realistically accomplish, and the fact that legislators might react to events but rarely can control them.

This ability to keep oneself in perspective is crucial to a politician. After years in office, it is supremely tempting to think of a legislative seat as an entitlement, as something held by right. It’s not. Good politicians not only understand that they serve in a representative democracy, they embrace the challenges and opportunities this offers them.

The occasional exception notwithstanding — Richard Nixon comes to mind — they are good communicators who genuinely like all kinds of people and are comfortable talking to perfect strangers in all kinds of environments. They are accessible to the grand and the humble alike. They are sensitive to the mood in a room, know how to read an audience, and are quick to respond. They are generally open to other points of view, and know that while they may differ with someone on one issue, they’ll likely be working with him or her on another in the future.

And perhaps most important, they understand that politics involves give and take, and the ability to find common ground. A good politician listens very carefully to those on the other side, not only to learn their arguments, but especially to learn how far he or she can move them and how far he or she has to be moved in order to reach consensus.

This is why politics puts a premium on resourcefulness and intelligence, and tends, over time, to discourage ideological blinkers — if you approach a problem by saying that all the good is in your side and all the bad lies with the opposition, then you’ll never accomplish anything. Good politicians persist in trying to forge agreement on policy or political goals, and they can take defeat in stride; they know that setbacks and criticism go with the territory, and are quick to learn from them and move forward.

Finally, they never forget where they’re from and fight hard not to succumb to Potomac Fever. They understand their districts and states, remain loyal to their constituents, and have an abiding faith in the decency, intelligence and patriotism of the voters. Without that, it’s almost impossible to be a true representative, able to express in the halls of the powerful the hopes, dreams, and interests of ordinary Americans. That’s what they got sent to Washington to do, and the very best never forget it.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years. Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years. As a public service, Hamilton writes regularly about Congress and what individuals can do to make our representative democracy work better. His columns, offered to you free, are part of the educational mission of the Center on Congress at Indiana University, where he is director. (www.centeroncongress.org)

The Real Dangers of Consumerism
by Daniel Graham

Not all consumerism is bad. Consumerism is appropriate in the marketplace. It is good to be careful consumers, to exercise the freedom to choose within our budgets and personal tastes, and to protect ourselves from fraudulent or predatory businesses.

Consumerism becomes problematic, however, when we let it permeate the rest of our lives, for example, our approaches to government, Church, and even family.

Consumerism corrupts government. Since the 1960s, citizens and politicians alike increasingly view government as a buffet of goods and services. Policy debates devolve into crass arguments about which politician can provide the greatest value for the least taxes. Appeals to the virtues of freedom and self-reliance are lost; civic duty becomes irrelevant. The healthcare debate is an example of the triumph of consumerism over virtue. The consumer-oriented government, destined to grow without limits, is thereby doomed to become oppressive. The irony is that consumer-oriented citizens will eventually despise the government they created.

Consumerism is even more poisonous for the Church and explains the exodus. Juila Duin, religion editor for The Washington Times, details the hemorrhage of membership in her engaging book, Quitting Church: Why the Faithful are Fleeing and What to do about it. The modern church, in keeping with the times, uses marketing methods to recruit new members. Membership equals money. Senior clergy run the church on a corporate model, offering more and more services, novelties, and conveniences.

For example, the Diocese of Arlington just set up a program where parishioners can auto-pay donations by credit card or bank transfer without the inconvenience of attending church services. The members of the laity become customers, rewarding the clergy-managers depending on perceived value. The members of the laity, behaving like prudent consumers, shop for a better value -- or they quit church altogether.

Some clergy argue that we need to attract the unchurched with goods and services, then steer them toward God. In business, that marketing strategy is called bait-and-switch, a tactic despised by consumers and doomed to failure. Such tactics demean religion. If we approach religion as consumers, we will eventually be disappointed in the goods and services. Most likely, we will join the ranks of the millions of consumer-oriented Christians who stop going to church.

It is ironic that politicians and clergy attack consumerism in the marketplace, while at the same time they embrace consumerism as their mode of operation.

The saddest aspect of consumerism is its effect on families. If spouses treat one another as employees or customers, or as sources of goods and services, then marriages will be in deep trouble. Consumer-oriented parents manage their children. Some parents boss their children like little employees who are usually wrong. Other parents kowtow to their children, the little customers who are always right. Eventually, parents become disappointed in their children and the children become disappointed in their parents.

Consumer-oriented families have no staying power. These family members like the hearth-and-home perks: Thanksgiving dinner and warm apple pie, companionship and sentimentality. However, when a family member becomes damaged goods -- stricken with dementia, for example -- the consumer’s impulse is to send the damaged goods back or at least get the damaged goods out of sight. The healthy family members may decide that the stricken member’s life is not worth living -- the goods and services consumed are not worth the costs. They calculate that the cost of being a family exceeds the benefits, and the consumer-oriented family falls apart.

We need to work hard to reverse this disturbing trend so that consumerism does not ruin our love of country, our faith, or our families. We need to keep consumerism where it belongs -- only in the marketplace.

Daniel Graham is an award-winning novelist. Some of his books include TENEBREA RISING, THE POLITICS OF MEANING, and THE WRITING SYSTEM WORKBOOK. His new book, CAN DO WRITING is already on the reading lists for major universities such as Harvard Business School and Queens College, Toronto. The FAMILY MATTERS column is copyright © 2010 by Daniel Graham and http://www.fgfbooks.com, the website of the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved.

State’s Sheriffs Applaud Senator Dave Cox
Cox named Outstanding Legislator of the Year by California Sheriffs

In its annual review of lawmakers’ voting record, the California State Sheriffs’ Association honored Senator Dave Cox as an Outstanding Legislator for 2009.

“It is humbling to be recognized for doing my job,” said Sen. Dave Cox who represents the First Senate District. “My commitment to the safety of our citizens and their communities will be unwavering and I appreciate the recognition.”

Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness, acting on behalf of the Association, presented Cox with a resolution.

McGinness went on to praise Cox’s accessibility to residents, “Senator Cox is a loyal public servant who is responsive to the needs of his constituents. The Sheriffs of California appreciate his dedication and support.”

Formed in 1894, the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA) is a nonprofit professional organization that gives the state’s 58 sheriffs a single voice. CSSA serves as the watchdog for sheriffs and on professional and law enforcement issues.

CSSA allows a venue for the sharing of information and provides assistance to sheriffs and departmental personnel, thus enabling them to improve the delivery of law enforcement services to the residents of this state.

Senator Dave Cox represents the residents of the First Senate District, which includes all or portions of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Placer, Plumas, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Sacramento and Sierra Counties. Contact his office at 916-651-4001, or via email at senator.cox@sen.ca.gov.

Niello Introduces Measure To Ease Tax Burden On Short Sales And Loan Modifications
For Immediate Release: February 11, 2010
Todd Moffitt (916) 319-2005
www.asm.ca.gov/Niello

Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO -Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) announced today that he has re-introduced legislation to help ease the tax burden of California families who have negotiated a short sale or been assisted with a loan modification.

When a lender has forgiven a portion of a homeowner's principal mortgage indebtedness, as in a short sale or loan modification situation, the amount of forgiven debt is considered taxable income under California state tax law. While the Congress has exempted this income under federal tax law through the 2012 tax year, the state has not taken action to conform. Until the state does conform, many unsuspecting homeowners who were able to negotiate a short sale or loan modification will face huge state income tax bills for the 2009 tax year.

Last year, Assemblyman Niello introduced Assembly Bill 111 which would have provided full California conformity to federal law by extending the state exemption through the 2012 tax year. Unfortunately, this legislation was held in an Assembly Committee when it failed to gather enough votes for passage.

As taxpayers begin to prepare their 2009 state income tax returns, the lack of an exemption on this forgiven debt is showing itself in the form of huge state tax liabilities."Since the failure of the bill last year, a number of taxpayers from all over the state have called my office to express their shock at the prospect of facing a huge state tax bill on their forgiven debt. One 70-year old woman from Gilroy told my staff that she faced a $7,000 state income tax bill for forgiven debt on her 2009 short sale," said Assemblyman Niello.

"Congress has recognized that we should not add insult to injury by handing these huge tax bills to these displaced homeowners. California must act similarly."

"The reality is that any revenue the state might collect under this law is simply windfall revenue to the state that has resulted out of a total collapse in our housing market. In many cases, these tax bills are so large that many homeowners will be forced to declare bankruptcy and the state may never see the revenue. We need to act this year to ease the concerns of these taxpayers and fully conform to the federal exemption," said Assemblyman Niello.

Niello Applauds Action By CARB To Give Regulatory Relief To Off-Road Construction Equipment Owners

SACRAMENTO - Assemblyman Roger Niello today issued the following statement regarding the announced actions by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that there will be no enforcement of the off-road diesel equipment regulations set to go into effect on March 1.

"I am encouraged that CARB has decided to take this action. California's economy is struggling to recover and the lack of construction activity has led to a dramatic decrease in diesel particulate matter anyway. It would have made no sense for the Board to enforce the March 1 compliance deadline, and I am glad that cooler heads prevailed at the Board," said Assemblyman Niello.

"I am also pleased that CARB will be holding a March 11 hearing to further evaluate modifications to the proposed rules on diesel regulations in light of the current economy." Last fall, Assemblyman Niello led an effort of 52 members of the Legislature to call for a suspension of the on and off-road diesel regulations which will require truck and equipment owners to pay for expensive retrofits and replacements of diesel engines. The bi-partisan letter sent to CARB stressed the fact that in this economic climate, it made no sense to impose these regulations on an industry that was having such a difficult time remaining viable.

"While this is a reasonable and sane step for CARB to take, my hope is that they would now also find the same sensibility in suspending the on-road diesel regulations per the letter from the Legislature last September." For more information go to: Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov.

Lungren: Do Not Give Miranda Rights to Terrorists
Bill Requires Consultation Before Giving Terrorists Miranda Rights

Washington, D.C. – House Republicans today introduced legislation requiring the Justice Department (DOJ) to consult with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before giving terrorists Miranda rights. The Ensuring the Collection of Critical Intelligence Act of 2010 (H.R. 4503) requires DOJ to consult with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before mirandizing or charging a foreign terrorist as a criminal.

Congressman Lungren: “Apprehension of a foreign national who is trying to kill Americans, presents us with the urgent need to obtain information for the protection of our citizens rather than convincing terrorists they have the right to remain silent. These are individuals whose sole purpose is to destroy the fabric of America and the freedoms we enjoy. Giving terrorists the same constitutional rights as American citizens - when they themselves follow no legal code of conduct - is unacceptable and will only weaken our ability to protect the public.”

Following the Christmas Day bombing plot, Nigerian terrorist Abdulmutallab admitted to FBI agents that he was an al Qaeda operative who had received explosives training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Despite confessing to being a foreign terrorist affiliated with al Qaeda, Abdulmutallab was informed of his Miranda rights and charged as a civilian criminal. Neither the FBI nor DOJ consulted with the intelligence community before filing the complaint.

According to news reports, Abdulmutallab claimed to be one of many terrorists training with al Qaeda to attack Americans. But now that he has been given access to an attorney, Abdulmutallab has stopped cooperating with investigators. In other words, our ability to gather critical intelligence about pending attacks against Americans has been lost. A recent Investor’s Business Daily poll found that 61% of those polled oppose giving Miranda rights to captured terrorists.

House Judiciary Committee Member Dan Lungren (R-CA) joined by 17 Republicans in introducing the bill today, including: Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (R-Texas), Armed Services Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Homeland Security Ranking Member Peter King (R-N.Y.), Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R- Fla.), Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.),Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), and Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), and Congressmen Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and Don Manzullo (R-Ill.). Representative Manzullo’s District includes the Thomson prison, which is slated to be the future home of as many as 50 Guantanamo Bay terrorists.

Leftwing Speech Control Infects GOP
by Paul Gottfried

GOP operatives again fell on their noses trying to be more PC than the Democrats.

Their war on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying in private that President Obama was well positioned in 2008 because he is “a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one” turned into something truly tasteless. Although Reid apologized to the President for his “poor choice of words,” there was nothing outrageous in what he said, particularly in a private conversation. I heard quite a few observations similar to Reid’s from my impeccably leftist academic associates during the presidential campaign. Despite his left-leaning position as a senator, lots of Americans, I was told, would vote for candidate Obama because he seemed like a non-threatening black. White voters would feel good about themselves if they had the chance to vote for such a pleasant-sounding minority candidate.

I have no idea why anyone but a PC exhibitionist who is straining hard to win minority votes could take offense at Reid’s remarks. Black spokesmen such as Al Sharpton and Congressman Charles Rangel, who are known to scream racism at the drop of a pin, seemed unfazed by his comments. Both urged Americans to forget about this alleged insult and to pass the health care plan. Admittedly, such figures are highly partisan Democrats, but I have to agree with them about the silliness of the GOP’s reaction to Reid’s comment to personal friends.

Now we have Republican Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele demanding that Reid step down as Senate majority leader because, in Cornyn’s words, he had made remarks that were “embarrassing and racially insensitive.” Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president, has been on television deploring Reid’s reference to “skin color.”

Meanwhile, Steele, who has been popping up on Fox News since the story surfaced, cannot contain his rage that “Democrats feel they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from mouths of their own.” Steele’s apparent indignation may explain his verbal ineptitude as a critic of Reid. Unfortunately for this black Republican chairman, most other blacks do not seem to care about the senator’s remarks. It is the GOP, which is fuming over Democratic insensitivity to American blacks, that the overwhelming majority of black voters reject.

We are reminded that in 2002 Republican leaders pressured then-Senate majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi to step down, after Lott had praised the presidential campaign of longtime South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond at Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. When Thurmond had run for the presidency back in 1948, he had been a Dixiecrat opposed to racial integration. Although there was nothing in Lott’s remarks to suggest that he approved of segregation, and although there was nothing in Thurmond’s career for decades to suggest that he was still a segregationist (many of his voters from the 1970s on were black), Lott was seen to have crossed the line by flattering the centenarian Thurmond. He therefore had to go as Senate majority leader. This decision was reached after neoconservative columnists had gone after Lott for ignoring “the most important event,” at least in Charles Krauthammer’s life, “the civil rights revolution” (Washington Post syndicated column, December 2, 2002).

The GOP was acting on its own when it humiliated Lott. It could have well abstained from playing the PC card and left the Mississippi senator in his place. That it chose to act differently was its own decision; certainly it was not a decision that it increased its share of the black vote since 2002. Thurmond, the man whom Lott was humoring, won a far higher percentage of the black vote in South Carolina than the supersensitive GOP has managed to pick up just about anywhere for the last decade. But then Thurmond traded in favors, not in raising the PC ante.

Laws and Sausages
By John Crabtree, The Center for Rural Affairs

It's an old joke - laws and sausages are two things no one should ever see made. The health care debate has given Americans a view of Congress that is roughly the equivalent of an all-access pass to an Oscar Meyer hot dog factory. Unprincipled partisanship, capitulation to the health insurance industry, political expediency and inside baseball have left most Americans as disillusioned with the legislative process as they are frustrated with the dysfunction of their health care system.

After all the posturing and political rhetoric it seems necessary to remember why we have labored so diligently to reform health care. The answer is simple; allowing current health insurance and cost-shifting trends to continue, unchecked by reform, will severely impact people across America, rural Americans in particular.

Soon to be released Center for Rural Affairs research reveals that by 2019 approximately one in four rural Americans will be uninsured. In rural communities with fewer than 2,500 residents, absent reform, the uninsured will number nearly one in three. Shifting costs from the uninsured to those with insurance will more than double, costing the average household, conservatively, $1,206 annually. And the average rural household will absorb nearly $4,700 of their own health care costs annually as well, compared to $2,785 currently.

America needs health care reform, rural America's family farmers, ranchers, main street businesses and rural communities need it more than most. The debate has been long and tiresome. The time to make health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans has arrived.

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.

Is Proposition 13 to Blame for California’s Fiscal Crisis?
By Jason Clemens and Jon Coupal

When California voters approved Proposition 13 by a landslide in 1978 they launched a nationwide revolt for lower taxes. Critics now blame that revolt for our current fiscal crisis. That charge needs to be considered in the light of actual data about property taxes in California.

Prop 13 limits property taxes to 1 percent of the cash value of property or the market value of a property depending on when it was purchased, with subsequent annual increases limited to 2 percent. Prop 13 also imposes a two-thirds majority requirement on the state legislature for increasing taxes — either by increasing rates or changing the way taxes are calculated.

These provisions have caused Senator Barbara Boxer, Nobel economist Paul Krugman, and a cadre of pundits to cry foul. The standard story is that these restrictions (a) force the state to rely more heavily on other taxes like personal income taxes because it can’t raise enough from property taxes, and (b) they prevent the legislature from raising taxes even in times of crisis. The actual tax data tell a different story.

First, the limits imposed on property taxes by Prop 13 no doubt delivered benefits to homeowners for more than three decades. That relief, however, was mitigated when housing prices began to eclipse income gains early this decade. The run-up in housing prices and the accordant increase in property tax assessments for those purchasing homes post-2000 meant huge revenue gains for government. Any Californian who purchased a home in the last decade knows full well the burden property taxes place on their personal finances. Indeed, according to the latest census data, California ranks 19th in terms of the aggregate level of disposable income required to pay property taxes.

Boxer, Krugman and company are fundamentally mistaken when they argue that the state relies less on property taxes because of Prop 13 compared to other states. Again, census data indicates that California ranks ninth-highest for its reliance on property taxes. Put differently, a full 41 states rely less on property taxes than California.

Specifically, local governments in California collect a little over one-third (34.3 percent) of their revenues from property taxes. Alabama, which ranks first, collects 44.4 percent of its revenues from property taxes. Contrast this reliance to some of California’s neighbors: Arizona 36.4 percent, Nevada 34.8 percent, and Utah 38.8 percent. This refutes the notion that California is a low property tax state and that Prop 13 has skewed the overall revenue mix in some bizarre manner.

California’s heavy reliance on personal income taxes—10th highest of the 50 states—simply cannot be a function of our light use of property taxes. Further, our heavy use of property taxes and personal income taxes hasn’t meant low taxes in other areas; we have a fairly high corporate income tax rate and the highest state sales tax rate in the country. These high personal income, corporate income, and sales tax rates dismantle another popular assertion of Prop 13 opponents.

They charge that the measure impedes the state government from implementing budgets, even in times of crisis. What the data actually show is that the state government and their local counterparts have had very little trouble raising taxes to the point of being markedly uncompetitive and dangerously eroding the incentives for work effort, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. These form the bedrock of a prosperous economy, now little in evidence.

The state’s budget crisis has continued unabated despite the many so-called fixes of the past two years. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office recently estimated that the state is facing a $20.7 billion shortfall. The state’s bond rating was already the lowest in the country when Standard and Poor recently reduced it again.

Blaming these fiscal woes on a lack of revenue because of Prop 13 makes for an easy sound bite, but the charge is factually baseless and counterproductive. To overcome our current crisis, California needs a serious debate on solutions, based on actual tax data, not on urban legend and rhetoric.

Jason Clemens is the director of research and the coordinator of the California Prosperity Project at the Pacific Research Institute (www.pacificresearch.org ) and Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ( www.hjta.org ).

California Senate Passes California Universal Health Care Act: SB 810
By Yolanda Knaak

While most of the nation is opposing Obama Care, the California State Senate quietly passes SB 810 a bill that imposes Single Payer Health Care for California. Very few Californians are aware of the bill which already passed the State Senate on January 28th, 2010. SB 810 prevents any health care service plan or health insurance policy except for the new California Health Insurance System Plan.

Most Californians know the state needs health care reform, but do we really want to be going to the government for health care? Most people avoid even going to the DMV or the Franchise Tax Board. This bill creates a massive new government bureaucracy. Let us be honest, what bureaucracy has been efficient or provided accountability? Let us ask the more important question, who is going to pay for it? Any government provision must be paid for by raising taxes or fees paid by employers. One common problem with socialized healthcare like Canada’s or England’s is that those needing elective surgery such as a total knee replacement, a total hip replacement or carpal tunnel surgery could be on a waiting list for 2 or 3 years before getting their surgery and sometimes necessary treatments, particularly cancer treatments are not provided at all. Economists are concerned that if SB 810 passes, businesses will exit the state and unemployment will skyrocket. Elderly under Medicare or a Medicare HMO are concerned that their benefits will be cut back in order to pay for healthcare for younger generations who may be considered more of a priority. SB 810 also provides unlimited government funded abortions which many Californians oppose.

If it passes the Assembly committees and the Assembly, it will then go to the governor’s desk for his signature before passing. Remember that we have a representative government and our elected officials want to hear from their constituents. If you want to make your views known regarding California Universal Health Care Act SB 810, contact the California State Assembly Committee on Health: 916-319-2097 or 916-319-2075, committee chair, Dave Jones: 916-319-2009 and vice chair, Nathan Fletcher: 916-319-2075. The other committee members can be looked up on the internet. Other contacts are your Assembly Member, local Assembly Members are, District 9: Dave Jones, his phone # is 916-324-4676, and District 5: Roger Nielo, his phone # is 916-349-1995. If you want to contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, his phone # is: 916-445-2841, his fax # is 916-558-3160 and his address is: State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95841.

Most Californians agree that we need health care reform, but let us ask ourselves do we really want to give that much control to the government?

For questions or comments: Contact yolanda@skyq.com. About the author: Yolanda Knaak has a Masters Degree from UCLA in Nursing and works as a Home Health Nurse. She regularly offers her political commentary to MPG.

Assemblymember Huber Authors Bill to Eliminate Waste in State Government

AB 1659 Automatically Eliminates Boards and Commissions Unless they are Proven Effective

SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Alyson Huber has introduced a bill that will help identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. AB 1659 would take existing legislative resources and re-direct them to the Joint Sunset Review Committee which would conduct a comprehensive analysis of every state government agency to determine if the agency is still necessary and cost effective.

“A clear lesson of the past decade: government must change the way it does business,” said Assemblymember Huber. “I share my constituents’ frustration with government inefficiency and a lack of accountability. Legislators create new boards, commissions, agencies and departments to solve a problem and then no one looks back and asks whether the new bureaucracy actually solved the problem it was created to solve or whether the problem is worse. We can fix this systemic problem by conducting comprehensive, regular reviews of state government to ensure taxpayers that their money is being used wisely. Other states have been doing this for years and California should adopt this common sense approach to oversight.”

As introduced, AB 1659 would require that an agency be automatically eliminated unless the Legislature votes to extend, consolidate, or reorganize the agency based on the recommendation of the Sunset Review Committee. Prior to the committee’s recommendation each agency scheduled for sunset would be required to submit a report to the committee. Then, the committee would take public testimony and evaluate the agency prior to the date the agency is scheduled to be sunset.

In 1989, the Little Hoover Commission issued a report, entitled Boards and Commissions: California's Hidden Government, which found that, “California's multi-level, complex governmental structure today includes more than 400 boards, commissions, authorities, associations, councils and committees. These plural bodies operate to a large degree autonomously and outside of the normal checks and balances of representative government.”

The Commission concluded that “the state's boards, commissions and similar bodies are proliferating without adequate evaluation of need, effectiveness and efficiency.”

Since the Little Hoover report many more boards, commissions and other entities have been added to California’s government structure. Recently, the California Performance Review evaluated 339 state boards and commissions. Some estimates are as high as a 1,000 government entities.

Numerous other states have a sunset review function. In Texas for example, they have had the Sunset Advisory Commission since 1978. Since the Commission’s inception 58 agencies have been abolished and another 12 agencies have been consolidated for a total savings of almost $800 million dollars, or $27 for each dollar spent on the Commission.

Despite the explosion in California’s bureaucracy no system has been instituted to comprehensively evaluate their effectiveness and necessity. Furthermore, as found twenty years ago, a comprehensive listing of the organizations that make up state government does not seem to exist. AB 1659 addresses the need for a system of review.

“We must get a handle on our bloated state government. The only way to be certain that the state is operating as efficiently as possible is to ask the tough questions year after year – are the state agencies truly meeting their goals and are they worth the cost?” concluded Huber.

Link to Little Hoover Report: http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/097/report97.PDF

To view the bill language visit http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html and enter the bill number, 1659.

A Bill No Senator Can Be Proud Of
Senate passes health care bill that funds abortions, rations care, and burdens taxpayers with paying off bribes

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today the U.S. Senate passed Sen. Harry Reid's health care bill.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, stated, "No senator with an ounce of integrity can be proud of this bill or how it was passed. It marks among the lowest points in the U.S. Senate's history.

"Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Democrats' health care bill and distrust how the Democrats passed it. The bill will fund abortions, deny care for patients, increase premiums, create more bloated and unnecessary government agencies and burden taxpayers with paying off bribes to senators.

"As if to emphasize their arrogance, Democrat senators passed this monument to their greed for power on Christmas Eve. This gift to themselves at Americans' expense stands in stark contrast to Jesus relinquishing His divine privileges to serve and give to others.

"During this holy season commemorating the humility and love of God Who came to earth as a baby, these senators voted to fund abortion. Jesus healed the sick; this bill will force health providers to deny care to patients. Jesus taught people to be good stewards; this bill will penalize people who have insurance but the government doesn't approve. Jesus treated people of all classes equally; this bill benefits those well-connected to conniving politicians.

"The House must now deal with this monstrosity of a bill. Concerned Women for America will work to convince House members to kill this bill."

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

SBA List Statement on Abortion Provisions in Manager's Amendment to Senate Health Care Reform Legislation
Dannenfelser: "This is not 'compromise' or 'middle ground' - it is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans."

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 /Christian Newswire/ -- In response to this morning's introduction of the manager's amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

"Today Ben Nelson let down Nebraska and he let down Americans who oppose government-funded elective abortion. It's a tragedy that Senator Nelson has paved the way for legislation that departs from the status quo. If this bill passes, for the first time, federally funded and managed health care plans will cover elective abortions. Pro-life Americans in Nebraska and other states that choose to 'opt-out' of abortion coverage will still be forced to foot the bill for abortions in California and New York.

"This is not 'compromise' or 'middle ground' - it is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of Senator Nelson's own principles. Abortion is never good for women or their unborn children. This is exactly the type of 'leadership' that repels the American electorate. Real Americans everywhere are sending a message they are hungry for authenticity. They seek leaders whose actions follow their principles - no matter what sweet deal comes along to trade off on them.

"Americans - women included - reject the radical feminist vision of an abortion for every home, at government expense. Abortion is never good for women, and can never be a legitimate aspect of any 'health care' debate. Stupak is the only language that sets it aside. Every pro-life senator must vote against cloture on the manager's amendment. This vote will be the most important pro-life vote of their career. Senators must recognize that a vote for cloture is a complete betrayal of their pro-life constituents. There is no middle ground: either you fund abortion or you don't."

Unlike the House version of health care reform, manager's amendment introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) does not prohibit abortion coverage for plans offered in federally subsidized health care exchanges. The state "opt-out" provision does nothing to prevent one state's tax dollars from funding abortions in other states.

The new "public option" managed by the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) will cover abortions. Each state through OPM can provide two multi-state plans and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM's current health care program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. The bill also includes a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, without language to prevent federal funding of abortions.

As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded television ads in Nevada and Pennsylvania, radio ads in Nevada, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and targeted advocacy telephone campaigns nationwide to mobilize pro-life Americans to contact Congress and urge their legislators to defend Life in health care reform.

For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent over one million letters to Congress requesting an explicit exclusion of abortion from health care reform.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

Christian Newswire

Explicit School Reading List Compiled Under Watch of President Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings

As we reported last week, we are monitoring the Kevin Jennings controversy, and will continue to report back to you as more information becomes available and new developments in the story are unearthed.

Here's the recap for those of you who have not followed our reporting on this story: Prior to his appointment as "Safe Schools Czar" by President Obama, Kevin Jennings was the founder and Executive Director of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Under Jenning's watch, the organization compiled a recommended reading list that includes sexually explicit and pornographic materials for children in grades 7-12. Now, GLSEN is attempting to have school districts adopt the reading list.

The blog post that contains more information about Kevin Jennings and the sexually-charged recommended reading list can be found online here: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/.

Warning: the material in this post is explicit, and not for everyone.

CRI is urging parents to contact their school districts and the California Board of Education to demand that the books on this reading list stay out of California schools. We encourage you to visit www.stopjennings.org to learn more about President Obama's appointee to the Department of Education.

From Capitol Resource Institute

U.S. Term Limits Condemns CA Governor Schwarzenegger for Calling Term Limits “Crazy”

“Schwarzenegger is unwittingly serving the interests of the political establishment with his unfortunate remarks, who would like nothing more than to have entrenched, permanent politicians to keep on the dole and in their Rolodexes.”—U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel.

U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel today (October 9th, 2009) condemned Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) for calling California’s legislative term limits “crazy.”

The only thing that’s crazy is thinking that out of 36.7 million people, only a confined, elite class of individuals are qualified or ‘experienced’ to hold public office,” said Blumel. “Does Schwarzenegger think he’s the only one ‘experienced’ to be governor, too?”

Schwarzenegger made his remarks in San Francisco at a speech to the Association of Community College Trustees' Leadership Congress yesterday, after he was introduced by former State Senator Jack Scott.

Schwarzenegger said, "I actually miss him now that he's not there but I know he was termed out because we have these crazy term limits here in California and people that are that experienced like him then have to leave and move on."

"Legislators should move on,” said Blumel, adding that, “Term limits promote competitive elections and encourage politicians to concentrate on doing the business of the people, not in filling up their campaign coffers to keep their jobs.”

“It should be noted the CA Legislature is the highest paid legislature in the U.S. which in part helps explain why they want to lengthen their terms so badly whenever possible,” Blumel explained.

Term limits were originally enacted in California in 1990. The current law places three two-year terms on the State House and two four-year terms on the State Senate, and took effect in 1996 and 1998, respectively.

“Schwarzenegger is unwittingly serving the interests of the political establishment with his unfortunate remarks, who would like nothing more than to have entrenched, permanent politicians to keep on the dole and in their Rolodexes,” Blumel said.

Legislative term limits is currently under debate in California. The bill, SCA 24, is currently in the State Senate. It lengthens the terms of office to 12 years in either House, “doubling the amount of time that can be served in the House and increasing by one-third the time that can be served in the Senate,” said Blumel.

“Time and again, Californians have supported attempts to weaken and repeal term limits. In 2002, with Proposition 45 that the people struck down, and in 2008, Proposition 93 was defeated. And so too will SCA 24. And U.S. Term Limits urges all Californians to oppose this and any future attempt to weaken term limits,” Blumel concluded.

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

Statement from Assemblymember Alyson Huber on the Outcome of her Bill to Ban a Canal without a Legislative Vote as Part of the Water Package Passed by the Legislature:

“I am disheartened by the choice made by many of my colleagues tonight to leave the path clear for the construction of a canal. My bill, AB 13 7x, which would have prohibited the construction of a peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature, was held hostage. Leadership killed the bill in order to keep the package of water proposals they negotiated behind closed doors, with So Cal water interests, from being broken apart.

“I fought to move it to the floor so it could be debated but, despite the support of many from both sides of the aisle, my bill was held. I introduced amendments to alter the main water policy bill to include the terms for building a canal but again, they were killed before a vote was even taken.

“I will continue to fight for legislative oversight and fiscal analysis for a canal through other avenues.”

Lungren: “We can all agree that our health care system is sick but tonight we gave America not only the wrong diagnosis but also the wrong prescription…”

Washington D.C. – (11-07-09) Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) released the following statement following the historic health care vote (220 to 215) in Congress: “After countless hours, days, weeks and months of debate, I have found there are certain things we can all agree on: we need to increase access to affordable, quality health care coverage.

“I have said in numerous town hall meetings and tele-town halls throughout my District that we do not need to turn the entire health care system on its head. Instead, we need to implement common sense reforms that will actually help those who are struggling because they have not only lost a job, but their employer-based health care coverage as well.

“There are other ways to expand access to affordable health care. A combination of tax credits and subsidies can be made available that would allow individuals and families to purchase coverage that meets their needs. We should allow Americans to purchase health care plans across state lines.

“We can provide for the creation of statewide exchanges – one-stop marketplaces – where everyone – not a select few, like the bill passed tonight – can buy coverage. This will offer not only access, but choice. That is the right prescription for America.

“Unfortunately, that is not what we did on the House Floor tonight.

“Instead the House of Representatives passed an historic bill which cuts 440 billion from Medicare for our seniors, kills jobs, adds $1.3 Trillion dollars to our skyrocketing debt and imposes a government plan on the public which will shift costs to private insurance plans and increase the costs of premiums for millions of Americans.”

Asm. Huber Makes Special Delivery to Governor from Delta Residents
2000 Postcards from Residents say NO to Canal Plan

SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills) today delivered 2000 postcards to the Governor’s office. The postcards are from Delta residents who are opposed to Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to build a peripheral canal.

"I have heard from my constituents – residents of the Delta region – and they have said loud and clear they oppose the construction of a peripheral canal,” said Assemblymember Alyson Huber. “The Governor showed how out of touch he is with my communities when, just hours after the water package was passed, he touted his plans to build a canal through the Delta at a business event in Stockton. He just doesn’t get it - he might as well walk into a Giant's game wearing a Dodger jersey.”

The Governor’s spokesperson, who came to accept the postcards, answered with a clear “yes” when asked by reporters if the Governor does in fact have plans to build a canal.

As the Governor signs the bills in the water package passed by the legislature, Assemblymember Huber wants to remind the Governor of the strong opposition to his canal plan by Delta residents. These residents will not stand aside while the Governor and his Southern California water buddies bulldoze their way through the Delta. Assemblymember Huber opposed the water package because it creates a new layer of bureaucrats who will make decisions on water that will impact the communities in her district, including the details of a canal. To counteract proposals to give all authority to a group of unelected appointees, Huber offered up a simple bill (AB 13 7x) one to require a full analysis of the peripheral canal and require legislative approval – a common sense approach. The bill was killed without a hearing. Huber plans to resubmit the bill in the coming weeks.

Assemblyman Roger Niello's Statement Regarding The Passage Of The Comprehensive Water Legislation Package

SACRAMENTO - Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) this morning issued the following statement regarding passage in the Assembly of the comprehensive water package.

"Certainly, California has water challenges and the health of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta is at risk. Unfortunately, the package of legislation that was put together was one that I could not support. Water-challenged Southern California can use the assistance from the water-rich areas of Northern California and that assistance is willing to be provided, but not in a manner that threatens our own water security."

"I also recognize the need for additional water storage facilities to ensure that we have more water available in the dry years. But unfortunately, the bond bill that was put forth won't do this. It only provides for additional water storage to be built after many additional environmental hurdles are cleared, a process that could hold up these projects for years and which could mean many never get built. In the meantime, it is wrong to ask the voters to approve an $11 billion bond measure that adds significantly to our overall bonded indebtedness at the same time the state faces a potential $20 billion deficit."

"Overall, this package of bills represents a bad deal for Northern California and the Sacramento region that in the end will result in residents having to pay more for their water and wastewater treatment, with fewer water rights protections."

Assemblyman Niello To Host Free Workshop For Non-Profit Organizations
Niello To Host Free Workshop For Non-Profit Organizations

SACRAMENTO - Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), will again be hosting a free workshop for non-profit organizations to learn about fundraising and grant writing.

"My first workshop on fundraising and grant writing for non-profit organizations was such a huge success that I was determined to organize an additional event. Non-profit organizations have been struggling during the recession and many have seen the needs of the community grow during these troubled economic times. Many organizations are looking for new and creative ways to keep their doors open and my hope is that this workshop will help them accomplish their goals," said Assemblyman Niello.

Information will be provided on grant writing by Miriam Houghton, President of EXPRESSIONS, and Kim Rhinehelder, CFRE who is the Chief Philanthropy Officer with the Mercy Foundation/Mercy San Juan Medical Center who will be speaking about fundraising. Non-profit organizations rely heavily on fundraising and grants to pay for their daily operations. The workshop is designed to give non-profits the keys to empower themselves and learn how to create sustainable funding along with how to find and write grants.

For additional questions or to RSVP, please contact Assemblyman Niello's District Office at (916) 349-1995 or at Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov. Details of the event are as follows. An RSVP is requested.

November 13, 2009
9:00am - 12:00pm
Orangevale Community Center
6826 Hazel Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662

Assemblyman Niello Urges Caution In Regulation Of Small Business

SACRAMENTO - Assemblyman Roger Niello (R- Fair Oaks) joined Assembly colleagues and representatives from the business community today to discuss a new study by Sacramento State professor Sanjay Varshney that suggests the cost of regulations on businesses to be $492 billion per year. The independent study was called for in legislation (AB 2330 of 2006) which was approved on a bipartisan basis.

The study arrived at the massive dollar figure as the total cost of regulation to California's businesses, taking into account actual losses in economic output, losses in jobs, indirect losses in business taxes, and finally, losses in labor income. This number is nearly five times the State's general fund budget and almost a third of the State's gross product. In addition, the study suggests the state loses 3.8 million jobs (a tenth of the state's population) as a result of regulation costs.

"In trying to catch the "Enrons" of the world, the legislature is hurting small business, which makes up 99 percent of the business in California. In trying to "protect" the environment, workers, and consumers by catching the big tunas, we're netting a whole lot of dolphins," said Assemblyman Niello.

Business leaders from across the state echoed such sentiments, agreeing that regulation is a necessary and integral part of running a civilized society, but that the burden has grown to be so burdensome and so duplicitous that job creators spend more time trying to comply with regulation than doing what they should be doing--creating jobs.

"The quest to regulate is borne of a well-intentioned desire to protect, but you reach a point where you are protecting people to death. Based on this study, I'm afraid we have reached that point." said Niello.

Senator Cox Recognized for Fight against Lawsuit Abuses
State Senator Honored by Californian Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

A nonpartisan group dedicated to raising public awareness about the economic impacts of lawsuit abuses honored Senator Dave Cox for his effort to reform the state’s litigious climate.

“Being recognized for doing my job is humbling,” said Sen. Dave Cox. “There is a direct nexus between lawsuit abuse and jobs. Nearly 75 percent of mom and pop businesses fear they may be forced to consider closing their businesses due to the threat of a lawsuit.”

Cox’s sentiments were echoed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who also served as special counselor to former President Ronald Reagan, who spoke at the award ceremony.

Attorney General Meese said businesses in California are already forced to pay higher taxes and comply with more regulations than in many other states. Lawsuit abuse poses an additional threat – one that often drives them out of the state.

Facing an unemployment rate of 12.2 percent, California ranks the fourth worst in the United States. Referring to the state’s pathetically high jobless rate, Cox expressed the need for lawmakers to focus on jobs and job creation.

“It is incumbent upon those of us in elected offices to stop the lawsuit abuses and create a more job-friendly environment,” Cox said. “Too many people are out of work.”

Assemblyman – and businessman – Roger Niello was also recognized.

Putting the Cart Before the Roads
by Robert L. Hale

I wonder what we are going to run out of first -- gasoline or safe quality roads to drive on? With Congress’ massive mismanagement of our national road system and its costly “green programs,” the best bet is safe quality roads.

Lawmakers established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 to ensure dependable financing for the maintenance of the U.S. interstate highway system. Revenue is raised through a federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, as well as by excise taxes on truck tires and sales of trucks and trailers and heavy vehicle use. The fund is going broke.

In the late 1950s, Congress increased the original tax of $.03 cents per gallon of gasoline to $.04 cents, where it remained until 1982. In 1982, Congress directed that $.0286 cents per gallon of the gasoline tax be diverted to mass transit. The next year, the tax was increased to $.09 cents, with $.08 cents going to highways and $.01 cent to the newly created Mass Transit Account. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 increased the tax another $.05 cents per gallon, with half going to the fund and half to deficit reduction. The tax was increased again in 1993 to the current level of $.184 cents per gallon of gasoline and $.244 cents per gallon of diesel fuel.

In 2008, the fund ran out of money and was infused with $8 billion from general fund revenues. One year later, it is again out of money. This has left us with too little money for roads, bridges, and tunnel construction and maintenance.

The lower revenues are due in large part to motorists driving less and shifting to more fuel-efficient vehicles. The problem is only going to get worse as we move toward the use of other fuels, particularly electricity.

Unfortunately, a Congress driven almost solely by polls, rhetoric, and special interest lobbies is unlikely to do anything to resolve this mess. Instead, we are likely to see a continued decline in the quality of what has been the greatest infrastructure development of all time -- the U.S. interstate system -- now in serious decline and disrepair.

Our roads may well reflect the state of our nation. The expected increase of at least $.05 cents in the gasoline tax and almost $.15 cents in the diesel fuel tax will further decrease the miles driven and significantly increase the costs for delivering goods to our local stores. Taxpayers will be hit on both ends -- higher taxes and higher costs of goods. Everyone loses as Congress continues its counterproductive policies.

The questions is why? It seems that virtually every move being made by Congress increases rather than decreases our cost of living. Our own government is reducing our standard of living and quality of life. Will the American public respond and demand a change in the direction in which those we have elected are taking us? Only time will tell.

The massive spending will make the $.025 cents gasoline tax increase intended to reduce the deficit sink into an increasing black hole. However, that is not the only place Congress is wasting our money while ignoring the condition of our roads.

Diligently working to drive our debt burden up, Congress is giving buyers of new cars a credit of $3,500 to buy a new car rated at 22 mpg if the car they trade in gets 18 mpg or less. Buyers will get $4,500 if the new vehicle gets 10 mpg more than their current “clunker.” For buyers who trade in a truck or SUV, the deal is even sweeter. If the vehicle is a 1984 or newer model, they qualify regardless of the mpg.

Interestingly, those who take advantage will, for the most part, be wealthier taxpayers, as most of us cannot afford to buy new vehicles. Congress is giving our money away to those who least need it while ignoring the roads.

All this largess promoted in the name of “stimulus” and “saving the earth” is supported by special interests that include the auto industry, unions, and environmentalists. Who represents those of us who pay the bill and who will have our standard of living further reduced as a result of this nonsense?

It is likely that the majority of “clunkers” will be American cars and that the new cars purchased will be made by foreign manufactures. So much for Buy American. The debt being piled up will fall almost exclusively on the American taxpayers and our children. So taxes will remain American -- even if profits and jobs do not. Let’s be sure to thank our congressional representatives next time they come home to visit.

Robert L. Hale received his J.D. in law from Gonzaga University Law School in Spokane, Washington. He is founder and director of a nonprofit public interest law firm. For more than three decades, he has been involved in drafting proposed laws and counseling elected officials in ways to remove burdensome and unnecessary rules and regulations. This column is copyright by Robert L. Hale and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation (http://www.fgfbooks.com) P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183. All rights reserved.

Lungren Expresses Outrage Over Democratic Attempts to Censor Constituent Communications

Washington – Today, Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif, the Ranking Republican on the Committee on House Administration and member of the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (Franking Commission), made the following statement during a press conference on the Majority’s recent attempts to censor GOP constituent communications on pending health care legislation:

“A number of members on the Republican side who have simply requested that they be allowed to use a chart to communicate with their constituents in their official mail have thus far been denied by the Democratic Majority. What they’ve said is that they disagree with some parts of it, and therefore Republicans are not able to use this in any frank mail, nor are Republicans able to enlarge it; or pay the expense in their district offices to use it at any of their public town hall meetings. This is the first time in my memory, we have a Majority in the House of Representatives trying to impede the Minority’s ability merely to speak, as we see it, the truth on an issue that is before the Congress.

“Does the Majority here believe that controlling the Rules committee which sets the rules, controlling the debate, controlling the rules that come on the floor is not enough? Now they are telling us that they are going to interfere with our ability to communicate with our constituents because they happen to disagree with our interpretation of the facts.

“I thought politics was about the contest of ideas. This is something I’ve never seen before. We now are being told that our words are going to be censored by the Majority because they disagree with us. It goes against what we are supposed to be doing here – debating important issues and communicating with the American people the serious matters facing their Congress."

Assemblyman Niello Reacts To New Study On AB 32's Impact On Small Businesses

SACRAMENTO- Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) today expressed his deep concerns about the results of a new study estimating the impact of implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) on small businesses. According to the study, the likely impact to small businesses could be nearly $50,000 annually.

"Small businesses are the backbone of California's economy," said Assemblyman Niello. "The costs of this regulation are enormous and have largely been ignored. Unlike the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) scoping plan, which completely ignored this reality, this study concludes that small businesses will face increasing costs under AB 32. For some businesses that burden could be devastating."

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 handed authority to regulate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases to the CARB. CARB is currently working to develop regulations and fee schedules to accomplish this regulation and reduce carbon output to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The study suggests that upfront costs to implement AB 32 are estimated at $100 billion and small businesses can expect costs to increase by an average of 10 percent.

According to the Small Business Association, the 718,220 small businesses in California account for over 90% of job creation and contribute nearly 75% of the gross state product.

"The Legislature approved this measure three years ago without fully understanding the negative impact it would have on our economy," said Assemblyman Niello. "California unemployment is now the highest it's been since the Great Depression and this study estimates 1.1 million jobs will be lost under AB 32. It's absurd to consciously allow the implementation of AB 32 to push the economy into further decline."

Romero Bill Requiring Increased Data Collection of Migrant Students Passes Senate

SACRAMENTO — Today, SB 331 authored by Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Committee on Education, requiring expanded data collection of migrant students and interpretation services for parents, has passed the Senate Floor on a 22-11 vote and will next go to the Assembly Committee on Education.

“California leads the nation in the enrollment of migrant students and should be the leader in meeting their needs,” said Romero (D-East Los Angeles). “We owe it to our migrant students to have accurate information on who they are so that we can effectively determine the opportunities and resources they may be lacking.”

Data shows that migrant students in California trail their peers in nearly every performance indicator, including: high dropout rates, low English proficiency, and lower performance on standardized tests. Millions of federal migrant education dollars are allocated to regional programs every year. However, not enough information is collected to assess how best to use this funding. There is also inadequate data to fully evaluate migrant student performance

Available data shows migrant students are struggling:

• More than 50 percent of migrant students will drop out.
• Forty-seven percent attend Program Improvement Schools.
• Only 12 percent meet the State standards in English-Language Arts.
• The math CAHSEE passing rate for migrant students is nearly 27 points lower than the rate for all students statewide.

SB 331 requires quality interpretation services at parent council meetings, expanded student data collection, and increased parental involvement in the development of the state master plan for migrant education.

"Through SB 331, parental involvement and data collection will increase,” said Romero. “Migrant parents need a substantive role in defining how best to proceed with the education of their children if we want to realize successful future generations of Californians.”

Senator Romero selected the bill number of 331 in honor of Cesar Chavez’s birthday, March 31.

New Bill in Congress Will Bring Billions in New Federal Contracts to California

A new bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that will bring over $10 billion a year in additional federal small business contracts to California. The new bill is titled the, “Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act of 2009,” and has been given the designation H.R. 2568. American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman wrote the original draft of the bill. California Senator Barbara Boxer helped Chapman fine-tune the bill, although she has not introduced the bill in the Senate yet. The Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (D - GA4) with eight original co-sponsors including California Congressmen Dennis Cardoza (D - CA18), Jim Costa (D - CA20) and Bob Filner (D - CA51). (http://www.asbl.com/documents/hr2568.pdf)

H.R. 2568 is designed to stop the flow of over $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to Fortune 1000 firms and thousands of other large businesses. Since 2003, several federal investigations have found that Fortune 1000 firms in the U.S. and some of the largest companies in Europe are receiving billions of dollars in government small business contracts every year.

A July 2008 article from the Associated Press found over 33 percent of all federal small business contracts go to firms in the Washington, D.C. area. The majority of those companies are actually subsidiaries and divisions of Fortune 1000 firms. The result is that every other state, including California, does not receive a proportional share of government small business contracts. H.R. 2568 will end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants and double the volume of federal small business contracts to every state in the country. (http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1101)

The Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act is based on the provisions in the Small Business Act that define a small business as “independently owned.” Publicly traded firms are not “independently owned,” and therefore would not qualify as small businesses. H.R. 2568 precludes the federal government from reporting awards to publicly traded firms as small business awards.

During Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, California small businesses were the recipients of approximately $9.8 billion in federal small business contracts. If H.R. 2568 becomes law, California firms are expected to see a 100 percent increase in the annual volume of federal small business contracts. A recent finding by the Obama Administration found every billion dollars in federal infrastructure spending generates approximately 40,000 jobs. H.R. 2568 could create over 400,000 new jobs in California and provide a significant boost to the state’s troubled economy.

“Zip Code Education” SB 680 Unanimously Passes Senate Floor
Parental Choice Wins Equal Opportunity in Education for All Public School Students

SACRAMENTO, CA—Today, SB 680, which would continue to allow parents to send their children to whatever public school they choose, earned bipartisan, unanimous support on the Senate Floor. The bill is co-authored by Democratic Senator Romero (D-East Los Angeles) and Republican Senator Huff (R-Glendora).

“Today, we made a huge step in ending zip code education which is nothing more than educational redlining,” said Senator Gloria Romero (D-24) and Chair of the Senate Committee on Education. “Parents can choose where their child worships, where their family shops and they must be allowed to choose where their child will receive the best public education to meet their academic needs.”

Currently the District of Choice (DOC) program, also referred to as a cross-district or open enrollment option, is due to end on July 1, 2009 after 17 years of successful existence. SB 680 would make the program permanent. The program gives parents the choice to decide which public school is best for their children’s academic needs without first seeking permission from their district of residence, as required under the usual inter-district transfer agreements. The bill would also extend the program to other neighboring districts that elect to serve as a DOC.

The bill recognizes the negative effects of redlining and seeks to end a practice that holds children hostage by a zip code or the area they happen to live. This is often the case when students, especially poor and minority children, are assigned to a persistently low-performing school in their neighborhood. Most students who participate in the DOC program transfer from a low-performing school to DOC schools with an Academic Performance Index of 100, 200 and even 300 points higher than their former school.

“The Districts of Choice program helps thousands of parents and students across the state to choose a school that better meets their needs,” said Senator Huff (R-29). “With the student population declining statewide, Districts of Choice has become a tool that rewards schools doing a great job, and motivates other schools to do a better job with our limited education dollars.”

Without extending this program in law, a student who has transferred to a school in a district other than the school district of their residence would be forced to return to the their original district of residence. The DOC program is the only one in current law that provides parents an option to enroll their child in a school of their choice.

“At the end of the day, this legislation is really about providing equal opportunities in education for all California students,” said Romero. “Parents, not zip codes, should decide if a school is providing those opportunities for their child.”

SB 680 next will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee.

Why Our President Will Not Host National Day of Prayer
American Politics and Christianity in 2009

SAN DIEGO, May 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Dr. Luauna Stines, Evangelist (President & Founder of A Touch From Above, LSM Inc.), Host of three National Day of Prayer Events in San Diego County, California at the Prayer Mountain.

Why would our President cease holding National Day of Prayer Ceremonies at the White House during the most turbulent economic times in our nation? When his constituents are looking to his leadership for the hope and change he promised during the his campaign? When he constantly quoted scriptures and the Bible at campaign stops along his road to the White House? Our President has do so since 1988, used Christianity to gain political advantage and earn the position of President.

Conservatism was birthed out of the Bible and Christianity as was the United States of America. Our founding fathers were Christians first and politicians second. Conservatism, morals, and values apart from the Bible and Christianity are powerless words mouthed by politicians from every party even radio/TV talk show hosts.

We, Americans, and every human soul have been created in the image of Almighty God. We have an innate drive to seek truth, God and desire a good, moral, conservative society. However, Christian Biblical principles have been removed from our American culture. What we have left is the empty shell of what used to be a powerful, stable, force for good in every area of American society, including the Republican Party.

Christians had the privilege to elect the last Christian Republican President into office, Ronald Reagan. A man who was not perfect, yet he knew with confidence that God Almighty had destined him to end the cold war. He stood for Christian principles in the face of ridicule, opposition, yet, he fulfilled God's destiny for his life and for our nation. The Republican Party has gone down hill since.

Unfortunately, many Christian Republicans did vote for George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. The Lord gave Christians someone we could vote for with a clear conscience, Sarah Palin. Besides her, these Republican statesmen are perfect examples of men who appeared to be conservative Republican Christians, yet after careful examination, were found to be politicians and Republicans first; compromising their Christian values which led to failed policies, outcomes and a tainted legacy upon their Party and their nation. They were nothing but the empty shell of morals without the substance.

No wonder Republicans have lost their stronghold in every office across the land; they have lost their bearing, they have forgotten their God! There are those who mouth scriptures; then they vote in support of gay marriage, abortion, fetal stem cell research; approve of governmental spending practices contrary to Biblical principles; and they promote breaking the law instead of enforcing it.

What is happening in America and in the Republican Party has happened before:

I Samuel 8:5-9, "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, 'Give us a king to judge us.' So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, 'Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day--with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.'"

What is the hope for our nation? What is the hope for American Politics? Jesus Christ!!! This week, on May 7, 2009, Christians are observing the National Day of Prayer. Just as Abraham Lincoln did, we must call Christians to fall on our knees and our faces before Almighty God and repent of our sin, corruption, and compromise; otherwise things will only get worse. Even if the United States of America collapses and becomes a third world nation; we will still have hope in Jesus Christ for our lives on earth and eternity in Heaven with him.

2 Chronicles 7:14, "... if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

I feel sorry for everyone who does not know the love and hope of Christ during these hard times, especially politicians who trust in their own reputations, political influence, strength, and riches. One day, all will give account to the Living God, one day every knee shall bow, and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, (Philippians 2:10-11). That includes but is not limited to: President Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Arlen Specter, etc.

This is the only firm foundation we have to stand on! May God Almighty, who created all the Heavens and the Earth and everything seen and unseen have mercy upon our souls!

www.atouchfromabove.org
www.amothersstory-thebook.com
www.drluauna.com

To Get His Way, The Governor Issues Threats
By Jon Coupal

Polls show that the revenue shifts and tax increases contained in the six measures placed on the May 19th Special Election ballot by the Legislature and governor are not going over well with voters. Californians are angry. They are already paying the highest taxes in the nation and are in no mood to increase taxes at a time when they risk losing their own savings, jobs and homes.

In his desperation to get his hands on more taxpayer cash in a declining economy, Gov. Schwarzenegger has gone to the old tax raiser standby -- threats to public safety. Unfortunately, this bullying approach, when backed with a fat campaign purse, has proven effective in the past.

The trick is to convince enough voters that if there is an emergency and they call 911, the phone will keep ringing and no one will respond. Need a firefighter, police officer or paramedic? Sorry, because you were such a stingy piker and rejected a tax increase, you will not get the services you value most.

The governor has said that if Propositions 1A through 1F do not pass next week, he will cut firefighter positions. Issuing this threat was unwise for two reasons. First, as was pointed out by radio talk show host John Kobylt, of the "John and Ken Show," if the governor was to do this during fire season, "He would be run out of town naked."

Second, and more important, three of the 6 measures on the May 19 ballot have nothing to do with the current budget. Proposition 1F deals with lawmakers' pay. Proposition 1B addresses the future restoration of education funds. And Proposition 1A, although it is a $16 billion tax increase, will have no impact for another two years.

The truth of the matter was revealed by the governor's own Director of Finance, Mike Genest, in recent testimony before the Commission on the 21st Century Economy. When asked what the impact of Proposition 1A would be in the next two years, Genest responded, "There wouldn't be." (For the record, after this admission, Legislative Analyst Mack Taylor has stated that, because of declining revenues, California is at least $8 billion short for the current budget year. But that newly estimated revenue forecast has nothing to do with Proposition 1A, the lynchpin of the reform package).

So even if the governor were to continue to threaten public safety -- he has already shifted his attention to the debate over legalizing marijuana -- voters need to understand that they are free to reject Proposition 1A and its additional $16 billion in new taxes without inflicting harm on the state's current fiscal health. The only ballot measures that impact the current budget are 1C, 1D, and 1E. Combined, these propositions would mortgage the state lottery and shift money from segregated accounts for mental health and early childhood development to bolster the general fund.

Whether Gov. Schwarzenegger truly believes that these measures are in California's best interests or not, he is willing to use coercion to try to win their passage. By threatening fires services, he has just sent a very public ransom note to California voters, those whose safety at all times should be his top priority. And because he is backed with a campaign war chest of over $15 million, much of it from those who would benefit from continuing the record high tax increases, he may scare enough voters to give him the victory that he needs to maintain any shred of credibility in his little remaining time in office.

Taxpayers need to hold firm and reject Proposition 1A. They, better than the Sacramento elite, understand the detrimental impact of higher taxes on the personal economies of California families as well as the economy of the state as a whole.

If Proposition 1A is defeated, California voters should receive two awards. First an honorary Ph.D. in economics for understanding that the state cannot tax its way to prosperity, and, second, a medal for bravery for standing up to the bullying threats of the governor.

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

Libertarian Party of California Says the Failure of Propositions 1A Through 1E Signals Need for Real Budget Reform
To Erase the Deficit, the California Legislature Must Address its Addiction to Spending

The Libertarian Party of California (LPC) applauds the defeat of ballot propositions 1A through 1E, and notes that to eliminate the perennial budget deficit, the state legislature must confront its addiction to spending.

"The Libertarian Party of California couldn't be more pleased that voters soundly rejected the proposed tax increase and phony budget solutions offered by Props. 1A through 1E," said Kevin Takenaga, the chair of the LPC. "These propositions, which were crafted in a backroom deal with no public input, offered phony solutions to real problems.

"The legislature has no choice now but to confront its addiction to spending. And the Libertarian Party of California has offered, and will continue to offer and support, policy suggestions that could save billions of dollars dedicated to wasteful and inefficient programs."

Government demonstrates every day that increased spending doesn't guarantee quality service. For example, test scores for students in government-funded schools are lower, on average, than for students who attend private schools, which spend less per capita than its public counterparts. In "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity," author and University of California professor W. Norton Grubb cites studies that find only a weak relationship between public school funding and educational outcomes.

Moreover, adjusting state employees' pay and benefits to average that of workers in private industry could save the state up to $40,000 per position and would go a long way towards eliminating the current budget deficit. The state budget could be further cut by reviewing each state department, division, bureau, board, and commission to determine whether the taxpayer-funded government service should be discontinued, merged with other departments, or charge user fees to cover its budget, or whether the service should be competitively bid out at less cost to taxpayers. Many such options were already offered by the California Performance Review Commission.m.

The legislature and governor can also find savings by rethinking its current punitive taxes on wages, enterprise, the sale of goods, and the value of buildings, and replacing them with voluntary user fees, pollution charges, and taxes on the land value generated by governmental public goods.

Spending relief could also come as a result of decriminalizing recreational drugs. Billions of dollars could be saved by eliminating enforcement of drug laws, including the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders.

"Libertarians don't just complain, but offer real solutions," Takenaga said. "Our sound advice is a far cry from the shell games, phony spending caps, and budget gimmicks that the Democrats and Republicans have tried for years to offer as budget reform. If they have proven anything, it's that their ideas don't work. It's time for a fresh approach. Libertarians believe in freedom and limited government, but we want the government we have to work efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, that is a novel concept for the career politicians who control Sacramento, but it's one we hope voters will embrace as a real solution for California."

About the Libertarian Party of California

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. The Libertarian Party of California fields candidates at the local, state, and federal level each election cycle. It also publishes the weekly Libertarian Perspective, an op-ed column authored by writers who strongly believe in freedom and individual liberty. Libertarians are socially tolerant and fiscally responsible, believe in personal freedom in both social and economic spheres, and in government small enough to protect those freedoms. For more information, visit www.ca.lp.org.

How We Got to Where We Are
By Senator Dave Cox

In my last newsletter, we discussed the resolution to the $42 billion budget shortfall reached between the Governor and the Legislature in February. Now I would like to discuss briefly why we got to that position.

As we saw during the debate on the budget crisis, drastic measures had to be implemented in order to avert fiscal insolvency. How did we get into this situation and what must the state do to prevent a reoccurrence of this magnitude?

Some believe that we got into this fiscal crisis because of a spending problem. Others say it’s a revenue problem. The reality is that California’s budget woes are due to overspending of volatile one-time revenues. It is a spending problem and a problem with our tax system.

First, California’s overly progressive tax structure subjects the state’s primary source of funding to massive volatility. Under the current tax system, the top one percent of California taxpayers pay about half of all state personal income taxes. Since revenues from the personal income tax make up more than 50 percent of all General Fund resources, this means that a large portion of all funds the state has available for spending is dependent on the fortunes of just one percent of the taxpayers. And, because they’re tied to capital gains in the stock market and other investments, these taxpayers’ incomes are highly volatile.

As a result, when the economy is robust, these taxpayers have more taxable income and the state General Fund is more flush with cash. However, when the economy takes a downturn and these taxpayers take losses, the state’s primary source of funding nosedives.

Second, the Legislature has chosen to use one-time revenues gathered during good times to fund ongoing spending. During boom years the state goes on a spending spree, expanding entitlement programs. When the economy goes down, the state is left with a pile of bills and less money to pay them.

According to the state Department of Finance, a structural deficit was created between 1998 and 2000 when the state, under the Davis administration, used a one-time 23 percent revenue increase from stock market earnings and the dot-com bubble to add new permanent spending increases. When revenues declined the following year, the state had no money to fund these costs. Rather than taking the fiscally responsible approach to reduce overspending on ongoing programs, the state made minor one-time reductions and borrowed money. This exacerbated the structural problem and left the state with a $14 billion deficit the subsequent year.

Third, California does little to set aside funds for a rainy day. The state tends to spend every nickel it gets. In 2004, the state attempted to institute a constitutional requirement for funds to be set aside in a rainy day fund through Proposition 57. However, the parameters were too loose and weak to be effective. Essentially, the Governor was able to withdraw money shortly after a couple of deposits. Moreover the set-asides have been, on average, no more than one-and-one-half percent. To put this in perspective, financial experts advise households to maintain a cash reserve to get them through at least three months. The state’s reserve is the equivalent of five days of state spending.

Opinions vary on how the state got itself into this mess, but economists and fiscal experts generally agree that an approach that includes an effective reserve requirement; a spending cap on state expenditures; and stable revenue sources would go a long way towards mitigating budget deficits in the future.

According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the most effective tool for mitigating deficits is to implement a reserve requirement. Then, when the state receives revenue growth that is determined to be above average the state is required to set aside these funds for a rainy day. The state would only be allowed to withdraw these funds in years when revenues were determined to be below average and under very stringent conditions.

In tandem with a reserve requirement, we need to have a spending cap. Specifically, the amount that the state General Fund is authorized to spend in a given year would be limited to an amount determined by the average level of revenues over the last ten years. Together these two proposals would, in effect, hold the state General Fund to a specified spending level even in years when the state is flush with cash, and force excess funds into a reserve account as a fallback in lean years. This reserve/spending cap idea is contained in Proposition 1A, which will appear on a statewide ballot on May 19, 2009.

Besides fixing the spending problem, economists believe that stabilizing revenues would help guard against future deficits. Some proposals include flattening the income tax, or rebalancing the mix of tax revenues.

The Tax Foundation reports that California has one of the most progressive tax structures in the country. This progressive nature makes California’s revenues highly volatile because they are dependent on the incomes of the very few. Flattening the income tax structure by changing the rates so that the burden is more evenly distributed among a broader base of taxpayers would make General Fund revenues more stable. This approach could also be characterized as “fair to all”, since all taxpayers will pay the same tax rate and will know exactly what taxes they are paying.

Other economists suggest rebalancing the mix of revenues among the three major taxes (income, sales, and corporation tax) so that the General Fund draws more evenly among them as opposed to the current 50 percent draw from personal income tax. Specifically, this proposal would entail increasing or expanding the sales and corporation tax, which tend to be more stable because they are less progressive. However, this approach does not fix the inequities in income tax rates.

Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders have appointed a commission to examine the tax structure in California. Called the Commission on the 21st Century Economy, its report is due on April 15, 2009.

California has gotten itself into a deficit crisis of unprecedented proportions because it relied on an overly progressive income tax system that produced volatile one-time revenues, and overspent those funds on ongoing programs. Last month the state took drastic action to prevent insolvency. For many years, I have recommended a rainy day reserve coupled with a spending cap to solve the overspending problem. The Commission on the 21st Century Economy will make recommendations on a more modern tax system. I look forward to their recommendation.

Assemblyman Roger Niello’s Statement Regarding the Budget Agreement

California's budget problems have been well documented. A tragically weakened economy combined with ongoing spending commitments means that we are now looking down the barrel of a record $42 billion budget deficit.

As I stated during the budget negotiations, this budget agreement for me was never a choice between spending cuts and taxes. My overriding interest has always been to reform the way we do things. Throughout last year's budget debate I was opposed to raising taxes. The majority party, however, was not just opposed, but largely ignored prudent reform proposals that could have taken California down a different path. The good news is that, through the efforts of Republicans and Governor Schwarzenegger, Democrats have finally been willing to discuss reforms. The bad news is that what was merely an on-going structural deficit has now become an unprecedented budget disaster fueled by an economic calamity of historic proportions.

After seeing the size and scope of the problem, it became apparent that both spending cuts and taxes would end up being a necessity. It remained my goal, however, to gain concessions through negotiations for major reforms; fundamental changes that will keep our state from this disastrous scenario happening again. It was also important to lesson the blow of tax increases on the economy as much as possible by getting support for legislation that will help our economy recover as quickly as possible.

And let's be clear; the changes that Senate and Assembly Republican leadership was able to negotiate in this agreement are significant. Republicans put forth a budget proposal in December that included a variety of reforms that we thought were necessary to solving the problem and initiating economic recovery. That list included:

• A spending limit and a rainy day fund.
• Increased flexibility for education including categorical reform that allows local school districts to spend resources as needed.
• Environmental flexibility that would allow for the streamlining of transportation projects.
• An extension on the implementation of new Air Resources Board diesel regulations that require engine retrofit and an expansion existing state programs that assist with costs of diesel retrofit.
• Expansion of public-private partnerships that will leverage private sector resources to rebuild our aging roads, bridges, water systems, and schools.
• No early release or direct discharge of prisoners
• New tax credits for businesses that hire new employees and tax credits for business investment in California.
• Eliminating the incentive for businesses to locate manufacturing facilities out of state
• A privatization of the lottery and a redirection to the general fund of monies from Proposition 10 and Proposition 63.
• 15.6 billion in spending cuts
• No COLA increases
• State employee compensation changes that include the end of overtime abuse.

And now, as a result of Republican demands at the negotiating table, all of these reforms have either been enacted or will be placed before the voters as a result of this budget agreement.

The state's budgetary condition provided Republicans with an opportunity to change the way we do things in Sacramento - in a manner that under normal circumstances were never considered by the Democratic majority. For me, the anchor of these reforms is the spending cap, which is a measure I have authored. This proposal will limit the size of government, ensure that we never again face a budget crisis of this magnitude, and set aside money in a rainy day fund during the good times to ensure that we can weather the bad.

In negotiation, there are gives and there are takes. In order for Democrats to support or even consider reforms of this magnitude it was necessary for Republicans to agree to temporary tax increases. For Republicans, this is painful, and therefore it became a priority for Republican negotiators to minimize the economic impact of the taxes; making sure that they are temporary, and linking them to the spending cap to ensure that the taxpayer is at the front of the line in the event that the spending cap fails and the state cannot keep spending in check. With this package, I believe these priorities were met.

Finally, the consequences of not agreeing to a budget now were too severe and simply not an option. Unlike the federal government, the State of California cannot print money to pay bills. As California continued to face a severe cash shortage, having more bills to pay than money to pay them, the bus that is California’s state government would have continued to go over the cliff to the point that the resulting negative impact on businesses who contract with the state, local governments, schools, and programs that provide critical care to those who are disabled would have affected all taxpayers.

The most disastrous scenario would require IOU's to be issued for payroll and tax refunds, small counties would go bankrupt, resulting in the complete stoppage of many county services. There would likely be health clinic and hospital closures statewide. Unemployment could skyrocket. At some point, the state's ability to issue bonds would completely stop and road construction and public works projects would grind to a halt.

Some have said that by agreeing to this budget, Republicans aren't protecting the taxpayers. But I believe that the unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in is one in which the taxpayer will pay one way or the other. Either now, in the form of temporary new taxes that are combined with significant reforms, or later, when the state's economy is devastated because the state can no longer pay its bills.

When I was elected to the Legislature, I could not have imagined that our fiscal condition would ever be this bad, but the reality is that the perfect storm has come together and produced a budget deficit of historical proportions. It is now time for us to exhibit leadership to help right our fiscal ship as I believe we were elected to do.

I commend the work that Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines and former Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill have done in negotiating this budget solution and I am confident that this package will help our state’s economy recover quickly while inflicting as little damage as possible and placing us in a better position longer term that will protect our children and grandchildren.

Lungren Receives Guardian of Small Business Award

(Washington, DC)- Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), was presented with the “Guardian of Small Business” award by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

“America’s small businesses are vital to the strength of our economy. Not only are they the engine that drives the economy but they employ roughly half of all private sector employees. I am honored to receive this award and to be a supporter of small business,” Lungren said. The National Federation of Independent Business is the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses. A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1943, NFIB represents the consensus views of its members in Washington and all 50 state capitals.

Who Should Define Marriage?
by Adam B. Summers

It has been nearly two months since California started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and somehow civilization as we know it has not come crashing down. The legal and political fights over the issue are far from over, however.

Gay rights supporters tried and failed to keep Proposition 8 from appearing on the November ballot. That proposed change to the state constitution would ban same-sex marriages in the state and effectively overturn the California Supreme Court's May ruling. Opponents of same-sex marriage are fighting their own court battle, charging that changes to the wording of Proposition 8's ballot title and summary made by the attorney general's office might bias voters against the measure.

In its 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled: "[I]n view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to all same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

"While the Supreme Court's decision offers homosexuals the same freedoms as heterosexuals to formalize their commitments to their significant other, it should also serve as a reminder that the government has encroached on the most personal aspects of our lives.

In the gay marriage debate both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

Gay marriage opponents are wrong to use the law to enforce their notion of morality on others. Doing so violates the libertarian principle that people should be allowed to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. A homosexual couple's decision to enter into a religious or social agreement certainly does not preclude a heterosexual couple's right to do so.

There seems to be widespread irrational thought about the very word "marriage." Polls consistently show that even in areas where voters are wary of overturning laws to permit same-sex marriage, significantly greater percentages of people favor bestowing the same rights on gay couples as on married straight couples, as long as the relationships are called some other name, like "civil unions." Even President George Bush, who pushed for the failed federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in 2006, has suggested that gay couples should be able to enjoy many, if not all, of the benefits of marriage through "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" if individual states sanction such "legal arrangements other than marriage." But if the rights are the same, what difference does semantics make?

By politicizing a private matter—deciding to whom one may pledge one's love, support, and fidelity—opponents of same-sex marriage have created a world of winners and losers where once there were only voluntary promises. Gay marriage opponents are thus wrong to insist that they have the right to decide how marriage should be defined (i.e., whether it should be sanctioned only if it is between a man and a woman, or even whether marriage should be a religious institution or a secular social commitment) not only for themselves but for everyone else as well.

Similarly, same-sex couples should not be able to force their notion of marriage on others, either. Religious leaders or others who would perform marriage ceremonies have every right to refuse to marry couples for moral, philosophical, or any other reasons. Private business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their interest to offer group health benefits, family leave benefits, special mortgage loans rates, etc., to gay couples as well as straight. Furthermore, businesses should not be compelled by law to offer any particular benefits to any employee—gay or straight.

In addition, gay rights activists are wrong to petition the government for "equal" marital status. This demand merely perpetuates the politicization of what should be a private issue. Gay rights activists would better serve their interests by arguing that the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place.Marriage, whether entered into by those who consider it a sacred religious covenant or those who see it as a secular social bond and contract, is a profoundly personal decision between those in love. The "sanctity" of marriage must be defined by the individual—or couple—not an interest group and certainly not the state. There simply is no role for the state in marriage.

Adam B. Summers is a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation. He has written extensively on privatization, government reform, law, and economics. He holds a master's degree in economics from George Mason University and bachelor's degrees in economics and political science from the University of California, Los Angeles. A more complete biography and a photograph of the author suitable for printing may be found at: The Libertarian Perspective - Biographies and Photographs. If you publish this column, as a courtesy please drop us an e-mail to let us know the publication name and date (and URL, if applicable).

The Secret Bailout of J. P. Morgan:
How Insider Trading Looted Bear Stearns and the American Taxpayer
By Ellen Brown, WebofDebt.com

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature's Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.

The mother of all insider trades was pulled off in 1815, when London financier Nathan Rothschild led British investors to believe that the Duke of Wellington had lost to Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. In a matter of hours, British government bond prices plummeted. Rothschild, who had advance information, then swiftly bought up the entire market in government bonds, acquiring a dominant holding in England’s debt for pennies on the pound. Over the course of the nineteenth century, N. M. Rothschild would become the biggest bank in the world, and the five brothers would come to control most of the foreign-loan business of Europe. “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” Rothschild boasted in 1838, “and I care not who writes its laws.” [More]

Lungren Praises Unveiling of American Energy Act
Bill Includes prize for fuel efficient car

Earlier this afternoon, (July 23) Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), along with other House Republicans, gathered on the West Front Steps of the U.S. Capitol to unveil the American Energy Act, a landmark measure to lower gas prices and break our dependence on foreign oil. Beginning today, House Republicans will demand an up-or-down vote on this “all of the above” energy legislation before the Congress adjourns for the month of August.

“Today, House Republicans are taking an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy and putting it into a single bill: H.R. 6656, the American Energy Act. The American Energy Act is a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies. In addition to lowering gas prices, this landmark measure moves America in a direction that is less dependent on foreign oil. “Lungren said.

The energy bill would open offshore regions, sections of the ANWR and oil shale deposits to environmentally safe drilling; trims red tape that impedes the construction of new refineries; give tax incentives and a cash prize for the development and use of alternative energy sources; create a renewable energy trust fund from new drilling revenues, and promote the expansion of safe nuclear power generation. The bill also includes a provision, first introduced by Congressman Lungren, to provide a prize for the first 100 mpg production automobile.

Lungren continued, “Our message to leaders of the Majority and to the American people struggling with record gas prices couldn’t be clearer: House Republicans are demanding an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act before the Democratic Congress adjourns for the month of August.”

“With the pain at the pump showing no signs of letup, the American people are looking for meaningful solutions and demanding their congress do something to ease this burden. I believe we have a solemn responsibility to the American people to meet this energy challenge.” Lungren concluded.

To Govern Well, Return to the Basics
Lee Hamilton Commentary

Lee H. Hamilton
Director, The Center
on Congress

We are at a profoundly unsettled time in our nation’s history, with more than two-thirds of Americans professing in surveys that they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. They are partly reflecting concerns of the moment — the Iraq war, high gas prices, our economic travails — but polling also shows a more deep-seated dismay at the track our political system has taken.

Our politics is fragmented and often mean-spirited. Americans are disappointed by a sense that we lack unity and national purpose. They are disillusioned by a political leadership that has failed to instill these things, and many believe they and their concerns are unrepresented in the halls of power. Faith in our system is ailing.

So while out on the hustings the talk is mostly of policy — what to do about the economy or our standing in the world or our dysfunctional health-care system — there is a more fundamental conversation that ought to be happening, as well: If we are to fix our government so it works competently, effectively, and democratically, how should we go about it? What would it take not only to revive our system, but also our people’s faith in it?

My answer may seem odd, given how badly askew most Americans believe things have gotten: Rather than “fix” our representative government, we need to let it function as designed. We have to return to the basics of our constitutional system, understanding and appreciating its intent and contemplating how this might apply to our vastly changed circumstances today.

It’s worth remembering that the basic operating manual for our government was written some 220 years ago, when we were a much smaller, less complicated, less diverse nation, when communications and events moved much more slowly, and when the sheer breadth and scope of challenges facing the government — while hardly minor — were more manageable. If anything, it’s remarkable that our system continues to work even reasonably well.

Still, things are out of whack. Too much power has come to rest in the president’s hands, and it needs to be spread more widely again — the “balance of power” should be observed in actuality, not merely in seventh-grade civics class. As Alexander Hamilton said at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself against the other.”

We also need to accept that there will inevitably be conflict — our system presupposes it — but that winning political battles is not the highest good; rather, resolving conflict within the confines of the Constitution and according to democratic principles trumps the victory-at-all-costs mentality that has been so prevalent in recent years. Compromise and accommodation, especially in a nation with so many varied interests at play, are the key to policy success and political legitimacy.

This, in turn, means tolerating and encouraging lively debate and thorough deliberation — both in Washington and among a population that seems to be losing the habit of listening to those with whom we disagree. For lawmakers and Americans in general to accept the results of political compromise, they have to feel they’ve been represented in the discussion.

All of which is to say that what our Founders knew, and tried to ensure, was that in governance, the means are more important than the end. The process matters more than the result, in part because a legitimate process is the only way to ensure that those in government collectively focus on the common good, and in part because resolving our policy dilemmas requires a focused and functioning representative government.

Yet even if all these things happen, restoring Americans’ faith in the system will require one other thing: patience. While our government needs to respond to the demands of its citizens, under our system the response is typically slow because it’s meant to be slow.

Our government was not designed to respond to every passing fancy of the people, but rather to give judicious consideration to the nation’s needs. Nor can it solve all of our problems. Our representatives may strive to sort out the hopes, desires, and dreams of the American people, and to come up with the best solutions they can, but the plain fact is that some problems are so difficult and our perspectives so varied that only stalemate is possible.

Our expectations, in other words, need to be high but realistic. We should expect a government that encourages cohesion and political stability, and safeguards individual freedom, prosperity, and peace. If it can do that, then the fact that it can’t resolve every problem we confront will come to seem a tolerable imperfection, rather than the dismaying infirmity that so many Americans believe it to be today.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Bush White House Hides True Scope of Federal Deficit
Richard Viguerie

MANASSAS, Va., July 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, regarding the White House projection of a $482 Billion deficit for Fiscal Year 2009:

"The White House has issued figures indicating that President Bush and his enablers in Congress will leave his successor with a budget deficit of $482 Billion for Fiscal Year 2009, which is a record. How's that for a legacy?

"As shocking as this deficit figure is, that's still not the true scope of our budget woes because it excludes $80 Billion in war costs and $227 Billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

"The real budget deficit is therefore $789 Billion.

"Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund-- and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.

"It's way past time for Washington politicians to have their own Sarbanes-Oxley.

"But this is how corrupt Washington has become. Besides the dangerous practice of massive deficit spending, which will saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, the Bush White House and Congress are conspiring to conceal the true nature and scope of the problem.

"This year's budget deficit will actually be $307 Billion worse than the politicians are saying. This fraud on the American people is a conspiracy of silence by both major political parties.

"In stunning hypocrisy, the White House blamed the record budget deficit on the slowing economy and the $150 Billion stimulus package passed earlier this year. "No, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. Stand up and accept the responsibility--and your legacy--for massively expanding government."

NOTE TO EDITORS: Richard A. Viguerie pioneered political direct mail and has been called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation magazine) and one of the "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times). His latest book is Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books), which, Jerome Corsi wrote in WorldNetDaily, is "destined to become a classic of conservative thinking" and "may be the most important conservative book written in the last quarter century."

Pro Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage Debate:
Openly Homosexual Parents Influence Sexuality of Children

SAN DIEGO, Calif., June 30 /Christian Newswire/ -- This November, California voters will be asked to decide by ballot if marriage in their state is to be defined as solely between one man and one woman. No doubt voters in other states will soon face that same decision. With such a radical cultural change hanging in the balance, it's more important than ever that voters be aware of important social-science research that sheds light on the issue.

Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, recently reviewed the available research on homosexually parented children and reports findings relevant to the same-sex marriage debate: Children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves. And some self-described pro-homosexual researchers who uncovered such results attempted to conceal them by declaring that no differences were found.

The findings of Dr. Hansen's review are revealed in a newly released article entitled, "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely To Engage in Homosexuality." This latest piece is the second in a series of articles concerning same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and children. The first article in the series is entitled, "Love Isn't Enough: Five Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children." Both articles, as well as information on the research Dr. Hansen reviewed for her current piece, are available on her website at http://www.drtraycehansen.com.

The Legislature Needs a Spending Limit Nanny
By Jon Coupal

Here's a riddle. What is 150 years old, but has less self control than a toddler?

That's right, it's the California Legislature, whose profligate spending has put our state almost $20 billion in the red. Over and over again it has proven Ronald Reagan's maxim that "government is like an infant -- an insatiable appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."

Fiscal incontinence is nothing new to Sacramento. Back in 1979, Proposition 13 co-author Paul Gann put a reasonable limit on the ballot that tied new spending to inflation and population growth. Voters agreed and the system worked so well that, in 1987, Governor George Deukmejian actually returned money to the taxpayers.

Tellingly, Senate Pro-tem David Roberti, objected, saying, "When you've got it, you spend it." Problem is lawmakers have shown a willingness to spend it even when they don't "got it."

Those who look at spending other people's money as the most delicious of all privileges and those who directly profit from state spending combined in 1990 to make the Gann limit go away. The transportation lobby placed Proposition 111 on the ballot, a gas tax increase, and funded a campaign that promised to virtually solve state transportation problems in perpetuity. Voters were so pleased to learn freeways would be clear of traffic, that they overlooked what was buried in the initiative: A reconfiguration of the Gann limit that made it irrelevant.

In the beginning of this decade, Gray Davis showed how much mischief can be wrought when an irresponsible governor colludes with our spend-happy representatives and there are no constraints. During Davis' tenure he managed to take a surplus that he inherited from the previous administration and turn it into a double digit billion dollar deficit that we continue to pay for today.

Unlike Senators and Assembly Representatives, whose sheer numbers give them some anonymity, Davis had no place to hide and his poor fiscal performance was a major factor in his losing his job to a recall.

Lesson learned? Hardly.

Three years ago, I got together with then-Senator, now Congressman John Campbell to develop a long-term solution to the problem of runaway state spending. Together we crafted a ballot measure, "The Deficit Prevention Act" that would have reestablished spending limits with teeth.

At this time, Governor Schwarzenegger was still showing what seemed to be a sincere willingness to stand up to spending interests and we urged him to adopt our plan. Perhaps due to the advice of his handlers, he rejected it in favor of a much milder proposal that would have allowed significant growth in government, which he made part of a package of four "reform" measures. His reform package was soundly defeated by a confused public trying to sort out four unrelated measures during a special election.

So the state and taxpayers are back to square one, facing a huge deficit that can only be addressed through reduced spending or massive tax increases, or both.

Now Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines and Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill have stepped forward with a constructive proposal that would prevent recurrence of our annual budget dilemma. Although even they admit the plan is not new, its elements could not be more timely.

Villines and Cogdill would restore spending limits based on population growth and inflation. They would also mandate the creation of a significant rainy day fund to protect programs when the economy and state revenues go into decline, and use surpluses to retire state debt, whose repayment currently drains billions annually from the general fund.

Reasonable adults should recognize that establishing strict spending limits combined with a prudent reserve is the best way to protect all Californians, both taxpayers and those who depend on state services. But because this assumes reasonable adult behavior, this plan's chances of actually being adopted by the current Legislature are -- well, about the same as the snowball's.

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

A Disastrous Budget Process
Lee Hamilton Commentary

Lee H. Hamilton
Director, The Center
on Congress

Congress has slipped into uncharted and dangerous waters this summer. According to the rule books, this should be a time when the federal budget gets scrutinized and pieced together by a broad array of congressional committees and members on the floor. The last time Congress actually played by these rules for all of its spending bills was 14 years ago. This year, it’s barely even trying.

To be sure, both the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution in June, the first time since 2000 that they’ve adopted this formal guide to what lies ahead in an election year. This may be a small sign of growing dedication to the regular budget process, but it is still just a blueprint for spending, not the actual decisions to spend.

Setting the actual appropriations for the year looks much less promising. The Democratic leadership in Congress does not want a repeat of last year’s budget “negotiations,” in which they felt the White House essentially refused to negotiate. Since the White House is once again showing little sign that it is willing to find common ground, the Democratic leadership has signaled that it is comfortable waiting until next year for a new President, and possibly more Democratic seats in the House and Senate.

What seems to be a momentary standoff, though, is in fact a symptom of true political illness. Congress has lost the institutional ability to follow an orderly budget process. As a result it has undermined its own committees, shunted most of its members to the policy sidelines, failed to maintain the constitutional balance of powers, condemned the people who administer federal programs to season after season of uncertainty, and eroded the consensus-building, transparency, and accountability that keep our democracy vital.

Preparing the budget and setting the spending lies at the heart of what Congress does. It is how the Congress puts its stamp on the federal government. So its failure to adhere to effective process weakens it as an institution and weakens the country.

What should the process look like? As it evolved over many decades, it came to involve hearings and consultations by a multitude of committees, which would “authorize” spending by the federal agencies and departments for which they were responsible. Then appropriations subcommittees and the full appropriations committees would take up the task of actually approving the money to be spent, before sending separate bills for the various federal departments to the floor.

It was an orderly process that gave committee members a chance to examine the operations of the federal government and allowed ordinary House and Senate members to debate and amend the appropriations bills at several steps along the way. In other words, it promoted deliberation and the democratic give-and-take essential to a free society.

These days, we’re lucky if there’s more than one bill. The massive omnibus bills that Congress has gotten into the habit of passing wreak havoc with good governance and the democratic process. By shoving the entire budget into a single measure comprising thousands of pages, the leadership makes it virtually impossible for members of Congress to read through — let alone understand — what they’re being asked to vote on; undercuts members’ ability to ask hard questions and offer policy alternatives, represent their constituents, or file amendments; and makes planning ahead nearly impossible for everyone from the people who administer federal heating assistance to local school boards to federal contractors.

So why does Congress bypass transparency and accountability for a secretive and undemocratic form of policy-making bedlam? As the Congressional Quarterly Weekly put it not long ago, “There is a growing realization these days that the most powerful forces in the process — the congressional majority leadership, appropriators in both parties, the outside advocates who focus on spending-bill line items, and the president — actually stand to benefit.”

The leadership likes it, of course, because it focuses power in their hands; same with members of the appropriations committees, who find it easier to slip language into the bill behind closed doors. Lobbyists much prefer to focus on just a handful of members out of the limelight. And when the president needs to negotiate with only a few people on a single measure, his power is much greater than if his representatives are trying to juggle a multiplicity of members and bills. The only losers seem to be ordinary members of Congress and the American people.

There is a simple solution to all this. It’s called “the regular order.” For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging consensus among diverse regions and constituencies.

If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate in these challenging times, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Congress has slipped into dangerous waters this summer. According to the rule books, this should be when the federal budget gets pieced together by a broad array of congressional committees and members on the floor. The last time Congress played by these rules for all of its spending bills was 14 years ago. This year, it’s barely even trying.

What we have these days on Capitol Hill is a disastrous budget process. This matters, because preparing the budget and setting federal spending lies at the heart of what Congress does. It is how the Congress puts its stamp on the federal government. So its failure to adhere to effective process weakens it as an institution and weakens the country.

For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging a national consensus. If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Judge Alex Kozinski Must Resign
California judge overseeing obscenity trial admits his website contains explicit material

WASHINGTON, June 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has admitted to the Los Angeles Times that a website he maintains contains sexually explicit pictures and videos. His severe lack of moral judgment demands that he either resign or, if he refuses, that Congress begin impeachment proceedings.

"Judge Kozinski's admission to maintaining a website with explicit and degrading pictures is enough to determine that he is morally incapable of providing objective judgment, especially over obscenity cases. Judge Kozinski must resign," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "If he refuses, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against him. And the Department of Justice should immediately conduct an investigation against him."

Judge Kozinski is presiding over an obscenity trial that was to begin today against Ira Isaacs for distributing sexual fetish videos, featuring acts of bestiality and defecation. Yesterday the prosecutor requested a delay to look into "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a ... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here." Kozinski granted a 48-hour stay.

According to the Times, Kozinski's website includes images of masturbation, public sex, a transsexual strip tease, photos of women's private areas in tight clothing, naked women painted and posed as cows, a half-dressed man with a sexually-aroused farm animal, and a man performing fellatio on himself.

Several years ago, Judge Kozinski led an effort to remove filters that deny access to pornography from appeals court computers. He told the Times that he began saving sexually explicit materials on his website years ago and would pass items he found interesting or funny to others.

"For Judge Kozinski to remain not only as a judge but as the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would make a mockery of justice and of our justice system. If he has any respect for the judiciary, for the law, and for America he would remove himself from this honorable position," stated Wendy Wright.

Concerned Women for America opposes pornography through community activism, lobbying for legislation, regulations against obscenity and pressing for vigorous prosecution of obscenity laws. Judges who follow and uphold the laws in the courtroom and their personal lives are fundamental to a just and decent society.

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

Props Fail to Remedy Eminent Domain and Threaten City and County Rent Control

(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 6, 2008--The California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance ("CCEEB"), a coalition of business, labor and public leaders agreed today to oppose Proposition 98, a statewide ballot proposition that aims to prohibit rent control. CCEEB also voted to take no position on Proposition 99 because existing laws already provide property owners with the protections offered in the proposition.

"We agree that eminent domain concerns exist but California's system of protections largely provides adequate due process and fair evaluations but Prop 98 goes overboard and puts at risk essential public works. Our board of directors concluded that this just isn't the way to address the issue," said Gerald Secundy, CCEEB president

In a related action, CCEEB determined that Prop 99 is a strategic attempt to counter Prop 98 and does not provide any new significant eminent domain reforms or any required changes to existing law. As a result, CCEEB declined to adopt a position on the initiative.

CCEEB strives to advance collaborative strategies for a sound economy and a healthy environment. Founded in 1973 by Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, CCEEB is the only statewide private, nonprofit, nonpartisan association to represent the interests of both industry and labor. CCEEB members include dozens of "Fortune-500" companies as well as leading state and local labor unions.

Steroids Foul Foods Children Love Best - Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, Milk
by Philip Shabecoff

The news has been filled with stories about the surreptitious use of performance enhancing drugs by many of our sports heroes. Superstars like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones reportedly have used steroids to give them a competitive edge. Others, such as New York Yankee pitcher Andy Pettitte have had growth hormones injected into their bodies. Much of the public has been saddened and dismayed by these stories. These gifted athletes are supposed to be role models for our children and youth.

What the news reports have not told us is that all of us, unless we are vegans or observe a strictly organic diet, are unwittingly taking these or similar potentially hazardous substances regularly into our bodies. The same kinds of hormones outlawed for athletes are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for use in the cattle that supplies our meat. We are all Barry Bonds-except we are not taking these substances voluntarily and we are not rewarded with millions of dollars a year for subjecting ourselves to the attendant risks.

We ought to worry about what these substances do to us-and especially to our children. The kinds of foods our children love best, hamburgers, chicken nuggets, milk, are often filled with these kinds of substances. Beef, chicken, milk, and other foods we consume daily are laden with anabolic steroids and growth hormones, not to mention antibiotics and arsenic, all to increase production and profits for agribusiness.

An estimated 80 percent of our beef cattle are treated with anabolic steroid hormones, either in their feed or, most often, with a controlled released implant in their ears. (The ears of slaughtered cattle are then often sold for use in animal feed, pet food and in formulating cosmetics.) The hormones increase the weight of the cattle sufficiently to give the cattle growers an additional profit of $40 per head after deducting the price of the additives.

Then there is milk. Industrial dairy farms keep their cows perpetually pregnant with artificial insemination, a process that produces sky-high levels of hormones including progesterone, estrogen and a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor or IGF-1. The levels of IGF-1 in dairy cattle are raised still more by injection. The process, according to Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University, "ignites the fire that increases the likelihood of cancer."

The FDA also approves of the use of arsenic and antibiotics in the diets of chickens, hogs and other animals. Levels of these chemicals can build up in the small bodies of children. "Americans who consume chicken, such as my son who appeared to exist largely on chicken wings during high school, may be exposed to arsenic at levels far higher than recommended," said Ellen Silbergeld a toxicologist at the John Hopkins school of public health.

Agribusiness insists that hormone-treated food is safe. The dairy industry, for example, vehemently disputes that cows treated with IGF-1 present elevated health risks. It contends there is no proof that it does pose a risk, and that "milk is milk" with or without the substance.

The industry is right that there is usually no proof-it is rarely possible to prove conclusively that a given substance causes a specific illness in a specific human. But there is a substantial body of evidence that the substances put into our food can and do have serious health effects.

Studies have shown that consumption of hormones by a pregnant woman may distort her baby's sexual, intellectual and behavioral development. Hormone residues have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which puts them at a greater risk of developing breast cancer and other forms of cancer. Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester found that the consumption of beef by pregnant mothers could affect their son's sperm quality, even causing infertility. Steroids have also been linked to prostate cancer in some studies.

Americans enjoy an ample supply of relatively cheap food. There is no reason this cannot continue without subjecting us to potentially dangerous anabolic steroids and other hazardous substances on our dinner plates. These substances are used so that agribusiness can grow its livestock in mammoth factory farms where hundreds of thousands of animals are packed together in unsanitary conditions or produce extra pounds of meat or milk so that its profits can increase. Agribusiness is able to do so because government, which is supposed to look after the health of its citizens, has instead given industry a free rein to do as it will.

We can have a clean and naturally raised food supply. It is time for a whole new ballgame.

© 2007 Blue Ridge Press

Philip Shabecoff is a journalist and author. His latest book, Poisoned Profits, co-authored with his wife, will be published by Random House in August 2008.

Clarence Thomas' My Grandfatehr's Son -
Story of an Extraordinary American Life The Conservative Curmudgeon Column by Allan C. Brownfeld

The life of Clarence Thomas, as set forth in his memoir, MY GRANDFATHER'S SON, is destined to become an American classic, not dissimilar to the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.

This book, which chronicles an extraordinary life, describes the education of an inquiring mind seeking to make sense of the racial politics and ideological divisions that confronted him during the turbulent l960s and l970s.

In an era when "Identity" politics dictated a particular political, economic, and social stance for black Americans, those individuals who persisted in thinking for themselves and following an often lonely path to discover their own view of truth were frequently isolated and often bitterly attacked.

Clarence Thomas was born in rural Georgia in l948, and was abandoned by his father. His mother was left to raise him and his brother and sister on the $10 dollars a week she earned as a maid. At the age of seven, Thomas and his six-year-old brother were sent to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, and her stepmother in their Savannah home. This was a move that would change Thomas' life.

His grandfather, whom he called "Daddy," had a strict work ethic. He owned his own fuel-oil business and he immediately subjected the two boys to a regime of sacrifice and hard work. His response to the poverty and segregation of black Savannah was the American ethic of self-help, faith in God, delayed gratification, and individual initiative. Thomas writes: "In every way that counts, I am my grandfather's son."

From Catholic elementary and high school, on to a seminary, and later to the College of the Holy Cross and the Yale Law School, Thomas went through many political transformations ? from altar boy to seminary student to campus radical and racial militant ? before coming back to the values his grandfather taught him and eventually arriving at his own understanding of society.

Slowly, Thomas came to oppose race-based affirmative action programs because such programs increase dependence on government: "That would amount to a new kind of enslavement, one which ultimately relied on the generosity ? and the ever-changing self-interests ? of politicians and activists. It seemed to me that the dependency it fostered might ultimately prove as diabolical as segregation, permanently condemning poor people to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder by cannibalizing the values without which they had no long-term hope of improving their lot... I began to suspect that Daddy had been right all along: the only hope I had of changing the world was to change myself first."

Thomas remembers that the more he read, the less inclined he was to conform to the cultural standards that blacks imposed on themselves and on one another. "Merely because I was black, it seemed, I was supposed to listen to Hugh Masekala instead of Carole King, just as I was expected to be a radical, not a conservative. I no longer cared to play that game... The black people I knew came from different places and backgrounds... yet the color of our skin was supposed to make us identical in spite of our differences. I didn't buy it. Of course we had all experienced racism in one way or another, but did that mean we had to think alike?

After law school, Thomas went to work for John Danforth, who was serving as Missouri's attorney general. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington. Thomas later worked at the U. S. Department of Education and as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before being named a federal judge

Along the way, he discovered the writings of leading black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. He reports that, "One of the first people in Washington who talked sense to me about race was Jay Parker, the editor of a new magazine called THE LINCOLN REVIEW... Jay was friendly, energetic, unflappable, and unapologetically conservative. I'd never known a black person who called himself a conservative, and it surprised me that we rarely disagreed about anything of substance."

Thomas provides this assessment of the black conservatives who had influenced his thinking and became his friends: "They were all smart, courageous, independent-minded men who came from modest backgrounds. Politics meant nothing to them. All they cared about was truthfully describing urgent social problems, then finding ways to solve them. Unhampered by partisan allegiances, they could speak their minds with honesty and clarity... I'll never forget the time when Jay reminded me that freedom came from God, not Ronald Reagan. For Jay politics was a part of life, not a way of life. It was an attitude I sought to emulate."

There is much in this book about Clarence Thomas's personal life as well as a lengthy description of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. In Washington, he writes, he was being pursued "not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flow ing sanctimony. For all the fear I'd known as a boy in Savannah, this was the first time I'd found myself at the mercy of people who would do whatever they could to hurt me and institutions that once prided themselves on bringing segregation and its abuses to an end were aiding and abetting in the assault."

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the assault upon him and triumphed over his adversaries. He has lived the American Dream, and this book is an eloquent testimony to both that life and that dream.

THE CONSERVATIVE CURMUDGEON is copyright © 2008 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use this column if credit is given to the author and the Foundation.

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

In l980, Allan Brownfeld served with Clarence Thomas and Jay Parker as a member of President Ronald Reagan's transition team at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and wrote that group's report of policy recommendations.

Nina May

New Documentary on Ronald Reagan in Production

Nina May, has been writing and producing a daily commentary for radio and the internet for over 10 years. She produced and hosted, “American Renaissance,” founded Renaissance Women Productions, and is currently producing, directing, writing and editing films.

The most recent is an award-winning independent documentary film on the history of the civil rights movement in America, “Emancipation Revelation Revolution”.  She was with Salem Communications (WAVA radio) for 3 years, writing and hosting a daily political show (website was oneplace.com). 

Currently, Nina is producing a documentary on former president Ronald Reagan.  She continues to write political and social commentaries which can be found on RWNetwork.net and Townhall.com.

Corn Can't Save Us:
Debunking the Biofuel Myth, By David Pimentel

Dwindling foreign oil, rising prices at the gas pump, and hype from politically well-connected U.S. agribusiness have combined to create a frenzied rush to convert food grains into ethanol fuel. The move is badly conceived and ill advised. Corporate spin and pork barrel legislation aside, here, by the numbers, are the scientific reasons why corn won't provide our energy needs:

First, using corn or any other biomass for ethanol requires huge regions of fertile land, plus massive amounts of water and sunlight to maximize crop production. All green plants in the U.S. - including all crops, forests, and grasslands, combined - collect about 32 quads (32 x 1015 BTU) of sunlight energy per year. Meanwhile, the American population currently burns more than 3 times that amount of energy annually as fossil fuels! There isn't even close to enough biomass in America to supply our biofuel needs.

Second, biofuel enthusiasts - including agribusiness lobbyists and PR firms - suggest that ethanol produced from corn and cellulosic biomass (like grasses), could replace much of the oil used in the United States. But consider that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, but that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption. If the entire national corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would replace a mere 7% of U.S. oil consumption - far from making the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Third, ethanol production is energy intensive: Cornell University's up-to-date analysis of the 14 energy inputs that go into corn production, plus the nine energy inputs invested in ethanol fermentation and distillation, confirms that more than 40 percent of the energy contained in one gallon of corn ethanol is expended to produce it. That expended energy to make ethanol comes mostly from highly valuable oil and natural gas.

Some investigators conveniently omit several of these energy inputs required in corn production and processing, such as energy for farm labor, farm machinery, energy production of hybrid corn-seed, irrigation, and processing equipment. Omitting energy inputs wrongly suggests that a corn-ethanol production system offers a more positive energy return. In reality, corn is an inefficient choice from an energy-cost and transport standpoint.

Cellulosic ethanol is also touted loudly as a replacement for corn ethanol. Unfortunately, cellulose biomass production requires major energy inputs to release minimal amounts of tightly bound starches and sugars needed to make fuel. About 70 percent more energy (coming again from precious oil and gas) is required to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced. That makes cellulosic ethanol an even poorer performer than corn ethanol.

Also, the production of corn ethanol is highly subsidized: state and federal governments pay out more than $6 billion per year in subsidies, according to a 2006 report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Geneva, Switzerland. These subsidies for a gallon of ethanol are more than 60 times those for a gallon of gasoline.

Moreover, the environmental impacts of corn ethanol production are serious and diverse. These include severe soil erosion of valuable food cropland, plus the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that pollute rivers. Fermenting corn to make one gallon of ethanol produces 12 gallons of noxious sewage effluent. Making ethanol requires the use of fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to global warming.

Finally, using food crops, such as corn, to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60 percent of the people on earth are currently malnourished according to the World Health Organization. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water, and energy vital for human food production.

The use of corn for ethanol has led to major increases in the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk - a boon to agribusiness and bane to consumers. Director General of the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization Jacques Diouf reports that using 22 pounds of corn to produce one gallon of ethanol is already causing food shortages for the world's poor.

One last set of statistics: The global population stands at 6.6 billion: a quarter-million mouths to feed are added daily. Energy experts report that peak oil production has already been reached. As cheap oil supplies decline, fuel prices will rise, causing food prices to climb too (because maximum agricultural production requires fossil fuel inputs).

As global population soars to 8 or 9 billion toward mid-century, and as we burn more grain as fuel, shortages and production costs could cause grain prices to skyrocket, taking food from the mouths of the world's poorest people.

The science is clear: The use of corn and other biofuels to solve our energy problem is an ethically, economically, and environmentally unworkable sham.

David Pimentel is a professor of entomology at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University.

© 2008 Blue Ridge Press www.blueridgepress.com

Health Care Tough Love
by Ron Getty

In 1941, a woman was given a one-page, hand-written hospital bill for $73.75 after an 11-day stay following the caesarian birth of her son. Based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index, the same hospital bill today should be $1,023. However, the actual hospital bill would be closer to $13,300. This means that since 1941 medical costs have risen at twice the rate of the CPI.

Is it possible to make health care as affordable as it was back in 1941?

First, two truths need to be understood about basic economics. Prices rise when demand exceeds supply. Prices fall when supply exceeds demand

Achieving the increased supply of health care needed with a concurrent reduction in the bureaucracy in claims processing can reduce the cost of health care. However, let's acknowledge some relevant factors affecting health care costs and provide some health care tough love.

With aging Baby Boomers hitting retirement, demands on the health care system will increase and health care prices will rise. The uninsured create another dynamic that affects health care prices.

The witches' brew of HMOs, Medicare, Medicaid, and private and group medical insurance induces increases on the costs and supply of health care through the reimbursement process of what is and isn't covered. The massive paperwork and administration needed to process claims and payments by government agencies, insurers, and health care providers causes further ripples in the cost of medical care. Legislation dictating to medical insurers and providers what is to be covered also adds to health care costs.

The Food and Drug Administration creates additional disruption. The FDA's red-tape ridden bureaucratic process for approving new medications and medical equipment dramatically increases health care costs for medicine and medical equipment.

Overall, the biggest and gravest major factor that must be addressed is in the health care personnel needed to provide medical services

Thousands of retiring Baby Boomer personnel will reduce accessibility to trained and experienced medical staff, and cause long lines and lessened competition. To offset the loss of retirees, more people must enroll in training programs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, and medical lab personnel. This means more training facilities for medical personnel and qualified medical teachers.

Public schools will have to stop graduating functional illiterates who need remedial math and English at the college level if we hope to have the number of necessary people capable of entering those medical training programs.

The American Medical Association and state licensing requirements further exacerbates the cost of medical care. The extensive mandatory training standards place barriers – some medically necessitated – in the way of additional health care personnel entering the field and competing for patients.

We need a physician-light program without the 12-year doctoral training program. A physician could specialize in specific types of medicine, like podiatrists are doing, with reduced training required. We also need an accelerated licensing program for qualified foreign-trained health care professionals, and we need to allow RNs to run bumps, bruises, scrapes, and basic shots medical clinics where MDs aren't needed.

More community hospitals, medical clinics, and medical training facilities must be opened to increase consumer options for health care, which will reduce costs through competition. As a result, we will need to rethink zoning and building permit processes to allow more such facilities.

Yes, these things can happen. However, to make an omelet, eggs are going to get broken. The biggest eggs to break will be politicians and their misguided efforts to omnisciently determine how health care must be provided for everyone at taxpayers' expense.

Radical measures are called for to increase the supply of health care and reduce prices through competition. This means doing the following:

• Eliminate licensing standards for hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, nurses, medical personnel, medical colleges and medical clinics
• Eliminate the FDA
• Deregulate the medical insurance industry
• Repeal the HMO Act of 1970
• Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and all other involuntarily, taxpayer-funded, government programs providing medical benefits at the federal or the state level and
• Eliminate legislatively mandated employer health insurance

The tough love solution to the health care crisis is getting politicians and the government out of the health care business. Let free enterprise medical providers address the market demands for health care at a price anyone can afford. Affordable health care can happen when there are no politicians or government agencies infecting the medical marketplace.

Ron Getty is the senior staff member of a tax attorney with his practice located in San Francisco. His background includes an electrical engineering degree and 30 years of sales, marketing and advertising with small to large corporations. A Vietnam Veteran of Chu Lai - I Corps, he brings personal perspectives on veterans and their treatment by the government.

Libertarian Party of California | 14547 Titus Street | Suite 214 | Panorama City | CA | 91402-4935 | www.ca.lp.org