Your "Local Sunday Newspaper" Seven Days a Week!

Politics

Huber Bill to Increase Jail Sentences for Meth Dealers Moves Closer to Becoming Law

Bill Approved By Senate Public Safety Committee

SACRAMENTO – AB 640 by Assemblymember Alyson Huber is one step closer to becoming law after passing the Senate Public Safety Committee. AB 640 would enhance current sentences on individuals convicted of selling methamphetamine by imposing a minimum jail term of 120 days as a condition of probation, similar to penalties currently faced by cocaine and heroin dealers.

“Methamphetamine use is at a crisis point in the state, and in my own district meth has a greater impact on public safety than other drugs,” said Assemblymember Alyson Huber. “One of the ways we can break the cycle of use is by cracking down on the dealers that sell the drugs. If the meth pushers are behind bars, drug addicts and drug infested communities can cleanup and break the cycle of drug abuse.”

Californians make up 40% of all meth treatment admissions nationwide. While estimates are difficult to confirm, data suggests that more than two million Californians age 12 or older (7.3 percent) have used methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime. In Assemblymember Huber’s district, a narcotics task force team in Amador County reported 118 investigations in 2008, 46 (39%) of which involved meth. By contrast they had 8 heroin cases, 1 cocaine case.

“I have seen first hand the devastating impact meth has on our communities. Like so many other communities in this state and in the nation, we have found methamphetamine to be the underlying cause of such criminal offenses as domestic violence and child endangerment, “said Amador County Sheriff Martin Ryan who supports the bill. “I applaud Assemblymember Huber for her commitment to public safety and look forward to continuing to work with her to improve the safety of our communities.”

Current law requires those convicted of the sale of cocaine, heroin, or PCP to serve at least 180 days in jail as a condition of probation, but existing law does not have a similar provision for those convicted of the sale of methamphetamine. Therefore, a person convicted of the sale of methamphetamine could be granted probation and not serve one day in jail.

Supporting AB 640 are County Sheriffs from Huber’s Assembly District, Amador County Sheriff Martin Ryan and San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore. In addition, the California District Attorneys Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California and the San Joaquin County District Attorney James Willet are also supporting the bill.

AB 640 will now go to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

For more information on Assemblymember Huber’s efforts to improve public safety, visit www.asm.ca.gov/huber.

First Tax Increase in New Healthcare Law Takes Effect

New Tanning Tax Burns Small Business

The first tax in the new healthcare law went into effect July 1st, and it falls on the backs of the very people who can least afford it – our nation’s small businesses.

The tax, known as the “tanning tax,” levies a 10 percent tax on tanning services and is predicted to raise $2.7 billion (over 10 years). The revenue raiser will fall disproportionately on “mom and pop” small businesses, typically owned and operated by women, and is designed to pay for the nearly $1 trillion healthcare law.

“I hardly think this is the appropriate time to raise taxes on our nation’s smallest businesses, the very people who can least afford new and complicated taxes,” said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association. “This directly violates the promise President Obama made not to raise taxes on the middle class. A tax like this could be devastating to thousands of ‘mom and pop’ tanning businesses across the country.”

The tax could hit an estimated 18,000 small businesses nationwide, jeopardizing thousands of jobs and unfairly hitting working women and college students, who comprise the majority of indoor tanning customers.

“Right now small businesses need to concentrate on making payroll and encouraging customers to come through their doors,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel, NFIB. “New taxes like this amount to a 10 percent increase in the cost of doing business, and that money has to come from somewhere. Higher taxes mean less investment, reduced growth and fewer customers – hardly the prescription for future job growth our country needs.”

Tax paperwork is already a huge burden for small businesses, averaging more than $74 per hour in compliance costs. The tanning tax is reported and paid quarterly, and business owners are responsible for tracking, filing and collecting payment from customers.

“This tax will prevent job creation and possibly cause the elimination of jobs,” said IFA Vice President of Government Relations David French. “When the nation is struggling to create jobs, imposing a tax on one sector of the business community seems punitive and counterproductive.”

Because tanning is something generally purchased with disposable income, this industry has already been hit hard by the recession. As owner Dan Caskey of Cincinnati Tanning Company said: “I’m already strapped in my business. Times are tough and I need to keep the customers I have. I’m just not sure how I’m going to deal with yet another new cost of doing business. Washington just doesn’t seem to get it – this is a punitive tax levied on me to pay for this healthcare law. We’re supposed to be supporting and encouraging businesses like mine to grow and hire, and taxes like this encourage just the opposite.”

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 states. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists sends their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information about NFIB is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

The International Franchise Association is the world’s oldest and largest organization representing franchising worldwide. IFA members include franchise companies in over 90 different business format categories, individual franchisees and companies that support the industry in marketing, law and business development.

The Indoor Tanning Association represents thousands of indoor tanning manufacturers, distributors, facility owners and members from other support industries. The Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) was founded to protect the freedom of individuals to acquire a suntan.

Small Business Advocates Applaud Senator Dave Cox

Northern California lawmaker given high marks for voting record

Small and independent businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Many are family owned businesses – making it hard for them to voice their concerns on proposed legislation in Sacramento. Yet, they have found an advocate in Senator Dave Cox.

On behalf of California’s small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) gave Sen. Cox a perfect score for his advocacy of small businesses.

“Running a small business in California is more challenging than in our neighboring states,” said Sen. Dave Cox. “The amount of resources dedicated to doing paperwork with various government agencies is costly.”

Cox added, “Making payroll is already challenging given today’s economy. Government should not add extra burdens on employers.”

After tracking legislation that would have significant impact on small businesses, NFIB thanked Cox for his support of small businesses and their employees.

Founded in 1943, the National Federation of Independent Business is the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses. Twenty thousand strong, NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses.

A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB represents the consensus views of its members in Washington and all 50 state capitals.

Time to Get Control of the Thundering Herd

By Trent Loos

The Calico Mountain Range consists of 550,000 acres, and the official Bureau of Land Management range scientist there has said the area can sustain 600 head of horses.

In this arid desert region, however, it takes 1,000 acres of rangeland to sustain a horse year in and year out.

After the most recent round-up, the official number of horses counted in Fallon was 3,040, which is only allowing 180 acres per horse. One need not be very sharp in the animal husbandry area to figure out how that does not bode well for the horse.

Granted, the BLM has some very knowledgeable range scientists and horse experts, but their hands are tied by legislation and they simply can't do what they know needs to be done.

The weekend following the roundup, brought a rally at the state capitol in Carson City, Nev., with a reported 100 people protesting the horse gathering from the range. The Calico gathering was supposed to have be held in early fall, but because of earlier public protest, it did not happen until in the end of December. Then, these protestors spoke out about how the weather now made it tougher on the horses.

Why is it that the very people who restrict the government from managing these horses properly cannot be charged with animal neglect? Are they not preventing BLM officials from giving the horses the care they need to survive and thrive?

All of the regions designated for wild horses hold nearly three times the number of horses that the range can handle properly.

At this point the solution from the Obama Administration has been an increase of $12 million in the BLM budget for horse management. I don't understand how that is going to help. Are we going to continue to allow these horses to be mismanaged and grow in number for no reason whatsoever?

Even more concerning is that the BLM budget contains an allocation for $42.5 million in land acquisition funding to purchase another wild horse preserve. If this continues much longer, we will need to buy up the whole nation just to find feed for these wild animals, which fewer and fewer people are interested in adopting.

I enjoy seeing wild horses as much as anybody, but a little bit of animal owner responsibility must come into play.

The solution is not to increase the budget and increase the horse population. The solution is to finally get a backbone and explain to the "wild horse lover" that while we like to have some wild horses around, there comes a point in time when we need to slow the growth and also sell some horses.

We encourage people to spay and neuter their pets, so why not control reproduction in these herds as well?

In the big picture of government spending, I realize that this is just a blip on the radar screen, yet take a blip here and blip there, and suddenly, we have a thundering herd that is running completely out of control.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Trent Loos is a sixth generation farmer/rancher from Loop City, Neb., and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a group dedicated to presenting the facts as related to agriculture. Loos also is a broadcaster and can be heard on 100 radio stations nationwide as well as on Dish 9411 each weekend morning. He is a columnist for Feedstuffs and a partner in Feedstuffs FoodLink.

Trent is available for interviews regarding this and other agriculture topics. He can be reached at: trentloos@gmail.com or (515) 418-8185.

Assemblyman Niello Introduces Measure Encouraging "Performance Standards" Over Technology-Specific Regulation

SACRAMENTO -Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) announced today that he has introduced legislation to ensure that the regulatory rulemaking process focuses on performance standards. The bill would require the Office of Administrative Law to provide justification for technology-specific regulations.

AB 2738 seeks to further promote rulemaking based on performance standards by establishing it as a preferred alternative to technology-specific regulations and requiring agencies to justify a departure from this preference.

There are thousands of rules and regulations with which individuals and businesses in California must comply. The rulemaking process can become overly prescriptive and regulators often find themselves either becoming an advocate or an arbiter of specific technologies that can achieve some of the goals of the rulemaking.

By setting rules based on methods rather than performance standards, regulators often undervalue the incentive of the regulated communities to comply in the most cost-effective, innovative, competitive, and technologically friendly manner possible.

In legislative hearings with employers in the Sacramento region, Assemblyman Niello and Senator Dave Cox heard a common complaint from businesses; regulators should be less concerned with micro managing the methods of the rules and more concerned with the outcome to achieve the desired regulatory result.

For rulemakers such as the California Air Resource Board (CARB) this bill would mean that instead of mandating the use of a particular technology to clean up diesel emmissions, CARB would only set clean air standards. The technology that gets us there would be left to the marketplace.

"I have always advocated for a standards based approach in legislating and in rulemaking," said Assemblyman Niello. "The best results are achieved for all when we set the bar high, then encourage the market to determine the best ways to live up to the standard. AB 2738 moves in this direction."

Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov

Lungren Fights for Bipartisan Protection for Health Care Consumers

Washington DC- Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) offered a bipartisan amendment to HR 4626 - Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act - that sparked heated debate on the House Floor. Using bipartisan language from former Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks (D-TX), Lungren’s amendment was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with unanimous support. However, Rep. Lungren’s amendment was stripped from the legislation by the House Leadership and the Rules Committee refused to allow the Lungren amendment to be debated on the House Floor. Lungren released the following statement:

“I do not believe that the insurance industry should be exempt from our nation’s antitrust laws. I worked with my colleagues on our Judiciary Committee to produce a bi-partisan bill which included my amendment to allow small businesses to share historical loss data. The amendment was adopted unanimously by the Judiciary Committee and was included in section 262 of the health care legislation which passed the House of Representatives. My amendment reflected the language from legislation introduced by former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jack Brooks in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses.

"Most businesses look to data on past transactions in order to enable them to price their products. And here is the rub—it is the small companies which depend on the availability of this information the most. Smaller businesses simply do not have a sufficiently large volume of information to price their products efficiently. It is for this reason that it is of the utmost importance that these business owners have the ability to share historical data. In this regard, a Congressional Research Service Report by Janice Rubin and Baird Webel raises the possibility that were such data not available to small insurance companies we might see the ironic outcome of further consolidation in the insurance industry. My amendment makes it very clear that only the sharing of past transactions is permitted and that insurance companies may not collaborate to set prices.”

The American Bar Association has supported the collection of historical data as embodied in the Lungren Amendment. Lungren supported H.R. 4626 on final passage.

Assemblyman Niello Introduces Legislation To Reform The Initiative Process

SACRAMENTO- Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) has authored legislation to reduce partisan bias on ballot initiative titles and summaries. Unfortunately, ballot titles and summaries can be deceptive and misleading to voters. AB 1968 will address this problem by transferring responsibility for authorship from the partisan Attorney General to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office. This measure was defeated last year in the form of AB 319, in Assembly Elections Committee.

Currently, the Attorney General of California is responsible for writing a ballot title and summary for every initiative that garners enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Additionally, the Legislative Analyst's Office writes an analysis of the initiative. "Unfortunately, partisan offices are susceptible to politicizing ballot initiatives by including misleading and inaccurate ballot language," said Assemblyman Niello. AB 1968 transfers authority for writing the title and summary from the partisan Attorney General to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office, thereby centralizing responsibility for ballot language and reducing partisan bias.

The measure will also turn over responsibility for the fiscal impact statement to the Legislative Analyst's Office. The current system is redundant, requiring a fiscal estimate compiled jointly by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee as well as an estimate by the Legislative Analyst. AB 1968 would eliminate this repetition by giving sole responsibility for the fiscal analysis to the Legislative Analyst.

"The Legislative Analyst's Offices has proven itself over and over to be a fair, impartial, and thorough source of information," said Assemblyman Niello. "Voters are faced with many tough decisions when they enter the voting booth. They don't need partisan officeholders making the issues more confusing than they need to be." Email roger at Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Huber: “No More Cuts to Education”

SACRAMENTO – Today, (March 4th), on the Day of Action for education, Assemblymember Alyson Huber is standing in solidarity with the parents, teachers and students rallying across the state to call for no additional cuts to education.

“Enough is enough. We must hold the line on any more cuts to education. Our students have sacrificed enough,” said Assemblymember Huber. “The fight against cuts will not be easy in these difficult times but if we stand together we can make a difference in this budget. As a state, education must be one of our top priorities.”

Assemblymember Huber recognizes the critical need for investing in education and keeping the doors of opportunity open to our state’s students. She credits her own education for being where she is today. After putting herself through college, education is what allowed her to change her station in life. Furthermore, as a mother of two young elementary school children and two step-children in college, Assemblymember Huber knows first hand what the recent years of drastic cuts to education has meant.

“Education is not what it used to be. When I was in school we had jars of paste in every class room, now, teachers have to hold bake sales to buy glue sticks,” added Huber.

For more information visit www.asm.ca.gov/huber.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Taxpayers Forced to Fund Abortion Bailout in Nations Capital

WASHINGTON, July 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- Despite Democrats' sound- bite rhetoric about "reducing the number of abortions," liberals in Congress have nonetheless passed a $768 million dollar Financial Services Appropriations bill - without allowing debate - that will force taxpayers to pay for the destruction of innocent human life in the District of Columbia. Additionally, the bill - which President Obama supports - would legalize medical marijuana, fund a needle exchange program to provide intravenous drug addicts with clean needles to continue injecting illicit and often deadly drugs, eliminate money previously allocated for a drug prevention campaign, and eliminate school vouchers.

Although proponents of abortion frequently cite "freedom of choice," the bill would paradoxically remove taxpayers' choice not to be financially complicit in abortion homicide. Additionally, the bill would remove the choice of 1,716 low-income students to attend quality private schools, such as the one attended by President Obama's two daughters, by doing away with a $7,500 per child voucher program. Although the program has proven highly successful, it was inexplicably assailed by President Obama and numerous teacher unions. Those 1,716 students will now have to either come up with money for tuition or be forced to attend one of the District's many failing inner-city public schools.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Neither President Obama nor the Democratic-controlled Congress seems to care for children. They favor killing them in the womb and making taxpayers fund their execution. For those who see the light of day, they want to doom them to failing schools and give them free needles to inject illegal drugs into their veins. With 'friends' like this in Washington, who needs foreign enemies to destroy America?"

Representative Democracy? Something We Don’t Have!

by Robert L. Hale

In theory, our political representatives are elected to act on our behalf. We expect them to act in our best interests and, at a minimum, to be aware of what they are voting to impose on those of us they represent.

Unfortunately, those we elect to represent us in Congress rarely read the bills on which they vote. These bills when enacted become the laws we are required to follow -- laws that affect our lives, businesses, and prosperity. Elected officials who fail to read and understand proposed legislation, and consult with those they represent, mock the very concept of representative government.

The U.S. House of Representatives is debating a 1,018-page bill titled, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” -- a title that is more of a marketing ploy than an accurate or informative description. It was not introduced and made public until July 14, 2009, less than two weeks before the President’s deadline. That was far too little time to meaningfully study, debate, and consider a bill that will so dramaticaly affect our lives. While those pushing this bill argue it is not a nationalization of health care, a careful reading leaves no doubt that nationalization is exactly what this bill does.

Rep. John Conyers, (D-MI), a prime sponsor of this bill, is an attorney and Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He owes the American public a fiduciary duty as both an elected official and attorney. Unlike Rep. Conyers, I have read the bill. If enacted as introduced, it will change what health care Americans receive and how it is delivered. The bill directly puts unelected committees in charge of determining what health insurance entities must offer and what they cannot offer. It also puts the IRS in charge of enforcing its provisions.

The bill would require employers to fund 60 percent of a family medical plan and 72.5 percent of an individual plan. Employers who fail to do so will face IRS fines of 8 percent of the payroll. The self-employed who fail to comply will be fined 2.5 percent of their gross income up to an amount equal to what an unelected committee determines. Interestingly, no one is asking why an employer should be responsible for anyone’s health care in the first place. Nor is anyone asking what the impact of such financial impositions on business will be. Increased unemployment is one guaranteed consequence.

Health costs have risen dramtically over the last 40 years. The increase in the cost and complexity of health care is due to three factors -- the advent of Medicare, the explosion of malpractice litigation, and excessive time and cost imposed on pharmacutical companies to bring medications to the U.S. marketplace.

Not a single section, phrase, or word in the bill addresses any of these problems. Instead, if passed, Americans will be told what medical services they may have. While the rhetoric promises affordable health care for everyone, the bill promises only limited options and limited care. As for representative government? The President admits he has not read the bill, yet he is aggressively campaigning for Congress to impose it on us.

On July 27, 2009, when asked if he had read the bill, Rep. Conyers said, “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill’. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Conyers controls the schedule. Why doesn’t he make sure there is time to read the bill? As for needing two lawyers -- he is a lawyer. If the bill is so complex it takes “two lawyers” to understand what it means, maybe there is something terribly wrong with the bill itself as well as the process. Possibly it is complex so people won’t understand what it actually does.

If you like the IRS, if you like how Social Security works, if you like welfare and Medicare, then you will love national health care – oops – that is, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.”

Oh yes, 93 members of the House of Representative agreed to read the bill before voting on it. Those who have read it oppose it. Maybe every American who cherishes meaningful choices should also read it.

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.

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."

Niello Bill to Eliminate Property Tax Marriage Penalty is Approved

AB 321 would reconcile inequity in property tax law

SACRAMENTO- Assemblyman Roger Niello (R- Fair Oaks) received approval by the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on Monday (April 13th) of legislation, AB 321, to amend a property tax provision that unfairly penalizes married homeowners

Over twenty years ago, Californians recognized the need to provide tax relief to elderly homeowners. Voters approved two propositions to exempt taxpayers aged 55 or older from property tax reassessment when purchasing a replacement home of equal or lesser value. However, the implementing legislation included a one-time exclusion provision and also defined spouses as a single claimant.

As a result, siblings, friends, roommates, and unmarried couples who own homes jointly are each individually afforded their rightful exemption while married couples are unfairly restricted to one reassessment exemption per couple.

“Current property tax law unfairly penalizes married seniors,” said Assemblyman Niello. “Seniors are hit with higher property taxes as they downsize from the larger homes where they raised their kids into smaller retirement homes. It’s contemptuous. I appreciate the committee’s recognition of this problem and the subsequent passage of the bill.” AB 321 was approved on a unanimous vote and now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Governor Signs Wolk Bill to Put Patients in Charge of End-of-Life Care Decisions

Legislation Gives Californians New Tool to Express Wishes for Medical Care

SACRAMENTO—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law (Aug.4th) legislation by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) providing seriously ill patients with a life expectancy of a year or less with a new tool to communicate precise instructions for their end-of-life health care.

Wolk’s Assembly Bill 3000 ensures that when a patient has a completed Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, the form must be honored by all health care providers. A POLST form addresses a range of treatment options and enables a patient to clearly express their treatment preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments such as resuscitation, nutrition, and pain management.

“I applaud the Governor for signing this legislation, which puts patients in charge of their end-of-life care decisions,” said Wolk. “My legislation ensures that, unlike advance health care directives and do not resuscitate orders, POLST forms will carry the weight of a doctor’s order meaning that it must be followed across all health care settings, including long-term care facilities, and emergency rooms, by all health care providers including physicians, nurses and emergency medical personnel. That’s the primary reason the POLST process is the best way for patients to ensure their wishes are honored.”

A POLST form is filled out by a health care provider during a conversation between the provider and patient, and must be signed by a doctor in order to be implemented. Evidence shows that POLST forms are easily used in emergency situations as they are written in precise, unambiguous language, and printed on bright pink color that makes them easy for emergency care providers to identify.

AB 3000 does not require that a physician utilize the POLST form. It does provide patients the option of using the POLST process, which has been successfully implemented in 15 other states and is currently being tested in seven pilot programs throughout California, including one in Woodland.

“I know from personal experience how critical it is for a patient’s treatment preferences to be clearly conveyed and easily accessible to health care providers. A person’s decisions relating to their end-of-life care are among the most important they’ll ever make. This new law will ensure that those decisions are honored by all health care providers,” said Wolk. “I look forward to continuing to work with the healthcare community to see the POLST process utilized to benefit patients throughout California.”

AB 3000 is broadly supported by more than 40 organizations such as the American College of Emergency Physicians, Alliance of Catholic Health Care California, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Hospital Association, Palliative Care Association, California Association of Health Facilities, California Assisted Living Association and California Coalition for Compassionate Care.

Assembly Committee kills Niello Public Private Partnership Legislation

Governor Schwarzenegger calls the vote “irresponsible”

SACRAMENTO - Legislation authored by Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), and sponsored by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, that would have allowed state government agencies to enter into public private partnerships for the development of public transportation systems, schools, water treatment facilities, and other public infrastructure needs was voted down today in an Assembly Committee.”

“California faces a huge backlog of public infrastructure needs. In terms of our system of infrastructure, California is a third world country with world class access to talent and capital. It is high time that we forge these partnerships in the best interests of Californians,” said Niello

According to the Department of Finance, California will need as much as $500 billion worth of new infrastructure in the next 20 years to keep up with the projected needs of the state.

The idea behind public private partnerships is to build essential public infrastructure projects with the use of private funding, while maintaining public ownership of the facility. Upon completion of the project, the private contractor receives a return on the investment by being granted a lease to operate the facility. Public private partnerships have been used successfully in many states and countries.

“While public infrastructure has to be a priority for the State, leveraging private capital to pay for it will help improve the condition of our general fund and keep us from saddling future generations with piles of debt from the sale of bonds,” said Niello. “The lesson we should all learn from this current budget crisis is that we have to be more innovative and we have to change the way we do things.”

As the sponsor of the legislation and a long-time supporter of public private partnerships, Governor Schwarzenegger lamented the vote today. “Given that California is facing huge budget cuts in this economic downturn, it is irresponsible for legislators to turn down billions of dollars in private sector funding for infrastructure projects,” said Governor Schwarzenegger.

Phony Homeowners Group Fronts Phony Ballot Measure

By Jon Coupal

The story is told that to fool Catherine II, Russian minister Grigori Potemkin constructed hollow facades of villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River. When the monarch and her entourage sailed by, they were impressed with the prosperity in her new territories.

Backers of a phony property rights measure, Proposition 99 on the June ballot, have borrowed a page or two from Potemkin's book.

Last year, taxpayers, farmers and small business owners began qualifying a measure for the ballot -- Proposition 98 -- that would bar cities and counties from seizing private property from unwilling sellers so it can be turned over to favored developers for strip malls and other for profit projects.

To protect local officials' power over private property, the League of California Cities drafted their own initiative, Proposition 99 -- which is as fake as a three dollar bill. Although designed to be cosmetically attractive, a closer examination reveals that it is just another hollow shell. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office states Proposition 99, "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices." In other words, Proposition 99 does nothing. Well, it does one thing. If it passes with more votes than Proposition 98, which is the "real deal" for property owners, it invalidates all the protections contained in that measure

Here is why the League of California Cities and their developer allies should be sending a royalty check to Potemkin for using his ideas. Not only have they constructed an initiative that has nothing of substance on the inside, but to further confuse the voters, they are featuring its support by the League of California Homeowners, Inc. While this attractive name may cause many voters to think this is a broad-based statewide homeowners organization, it is actually a corporation whose primary function is to act as a contractor referral service.

In fact, this organization is essentially a one-man-band headed by its president, Upland City Councilman Ken Willis. Apparently, Willis values his power to take property in his community because he is willing to violate his organization's bylaws to back the fake Proposition 99, and oppose the genuine Proposition 98. The bylaws of the League of California Homeowners clearly state, "...the Corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or for or against any cause or measure being submitted to the people for a vote."

However, the website for the deceptive Proposition 99 lists the League of California Homeowners on the top of the list of endorsers. The same website shows this "homeowners group" as an opponent of Proposition 98, which would actually curtail abuses of governments' right to take private property.

What we have here is a contractor referral service with a misleading title being used to screen a phony property rights initiative. Potemkin would be proud. Property owners will get more protection from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" than they will from the League of California Cities, the League of California Homeowners and their fraudulent Proposition 99.

Proposition 98, proudly sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, will allow governments to take property only for genuine public purposes, like schools and roads and will bar the seizure of property so that private developers can make a profit.

With the passage of Proposition 98 in June, property owners will get real protection, not just happy talk.

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

Corn Can't Save Us:

Debunking the Biofuel Myth, By David Pimentel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2008 Blue Ridge Press www.blueridgepress.com

Health Care Tough Love

by Ron Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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