Trump Reaches Out to California in State of the Union Address

Trump state of the unionPresident Donald Trump and the state of California are dramatically opposed, with the Democrat-dominated state leading the so-called “Resistance” and suing the administration over nearly every major policy.

But President Trump used his first official State of the Union address on Tuesday evening to reach out to the Golden State, setting the tone for a speech that was surprisingly conciliatory, and that emphasized themes of national unity.

In the introductory portion of his speech, Trump addressed the recent emergencies and naturaal disasters that had struck California and the rest of the nation, sounding a unifying theme right from the outset — instead of leaving such messages for the conclusion, as presidents often do.

Trump said:

Over the last year, we have made incredible progress and achieved extraordinary success.  We have faced challenges we expected, and others we could never have imagined.  We have shared in the heights of victory and the pains of hardship.  We endured floods and fires and storms.  But through it all, we have seen the beauty of America’s soul, and the steel in America’s spine.

Each test has forged new American heroes to remind us who we are, and show us what we can be.

We heard about Americans like firefighter David Dahlberg.  He is here with us too.  David faced down walls of flame to rescue almost 60 children trapped at a California summer camp threatened by wildfires.

To everyone still recovering in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, California, and everywhere else — we are with you, we love you, and we will pull through together.

The unity of the moment was short-lived, as California’s own House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi refused to stand or applaud for the president’s call to come together: “But it is not enough to come together only in times of tragedy. Tonight, I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people we were elected to serve.”

Still, Californians who have become accustomed to confrontation with the president — who has yet to visit the state in his presidency — could take comfort in a moment of outreach.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

President Trump Slaughters the NFL

Trump NFLIn youth sports there is something known as the “slaughter rule” which stops contests when one team is hopelessly behind the other – being slaughtered. In Little League baseball the rule is invoked when one team is ahead by 11 runs. In Pop Warner, middle school and some high school football the rule is activated when a team is ahead by 35 or more points.

If the showdown between President Trump and the NFL over players kneeling during the national anthem were a sporting event, the slaughter rule would have been invoked long ago. NFL attendance is down, television ratings are down, and as a result income is down. The NFL is getting slaughtered and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

President Trump once again showed his ability to correctly judge public attitudes when he said that players who knelt during the anthem were “SOBs who should be fired.” Liberal heads exploded, of course, but as with so many topics the president may have been unartful in his words – but was spot-on in expressing what millions of Americans felt. Personally, I don’t think SOBs was strong enough language, and wish he had used his description of Haiti to describe the players’ brains. The NFL came to the defense of Colin Kaepernick and the other players who were symbolically burning the flag. They attacked the president in vile terms. The league has been getting slaughtered since and deservedly so.

Since the anti-police, anti-military, anti-anthem, unemployed but multi-millionaire quarterback Colin Kaepernick started his kneeling stunt, in-stadium attendance for regular season games is down over 14%. Sympathetic television networks, attempting to hide the huge swatches of empty seats, stopped taking “long shots” of stadiums. Shots from the Goodyear blimp became either close-ups of the field or such long shots that the viewer can’t discern the empty seats from the occupied ones.

The drop-off has been particularly noticeable during the playoffs since there are fewer games to monitor. For instance, the NFL had a disastrous first playoff weekend when it came to ratings. As Sports Illustrated (a Kaepernick apologist and supporter of anthem-kneeling) was forced to admit, “numbers have been down all season and it was more of the same for the wild-card games. Titans-Chiefs viewership was down 11%, Falcons-Rams was down 10%, Bills-Jaguars was down 10%, and Panthers-Saints was down 21%.”

Television networks sell ads far in advance based on guaranteed ratings. When those ratings fall short the networks have to refund advertiser dollars. So far this year the ratings drop has cost networks tens of millions of dollars in refunds.

The numbers didn’t get any better as the playoff’s progressed. “Outkick The Coverage,” a sports blog centering on football, found that the NFL had 23 million fewer viewers for this year’s playoff action. The blog took a look at the TV ratings and found that every game was down by millions of viewers and ratings fell to a 10-year low. Their bottom line conclusion was not a pretty one for the NFL: “Adding all these numbers up 120.8 million viewers watched the NFL divisional round playoffs in 2018 vs. 144.1 million who watched in 2017, a decline of 23.3 million total viewers.” As Mr. Ed used to say, that ain’t hay.

The upcoming Super Bowl will likely get its usual strong ratings. The New England Patriots long ago replaced the Dallas Cowboys as “America’s team.” Dare I suggest part of the reason also is that fans who tuned out the regular season and playoff games know that Patriots owner Robert Kraft, coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady are Trump supporters?

Charlotte, NC - September 18, 2016: San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick (7) walks off the field at Bank of America Stadium with his fist up in the air after their game against the Panthers.(Gerry Melendez for ESPN)

It is important not to let what started all this get lost in the mists of time. A 27-year-old multi-millionaire who has never really worked a day in his life decided that America was such a horrid country that, in his words, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color … . There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” His conscience and his pocketbook apparently are not in sync, as he doesn’t mind making millions of dollars in this rotten country that oppresses and murders people of color.

Kaepernick was referring to law enforcement officers in his “people getting away with murder” comment. He has socks that show pigs wearing police hats, and has said that the men and women in American law enforcement set out daily to murder black people. He’ll tell you that the American military is used to subjugate people of color around the globe. And in case you think he is just a run-of-the mill leftist instead of a true moron, he praised Fidel Castro as a “great leader” who has done many “humanitarian things” for the people of Cuba.

THIS is the man that our leftist media both inside and outside of sports has put on a pedestal. The flag is a symbol of oppression; police are pigs; some law enforcement officers start every day intending to kill black people; the military exists to oppress people of color and Fidel Castro was a humanitarian leader. If Kaepernick were really concerned about black people being killed he should go to Chicago where nearly 600 of them were killed by criminals last year. Or he should go to a Planned Parenthood office, the organization that kills 400,000 unborn black babies every year.

The NFL has been fully cowed and co-opted by Kaepernick, his small number of followers who play the game and his large number of sycophants in the media. Even in the face of surveys showing that nearly 75% of Americans disapprove of the protests, the league has pledged nearly $100 million toward “social justice” organizations. It’s their money, so they can throw it at far-left mirages if they wish.

It’s also the fans’ money – and viewership – and they have the right to do with those commodities as they wish. Those wishes now have precious little to do with supporting the NFL. The fans do not think police officers are pigs or that law enforcement personnel set out every day to murder black people. They respect America, its military and its flag. They respect a president willing to call out an un-patriotic, ignorant athlete deep in the fever swamps of ultra-leftism. As the NFL continues to get slaughtered, if you listen closely you might hear these fans celebrating the slaughter of the NFL: “Two, four, six, eight … who do we appreciate? Trump … Trump … Trump.”

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson Wins Approval for Audit of Choo Choo to Nowhere

It took long enough, but the Democrats in Sacramento are now so nervous about the abuse of the public, the taxpayers and facts that they agreed to a bill by GOP Assemblyman Jim Patterson (Fresno) to audit the openly corrupt High Speed Rail Authority.  In order to get a $10 billion bond approved by the voters, they now admit to lying about the cots, the routes, the financing and the potential ridership—they said anything they needed to steal from the public.  The winners?  The unions and crony capitalists.

““Concern for this project is no longer divided along party lines. Those who support high-speed rail should be as alarmed – if not more so – as those opposed to the project,” said Assemblyman Jim Patterson. “Even project managers have admitted to serious funding issues that have made a true north to south high-speed train impossible to complete as approved by voters. The High Speed Rail Authority will now answer to the auditor and we will all finally get the non-partisan, independent reality check we’ve been asking for.”

Those that supported this canard have to be worried—just another Guv Arnold/Jerry scam.

high speed rail train

California High-Speed Rail Audit Approved in Bi-Partisan Vote

Assemblyman Jim Patterson,  1/30/18

 

SACRAMENTO –The Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved the bi-partisan request for a comprehensive audit of California’s troubled high-speed rail project Tuesday.

The request, introduced by Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) and Senate Transportation Committee Chair Jim Beall (D-San Jose), comes weeks after the California High Speed Rail Authority shared news about the cost of the first section of track jumping an additional $2.8 billion, adding pressure and scrutiny to the project which is already seven years behind schedule.

“Concern for this project is no longer divided along party lines. Those who support high-speed rail should be as alarmed – if not more so – as those opposed to the project,” said Assemblyman Jim Patterson. “Even project managers have admitted to serious funding issues that have made a true north to south high-speed train impossible to complete as approved by voters. The High Speed Rail Authority will now answer to the auditor and we will all finally get the non-partisan, independent reality check we’ve been asking for.”

The California State Auditor estimates the audit will take between six to nine months and will cost approximately $350,000. It will include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

  1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.
  2. Review and assess the authority’s policies, procedures, and processes for managingcontracts and containing costs for the project, including its processes for tracking, reviewing, and paying contractor invoices.

3.Evaluate the authority’s process for reviewing and approving design-build contract change orders.

  1. To the extent possible, review and evaluate the authority’s efforts to determine the economic impact the project has had on communities in those areas where construction is under way.
  2. Determine the extent to which the authority contracts with small and disadvantaged businesses.
  3. Review the authority’s sustainability policy and assess its compliance with the policy. Assess the authority’s efforts to evaluate the economic and environmental outcomes of its policy.
  4. Determine whether there are opportunities for the authority to expedite the project and reduce costs through cooperation with other transportation entities, such as other transit or rail lines or through capturing additional value through construction of project facilities.
  1. Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.

 

Simi Valley Police and Other Cities Giving Info on Illegal Aliens to ICE

I am proud to be a citizen in Simi Valley.  There are 14 other cities that have residents that should also be proud—their police departments, like Simi Valley, are helping ICE find illegal aliens.  They have been doing this by allowing ICE access to the “license plate reader” program.

“The Trump administration is following through with its promise to crack down on immigrants living in the U.S. illegally with agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement now having access to license plate reader information from cities across the U.S.

But, a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that at least 14 California cities had already been sharing that information with the federal agency for years.”

Now that this information is out, will the California Attorney General  indict the Police Chiefs and city councils involved, under the sanctuary city law—he has already threatened to arrest any private property member that assists ICE.  AG Becerra has no choice—either take legal action against Simi Valley Police Chief Livingstone or admit the law you demanded is illegal and can not be enforced.

ICE 2

LIST: CA Cities Give ICE License Plate Information

ICE agents now have access to a database of license plates thanks to a Livermore company.

By Hoa Quách, Patch ,   1/29/18

CALIFORNIA — The Trump administration is following through with its promise to crack down on immigrants living in the U.S. illegally with agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement now having access to license plate reader information from cities across the U.S.

But, a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that at least 14 California cities had already been sharing that information with the federal agency for years.

News reports last week revealed that the federal agency struck a deal with Livermore-based Vigilant Solution to obtained license plate reader information. In a statement to CNN, an ICE spokesperson said the information would be a “tool in support of its investigations.”

The news sparked outrage among immigrant rights’ activists who are raising privacy concerns.

Apparently, the access to a license plate database isn’t unusual in some California cities. Electronic Frontier Foundation published a report Monday stating that the following police departments have already provided that access to ICE:

  • Anaheim Police Department
  • Antioch Police Department
  • Bakersfield Police Department
  • Chino Police Department
  • Fontana Police Department
  • Fountain Valley Police Department
  • Glendora Police Department
  • Hawthorne Police Department
  • Montebello Police Department
  • Orange Police Department
  • Sacramento Police Department
  • San Diego Police Department
  • Simi Valley Police Department
  • Tulare Police Department

“ICE agents have also obtained direct access to this data through user accounts provided by local law enforcement. For example, an ICE officer obtained access through the Long Beach Police Department’s system in November 2016 and ran 278 license plate searches over nine months. Two CBP officers further conducted 578 plate searches through Long Beach’s system during that same period,” Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote.

 

After Killing 20-Week Abortion Ban, Democrats Resume Lecturing People About Compassion

OC Political writer Craig Alexander sent this out.  IT IS SATIRE—but when you read it, it makes more sense than Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow.

“Sometimes satire is very very funny. The Babylon Bee (http://babylonbee.com/) is a Christian satire site similar to the Onion but with a religious theme to it.  It’s “articles” are usually funny with lots of humor often poking fun at popular culture and at the Church itself.”

A great find, we will see more of these type of articles.

Satire or truth?  ““We had to hit pause on our monologues about immigrant children for a quick minute so we could ensure that women’s rights to kill their babies at any time, for any reason are preserved,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “But rest assured, we are back on our moral high horse and will proceed to posture as champions of the oppressed and the only virtuous human beings on earth, now that that task is complete.”

Bernie Sanders

After Killing 20-Week Abortion Ban, Democrats Resume Lecturing People About Compassion

Babylon Bee,  1/30/18

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to sources within the Senate, Democratic legislators took a short break from their tireless schedule of lecturing the nation about compassion Monday in order to vote against a ban on the barbaric practice of ripping helpless 20-week-old babies limb from limb and pulling them from the wombs of their mothers.

The Democratic Caucus unanimously agreed to resume their moral lectures on the plights of such groups as foreign immigrants to the United States, the LGBT community, low-income earners, and others whom it has deemed victimized, after successfully focusing all but three of its members’ attention on perpetuating the wholesale genocide of a completely defenseless group of people by way of dismembering unborn babies who are capable of feeling pain.

“We had to hit pause on our monologues about immigrant children for a quick minute so we could ensure that women’s rights to kill their babies at any time, for any reason are preserved,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “But rest assured, we are back on our moral high horse and will proceed to posture as champions of the oppressed and the only virtuous human beings on earth, now that that task is complete.”

At publishing time, sources confirmed that the two Republicans who sided with the Democrats to shoot down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—had resumed acting as though they represented the values of their constituents.

 

After Proposition 47: Crime and No Consequences in California

The title says it all—Prop. 47 is about crime and assuring there is no punishment.  Steal something worth under $950 and you might get a ticket, but never have to show up in court.  No worries about cops finding you, they will not even look.

“In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail, In reality, these repercussions are rare. In addition, DNA samples aren’t collected from misdemeanor offenders. Thus the DNA database has shrunk, making it more difficult for law-enforcement agencies to solve cold cases, including those involving rape and murder. The underlying premise of Proposition 47 was to free up funds so the state could focus on violent and serious offenders. Savings would be diverted to school-based prevention and support programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment.

Therefore petty thieves, who might be drug addicts, would avoid costly and ultimately detrimental incarceration. The referendum had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the state’s voters passed it into law in 2014. What could possibly go wrong? That question is best asked of the people in California who are robbed and call the police for help. Overall, they’re blindsided by the slow (or non-) response. The surprise and anger they feel is tremendous.

California has a crime wave—but the police are not allowed to arrest or pursue the criminals.  Feel safe?  You do if you live in Texas.

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

After Proposition 47: Crime and No Consequences in California

 

by Erica Sandberg, National Review,  1/30/18

The 2014 ballot initiative had unintended results galore. California’s Proposition 47 downgraded a variety of “non-serious, nonviolent crimes” that had previously been considered felonies to misdemeanors. These include shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks. As long as the total value of the stolen property is under $950, only a ghost of an offense has occurred. A thief may now steal something under that limit on a daily basis and it will never rise to felony status.

In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail, In reality, these repercussions are rare. In addition, DNA samples aren’t collected from misdemeanor offenders. Thus the DNA database has shrunk, making it more difficult for law-enforcement agencies to solve cold cases, including those involving rape and murder. The underlying premise of Proposition 47 was to free up funds so the state could focus on violent and serious offenders. Savings would be diverted to school-based prevention and support programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment.

Therefore petty thieves, who might be drug addicts, would avoid costly and ultimately detrimental incarceration. The referendum had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the state’s voters passed it into law in 2014. What could possibly go wrong? That question is best asked of the people in California who are robbed and call the police for help. Overall, they’re blindsided by the slow (or non-) response. The surprise and anger they feel is tremendous.

Nearly a thousand dollars in stolen property is hardly minor, especially to those who have little to lose. It’s not just the loss of personal possessions they’ll probably never see again that is so distressing, but the ruined trust in the system that they assumed was designed to protect the innocent. For law enforcement, however, there is little incentive to chase down low-level criminals. Even if the person is escorted to the station, odds are great he’ll be back on the street in an hour or so. Outrage in these circumstances is apolitical. A liberal Berkeley student studying in a café whose laptop is swiped from a table feels just as violated as the right-leaning visitor to Los Angeles whose luggage is stolen. A struggling small-business owner wonders how long he can withstand the damage done by constant pilfering.

“Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible. I feel like these people need to go to jail.” Proposition 47 didn’t stop with theft. The personal use of illegal drugs was also reclassified to a misdemeanor. Although the intent may have been kind (it’s cruel to punish people for having an addiction) and practical (they’ll emerge from prison hardened, and a felony on their record makes it more difficult to reintegrate into society), the downstream impact on the community at large has been disastrous.

In San Francisco, for example, shooting up in public is commonplace, whether it’s on the steps of City Hall, in front of a supermarket, or at the entrance to a children’s playground. Residents who are experiencing an uptick in so-called low-level crimes in their neighborhoods are baffled by studies indicating otherwise. For example, a December 2017 Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice report shows property crimes down by an average of 18.1 percent across the state. Those numbers are false, says Michael Rushford, president of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public-interest law organization: “More, not fewer, of these crimes are being committed, but people aren’t reporting them.

In most cases they have to do it online, and they end up not doing it. They don’t believe anything will happen, so don’t see the point. And they’re right.” In fact, Magnus Lofstrom, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, pointed to a 12 percent jump in larceny-theft (essentially, unlawfully taking someone’s property) in the state immediately after Proposition 47 took effect. “Crime rates always fluctuate, and the data isn’t always accurate,” says Lofstrom. Certainly San Franciscans aren’t debating whether or not crime is up. They know it is.

In January, Police Chief William Scott acknowledged a 24 percent jump in property crimes from 2016 to 2017. Auto break-ins have soared in every district, and the arrest rate for them is an astonishing 1.6 percent. Citizens are right to feel disgusted and demoralized. In areas such as the Tenderloin, which is home for many of the city’s low-income immigrants, impoverished senior citizens, and families with young children, quality of life has deteriorated. Now more than ever, residents and merchants are living with a proliferation of addicts who roll up their sleeves, inject, and then nod off on the sidewalks or career down the street and into traffic. To fulfill customer demand, dealers sell packets of powder or pills in plain view of passers-by.

There is no reason to hide. Why not shoot up wherever you want, leave bloody syringes in piles, steal, and deal when there are few if any consequences? But there are repercussions, and they’ve felt by every person — young and old, rich and poor — who is robbed and lives among the growing cadre of drug users and dealers and what it’s all done to their neighborhoods. As in cities across the state, police departments hold community meetings to discuss crime and safety issues. Citizens arrive, frustrated and ready to vent. They won’t be placated with positive statistics.

During a recent gathering in San Francisco’s Russian Hill — a beautiful neighborhood that boasts that famous crooked street, Lombard (now infamous for being haunted by rings of gang members who break into cars, steal tourists’ belongings, and relieve news crews of equipment) — an older gentleman who was born and raised in the city now says he feels like a prisoner in his home, afraid to leave. Officers, who are doing their best, urge residents to call the police and report crimes. Yet people are acutely aware that even if they do, justice won’t be served. So they direct their rage toward the police with a “you’re not doing your job!” No one leaves happy.

Regarding the money saved by Proposition 47 — a reported $103 million — it is just now being distributed. In June of 2017, the Board of State and Community Corrections granted the funds to 23 applicants “whose rehabilitative programs were deemed most promising.” We can rest assured that soon people who really are desperate for substance-abuse assistance will get it, and criminals will be on their way to a new and lawful life. Or not.

There has been a grassroots reaction to weakened laws. People are beginning to assume control. There has been a grassroots reaction to weakened laws, however. People are beginning to assume control. They’re not waiting for an authority figure to make everything alright. They’ve been hit by thieves too many times, and are tired of seeing their neighborhoods crumble under the weight of open drug use and commerce. Many have stopped believing that city leaders will ever come to their rescue.

A type of vigilantism is emerging. Neighbors are posting on social sites such as Nextdoor, and monitoring crime with apps such as Citizen. Residents film perpetrators, then post photos and videos online with messages such as: “Be on the lookout for this man. He stole packages from my door-stoop last night.” and “This woman is selling Fentanyl-dipped cigarettes in front of a preschool. I’ve told her to leave and she did, but if you see her; do the same.” They are forming neighborhood watch groups, and, for those who can afford them, employing private security guards.

People are mobilizing, getting creative, and leaning on technology, themselves, and each other for real help. Still, crime victims are pained and livid. Thankfully, some are attempting to fix the unintended consequences of Proposition 47. State assemblyman Jim Cooper (D., Elk Grove) and Sacramento County district attorney Anne Marie Schubert are behind Assembly Bill 16, a ballot initiative that will reverse some of its damage. People convicted of a third theft of property worth $250 could be charged with a felony, and DNA collection would be reinstated for certain misdemeanor convictions. If proponents can gather the 370,000 signatures necessary to put the measure on the November 2018 ballot, California voters will have the power to pass it into law. It would be the fair thing to do.

Did Botox Fry San Fran Nan’s (Pelosi) Brain?

This is what Socialist Democrats Party House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks of President Trump:

““Let the attention be on his slobbering self,” she said. “If you want to walk out, don’t come in.”

She has no respect for President Trump.  These words and the others, i.e. “nose running” “not burping” is outrageous.  The good news is that President Trump is so successful the only thing Pelosi and her totalitarian buddies can do is make silly statements.  Very sad the Democrat Party is led by a person who has over dosed on Botox.

pelosi3

Nancy Pelosi: ‘Slobbering’ Trump has set low

By Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times, 1/30/18

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the bar is so low for President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night that a speech in which “his nose isn’t running and he isn’t burping” would be considered successful.

“If his nose isn’t running and he isn’t burping, he did a great speech,” Mrs. Pelosi told the House Democratic Caucus at their weekly private meeting Tuesday morning, Politico reported.

She reportedly instructed Democrats to behave themselves during the address in order to avoid any controversial moments for the party.

“Let the attention be on his slobbering self,” she said. “If you want to walk out, don’t come in.”

About a dozen House Democrats have expressed plans to boycott Mr. Trump’s address out of protest.

 

Lawmaker seeks to introduce bill blocking lead paint ballot measure

It is possible that on the November ballot there will be a measure to have the taxpayers finance the cost of getting rid of lead based paint in rooms, on building and equipment.  Why, because the companies currently paying for this want you, the taxpayer to pay the cost—not them.

“Earlier this week, Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Downey) said she will pursue legislation in response to a proposed ballot measure, under which taxpayers would assume costs associated with lead-paint clean-up. Specifically, the initiative would place a $2-billion bond on the November ballot to fund the remediation of lead paint, mold, asbestos and other environmental dangers in homes, schools and senior citizen facilities.

The proposal is backed by three paint companies, ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams, and these proponents contend that, “this initiative provides an important public benefit of addressing the state’s housing crisis by increasing the supply of safe and affordable homes that would otherwise be unlivable.”

So, a Democrat wants a bill passed making this measure “illegal”.  The problem with that is simple.  If the legislature can say one ballot measure is not allowed, then they can say another Prop.13 is illegal.  In other words, end the right to use the ballot to change policy.  I will vote NO on the ballot measure—but should be allowed to continue that right.

Capitol

Lawmaker seeks to introduce bill blocking lead paint ballot measure

By Shaina Brown, Policy Director, CMTA,  1/29/18

 

 

 

Earlier this week, Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Downey) said she will pursue legislation in response to a proposed ballot measure, under which taxpayers would assume costs associated with lead-paint clean-up. Specifically, the initiative would place a $2-billion bond on the November ballot to fund the remediation of lead paint, mold, asbestos and other environmental dangers in homes, schools and senior citizen facilities.

The proposal is backed by three paint companies, ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams, and these proponents contend that, “this initiative provides an important public benefit of addressing the state’s housing crisis by increasing the supply of safe and affordable homes that would otherwise be unlivable.” Conversely, Assemblymember Garcia has called the ballot measure “ridiculous” and has said that these companies are trying to use the ballot system to get out of paying fines imposed on them by the courts. By way of background, in 2000, several local jurisdictions sued corporations that at one time made lead-based paint. Last November, a California Court of Appeal concluded the companies were liable for lead in houses built before 1950. If passed, the bond would reverse a recent state appellate court judgment.

Assemblymember Garcia is still conducting research on how best to approach this issue. It can be difficult to stop measures from going on the ballot, however, she has said one idea would be to introduce a constitutional amendment that would block initiatives that would nullify court judgments.

 

After Janus Decision is Large NLRB Still Needed?

In a few months, due to the Janus decision, it is very possible that hundreds of thousands of forced union members will drop their “membership” in the extortionist/blackmailing organizations.  Unions will have a much more difficult time in forcing workers into company unions—especially since they will not be allowed to force workers to pay them bribes.  Based on the collapsing union movement, do we need an outsized national Labor Relations Board (NLRB)?

“Representatives of the 26 regional directors at the National Labor Relations Board, which polices labor disputes and oversees union elections, submitted a letter to General Counsel Peter B. Robb to voice their objections to plans to shutter and restructure field offices. The regional directors are charged with on the ground enforcement of federal labor laws, handling and investigating complaints of unfair labor practices lodged against employers and labor groups. Robb reportedly plans to consolidate the various regional offices and cut the pay of regional directors by reclassifying their status.”

Looks like Trump is trying to get ahead of the curve, cut back the size of the NLRB, due to less need for the operation.  In the future, instead of being an arm of the unions to force workers into bribe paying, the NLRB will be limited to its real role—making sure labor laws are enforced.

Just another example of the roll back of out of control government by Donald Trump-another win for America.

Union

NLRB Employees Object to Admin’s Cost-Cutting Measures

Regional directors bristle at possible consolidation at the labor arbiter

BY: Bill McMorris, Washington Free Beacon,  1/29/18
Regulators at the top federal labor arbiter have “grave concerns” about the Trump administration’s plan to restructure the agency.

Representatives of the 26 regional directors at the National Labor Relations Board, which polices labor disputes and oversees union elections, submitted a letter to General Counsel Peter B. Robb to voice their objections to plans to shutter and restructure field offices. The regional directors are charged with on the ground enforcement of federal labor laws, handling and investigating complaints of unfair labor practices lodged against employers and labor groups. Robb reportedly plans to consolidate the various regional offices and cut the pay of regional directors by reclassifying their status.

“The possible establishment of large Districts in the field, elimination of Regions … would have a severe and negative impact on our Agency,” the letter, first obtained by Bloomberg, says. “Disproportional cuts to the field offices will exponentially negatively impact the Agency’s ability to enforce [federal law].”

Regional directors now have the power to render decisions about whether or not alleged violations of federal labor law deserve to be prosecuted. A consolidation of offices could remove that decision-making from the local level to regulators many miles away.

The agency said looming cuts are responsible for efforts to restructure its operations, though the regional directors claim in their letter that Robb would reorganize “regardless of budgetary considerations.” The Trump administration proposed a $258 million budget for the agency in the 2018 fiscal year, down from the $273 million it spent in 2017. Congress may cut even further after a House subcommittee approved a proposed $249 million budget, an 11 percent cut.

“The Agency will continue to be fiscally responsible, assess operational structure, and save costs wherever it can,” the budget request said.

Robb, who was confirmed to the position in November, has sought input from the regional directors, informing them of cost-cutting proposals during a Jan. 11 conference call, according to Bloomberg. An agency spokesman said no plans have been set in stone and that the general counsel is exploring his options given looming budget cuts.

“Given budgetary issues, the General Counsel is assessing the current organizational structure for possible changes and, if warranted, will work with the organization to develop potential plans to be shared publicly,” the agency said in an email. “At this time, no specific plan involving the restructuring of our organization has been developed.”

Any major change to the agency’s restructuring of operations and personnel would require the approval of the five-member board. Republicans and Democrats each have two appointees on the board, as the Senate weighs the confirmation of Trump nominee John Ring, a management-side attorney at Morgan Lewis.

 

SLO County drops Community Choice Energy effort

On Monday night the city of Simi Valley was looking at an effort to create “Community Choice”—the effort by the Socialist Democrat party to close down private utility companies and create a government monopoly on energy.  The Supervisors in San Luis Obispo voted 3-2 to stop government from killing private jobs and controlling the use of energy in that County.

“The city of San Luis Obispo is looking for partners on a new Community Choice Energy (CCE) program—which turns local governments into renewable energy procurers and electricity sellers—but it won’t be able to call SLO County.

County supervisors voted 3-2 on Jan. 23 to abandon any further exploration of forming or joining a CCE. Supervisors John Peschong (1st District), Debbie Arnold (5th District), and Lynn Compton (4th District) voted against continuing CCE talks with either the city of SLO or Monterey Bay Community Power, expressing doubt about the potential for raising customer rates, taking on debt, and getting involved in “government-run” electricity.”

Remember when your city or county owns the source of energy, to expand or repair they will need a bond measure—a long term tax—to finance the project.  Also, they can charge as much as they want for energy, since they got rid of competitors.

Photo courtesy of lydiashiningbrightly, flickr

County drops Community Choice Energy effort

By Peter Johnson,New Times,  1/30/18

The city of San Luis Obispo is looking for partners on a new Community Choice Energy (CCE) program—which turns local governments into renewable energy procurers and electricity sellers—but it won’t be able to call SLO County.

County supervisors voted 3-2 on Jan. 23 to abandon any further exploration of forming or joining a CCE. Supervisors John Peschong (1st District), Debbie Arnold (5th District), and Lynn Compton (4th District) voted against continuing CCE talks with either the city of SLO or Monterey Bay Community Power, expressing doubt about the potential for raising customer rates, taking on debt, and getting involved in “government-run” electricity.

ON THE SIDELINES

SLO County will halt efforts to explore forming or joining a Community Choice Energy program on the Central Coast, which would enable the county to purchase and sell renewable energy while using PG&E distribution lines (pictured).

“The conclusion is I’m not convinced that having government-run electricity is really beneficial to my constituents,” Supervisor Arnold said.

Nine CCE programs are currently in operation throughout the state, and eight more are in the process of launching. Enabled by state legislation, a CCE allows a local region to make its own choices on energy investments and set customer rates equal to or less than investor-owned utilities like PG&E. Typically, a CCE’s goal is to invest in more renewable energy sources than private utilities.

In 2016, SLO County participated in a tri-county CCE feasibility study with Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, which concluded that a regional CCE would be infeasible due to the overlap of PG&E and Southern California Edison territories. Another “pre-feasibility” study stated that forming a CCE within only PG&E territory on the Central Coast may be possible.

In December, the SLO City Council voted unanimously to pursue forming a CCE with interested parties like the county, other local cities, and jurisdictions in Northern Santa Barbara County.

Supervisors Bruce Gibson (2nd District) and Adam Hill (3rd District) both voted in favor of exploring a CCE and expressed “excitement” about the prospects of partnering with the city.

“I respectfully disagree,” Peschong said. “I don’t see how going forward right now will not cost the ratepayers more money.”

Gibson countered that the board didn’t have adequate information yet to draw that conclusion and questioned why the supervisors would reject further efforts to gather data.

“What strikes me is the board majority seems intent on refusing to have our staff get more information,” Gibson said. “We’re turning our backs to our city colleagues. It all comes down to an ideological opposition to ‘government-run’ electricity.” Δ