SB 584—ONLY “Renewable” Energy by 2030—13 Years From Now

California already spend 2-3 TIMES the amount on energy as the people of Texas do.  Thanks to Senator Leon (his real name), the Democrats want to end the use of oil as a source of energy in the State.  Imagine the cost of energy from the miles of new wind turbines dotting your community.  Think of the cost of the small plants creating biomass energy in your community—subsidized by government, since no private firm will finance this destruction of the economy.

“. The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all retail sellers, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, so that the total kilowatthours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieves 25% of retail sales by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. The program additionally requires each local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to achieve the procurement requirements established by the program. The Legislature has separately declared that its intent in implementing the program is to attain, among other targets for sale of eligible renewable resources, the target of 50% of total retail sales of electricity by December 31, 2030.”

Your tax dollars in the government monopoly energy companies (Sacramento is moving to end private firms like PG&E/SoCal Edison) will be used for the scam—not for police or roads.  SB 584 will guarantee that all large employers will leave the State—include financial institutions that can no longer afford to keep the lights on—or they will totally computerize—and do it from Texas or another Free State.  Why do Democrats hate California?

Photo courtesy of lydiashiningbrightly, flickr

Photo courtesy of lydiashiningbrightly, flickr

SB-584 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.(2017-2018)

State Senator Kevin DeLeon, 2/17/17

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill No. 584
Introduced by Senator De León
February 17, 2017

An act to amend Section 399.11 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.

 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

 

SB 584, as introduced, De León. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities, as defined, are under the direction of their governing boards. The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all retail sellers, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, so that the total kilowatthours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieves 25% of retail sales by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. The program additionally requires each local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to achieve the procurement requirements established by the program. The Legislature has separately declared that its intent in implementing the program is to attain, among other targets for sale of eligible renewable resources, the target of 50% of total retail sales of electricity by December 31, 2030.

This bill would revise those legislative findings and declarations to state that the goal of the program is to achieve that 50% target by December 31, 2025, and for all electricity sold at retail to be generated by eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2045.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NO

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

Section 399.11 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

399.11.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) In order to attain a target of generating 20 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California from eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2013, 33 percent by December 31, 2020, and 50 percent by December 31, 2030, 50 percent by December 31, 2025, and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. it is the intent of the Legislature that the commission and the Energy Commission implement the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program described in this article.

(b) Achieving the renewables portfolio standard through the procurement of various electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources is intended to provide unique benefits to California, including all of the following, each of which independently justifies the program:

(1) Displacing fossil fuel consumption within the state.

(2) Adding new electrical generating facilities in the transmission network within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council service area.

(3) Reducing air pollution, particularly criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants, in the state.

(4) Meeting the state’s climate change goals by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electrical generation.

(5) Promoting stable retail rates for electric service.

(6) Meeting the state’s need for a diversified and balanced energy generation portfolio.

(7) Assistance with meeting the state’s resource adequacy requirements.

(8) Contributing to the safe and reliable operation of the electrical grid, including providing predictable electrical supply, voltage support, lower line losses, and congestion relief.

(9) Implementing the state’s transmission and land use planning activities related to development of eligible renewable energy resources.

(c) The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program is intended to complement the Renewable Energy Resources Program administered by the Energy Commission and established pursuant to Chapter 8.6 (commencing with Section 25740) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code.

(d) New and modified electric transmission facilities may be necessary to facilitate the state achieving its renewables portfolio standard targets.

(e) (1) Supplying electricity to California end-use customers that is generated by eligible renewable energy resources is necessary to improve California’s air quality and public health, particularly in disadvantaged communities identified pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, and the commission shall ensure rates are just and reasonable, and are not significantly affected by the procurement requirements of this article. This electricity may be generated anywhere in the interconnected grid that includes many states, and areas of both Canada and Mexico.

(2) This article requires generating resources located outside of California that are able to supply that electricity to California end-use customers to be treated identically to generating resources located within the state, without discrimination.

(3) California electrical corporations have already executed, and the commission has approved, power purchase agreements with eligible renewable energy resources located outside of California that will supply electricity to California end-use customers. These resources will fully count toward meeting the renewables portfolio standard procurement requirements.

 

San Diego Corruption: A Reader’s Guide to the SANDAG Scandal

SANDAG is a San Diego transportation agency.  Like most of government it LIED about the use of money.  Unlike most agencies, it got caught.  The wanted to use a 2016 bond, to pay off a bond from more than a decade ago—and refused to tell the public the real use of the money.  Worse, the money collected from the 2016 measure would need a future bond to pay off this one—and NOT do the work it claimed they were going to do.  Even Bernie Madoff could not have dreamed up this scam.

“So far, SANDAG has collected 25 percent less revenue under TransNet than it promised voters on the ballot.

If sales tax revenue grows at the rate it has grown since the end of the recession, TransNet would end up bringing in around $9 billion for transportation projects – or $5 billion less than voters were told.

Since SANDAG used the same formula to come up with the numbers for Measure A, the sales tax measure put before voters in November, Keatts’ revelation meant that the numbers voters were weighing in on could be wrong, too. SANDAG said Measure A would bring in $18 billion to fund a new slate of transportation projects – everything from freeway widenings to a new trolley line. But the error meant it had the potential to bring in far less than that.

On top of the big question mark hanging over the $18 billion numbers, SANDAG did not tell voters that there was also a chance some of the money from Measure A could have gone to backfill the Transnet shortfall.”

Government is corrupt—now will someone go to jail for this massive lie?

ShakingHandsWithMoney

A Reader’s Guide to the SANDAG Scandal

The saga involving the San Diego Association of Governments can get convoluted pretty quickly. First, there’s the fact that SANDAG is not too familiar to many people. Then there’s the fact that the scandal centers on some complex stuff, namely economic forecasts and what goes into them. The fundamental issue at hand, though, is not complex: A powerful government agency knowingly misled the public. And that’s worth understanding.

By Sara Libby, Voice of San Diego,  2/20/17

Back in October, Voice of San Diego discovered a big problem involving SANDAG. That problem has mushroomed into a full-blown scandal.

As far as scandals go, however, this one can get hard to understand pretty quickly. First, there’s the fact that SANDAG, unlike the mayor’s office or the City Council, is not too familiar to many people. Then there’s the fact that the scandal centers on some complex stuff, namely economic forecasts and what goes into them.

The fundamental issue at hand, though, is not complex: A powerful government agency knowingly misled the public. And that’s worth understanding.

So here’s an FAQ to get you caught up.

What is SANDAG again?

SANDAG is the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional agency that leads planning and transportation efforts for the region, and conducts research on issues like population growth.

Its leaders are elected officials throughout the county. Though they come from different sides of the aisle and represent disparate places – northern, southern, rural and urban – they counterintuitively make decisions in lockstep, with few disagreements, almost all of the time.

It might be an obscure agency, but it controls a staggering amount of money and its leaders make big decisions that impact every San Diegan – like where new roads and trolley stops will go.

Why is it in the news lately?

In October, Voice of San Diego’s Andrew Keatts uncovered a major problem with SANDAG’s economic forecast – the formula it uses to predict how much money will come in to pay for big projects. That problem at the time had huge implications for an existing sales tax passed by voters more than a decade ago, and a separate sales tax that SANDAG at the time was campaigning for voters to approve.

The existing sales tax is called Transnet, and the money goes to pay for a slate of major transportation projects.

Here’s how Keatts described what the problem means for Transnet:

So far, SANDAG has collected 25 percent less revenue under TransNet than it promised voters on the ballot.

If sales tax revenue grows at the rate it has grown since the end of the recession, TransNet would end up bringing in around $9 billion for transportation projects – or $5 billion less than voters were told.

Since SANDAG used the same formula to come up with the numbers for Measure A, the sales tax measure put before voters in November, Keatts’ revelation meant that the numbers voters were weighing in on could be wrong, too. SANDAG said Measure A would bring in $18 billion to fund a new slate of transportation projects – everything from freeway widenings to a new trolley line. But the error meant it had the potential to bring in far less than that.

On top of the big question mark hanging over the $18 billion numbers, SANDAG did not tell voters that there was also a chance some of the money from Measure A could have gone to backfill the Transnet shortfall.

At the time of the story, SANDAG officials insisted that if Measure A passed, the agency would be able to fulfill the list of projects it promised to voters.

Measure A ultimately failed.

Weeks after voters rejected the measure, SANDAG quietly admitted that our findings were right. In a report to its board members, “staff from the regional planning agency conceded that to finish all the highway expansion, new transit lines and other transportation projects promised in a 2004 sales tax extension, it will need to find as much as $17.5 billion from federal and state sources,” Keatts reported.

That sounds bad. But forecasts have been wrong before, right?

Indeed. No one is 100 percent accurate when it comes to predicting the future. At the time of our first report, several experts said that a problem with the forecast would not necessarily be a scandal or a sign of wrongdoing. But they all added a caveat: SANDAG should have told voters about the problem.

“Given the facts, they should in their periodic disclosures, their continuing disclosures and official public statements, they should be telling this story. They have to come clean on this. It’s very dramatic,” Peter Kiernan, an attorney with Schiff Harden who specializes in public finance and infrastructure, told Keatts.

Kiernan’s assessment underscores the fact that there are two major issues here: The forecasting error itself, and SANDAG’s willingness to be forthright with the public about the error and its implications. The first is understandable; the second, as you’ll see, is unforgivable.

Here’s how Scott Lewis sized up the situation in late December:

This is all excusable. SANDAG officials, led by Executive Director Gary Gallegos, did not steal the money or waste it, as far as we can tell. The agency just made some questionable assumptions about how the economy would perform. …

However, this is now a scandal. Why?

Because if it were not for Andrew Keatts, on our staff, nobody would know about this. This is something SANDAG officials should have disclosed themselves.

Lewis ended with a promise to readers:

We will keep digging to figure out what they knew when they were telling voters how much money they could bring in and how many projects they could do.

Or, they could just tell us.

Either way, this one is not going away.

We did keep digging.

And that’s how Keatts got to his second bombshell: SANDAG knew Measure A would not raise $18 billion more than a year before the November election. And it put that number on the ballot anyway, knowing it would entice voters to say yes. (More than 50 percent of voters did say yes, but tax measures that go toward a specific purpose need two-thirds support in order to pass.)

If Measure A failed, why are we still talking about this?

There are two main reasons.

The first is that SANDAG officials lied to the public, and that major violation of voters’ trust deserves to be aired and addressed.

The second is that this issue is going to come up again, precisely because Measure A failed. SANDAG still wants to build all those projects that Measure A would have funded, and it still needs money to pay for them. SANDAG, or other smaller government agencies, are almost certainly going to have to take another shot at asking voters to spend money to fund those projects.

And now voters, who are already reluctant to part with more money, will go in to that vote knowing SANDAG has been dishonest in the past about how much money a new tax would bring in, and how many projects it could realistically fund.

What’s SANDAG’s explanation?

Well, it’s tried on several.

Back in October, SANDAG downplayed the revenue shortfall, and said it was mostly because of the recession. Several experts told us that didn’t make sense.

And sure enough, the problem largely lay with SANDAG’s forecast – it was predicting that San Diegans would spend far more money on items that are subject to sales tax than they ever have before.

Once Keatts revealed that the agency knew about the forecast error more than a year before the Measure A vote – and put it on the ballot anyway – SANDAG stepped up its efforts to explain itself.

Its primary defense has been this, basically: Yes, we uncovered a major forecasting error. But we didn’t know that the error was related to the Measure A number at all. Therefore, we didn’t purposely deceive voters.

Here’s the thing. They did know the two were connected. SANDAG staffers put together a presentation to agency executives that made the connection crystal clear.

Don’t bonds like Transnet have oversight agencies to make sure everything is on track? Where have they been?

Yes, they do. The watchdog group that oversees Transnet is called the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee.

SANDAG made sure the revenue shortfall was as obscure and hard to understand as possible in the documents it disclosed to the committee.

Even so, ITOC officials have basically said the shortfall isn’t their problem. They believe their role is limited solely to making sure the money is being spent on projects SANDAG said it would be spent on. So, ITOC makes sure SANDAG is spending money on roads and trolleys like it told voters instead of, say, building amusement parks. They don’t think that making sure enough money is coming in is their job.

Experts told us there’s no rule limiting their role as strictly as they’re interpreting it.

What TransNet projects are in jeopardy?

It’s hard to say, and we’re still working to understand it better. To some extent, we don’t yet know because it depends. SANDAG uses the money it collects from local taxes to compete against other regions for state and federal funds to pay the full cost of major projects. On the ballot, SANDAG promises to match every local $1 with another $1 from outside San Diego, effectively doubling the money available to build freeways and rail lines.

But in the future, it’ll need to bring in $3.41 for every $1 it raises in local taxes in order to build everything it promised voters back in 2004. Right now, SANDAG expects to bring in $6.3 billion between now and 2048, and it has promised voters some $27.8 billion in projects. It’s relatively certain it’ll bring in money from some predictable federal and state sources – but that leaves a gap of about $17.5 billion it needs to bring in but has no clear idea of where it’ll come from.

It’s likely that new federal or state legislation will make money available that’ll help SANDAG fill some of that $17.5 billion gap. Whatever part of that gap it doesn’t fill represents projects that won’t be built.

Projects that haven’t started yet, then, are most in danger. TransNet Projects that aren’t yet in development include widening I-94; portions of projects that would widen I-5, I-15 and I-805; creating a new high-frequency bus route between San Ysidro and Sorrento Mesa; separating the blue line trolley in South Bay from regular car traffic; and adding a second set of tracks to the Sprinter in North County to accommodate more frequent service.

How can we avoid this happening again?

Like I mentioned up top, the SANDAG board is composed of elected public officials. As we’ve seen over the last couple months at the national level, politicians tend to respond when their constituents become activated and engaged.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer, for example, tends to skip most SANDAG meetings. San Diego City Councilwoman Myrtle Cole is on the board, and Councilwoman Lorie Zapf is an alternate. County Supervisor Ron Roberts is the chairman of the board.

If you live in the city of San Diego, you could let the mayor and other officials who directly represent you know how you feel about what’s been happening, and what you’d like to see them do about it. And here’s the full list of representatives on the SANDAG board for folks across the county who are interested in reaching out to their leaders.

 

How Jerry Will Keep the Trumpster from Seizing California’s National Guard

The California National Guard is under the purview of the Governor of the State.  But under the law, the President can “federalize” the Guard and put them under the leadership of the Department of Defense.  Maybe California does need to become a separate country if it wants to totally control the National Guard.  Until then Guv Brown needs to address the $1.5 trillion debt, the collapse of the government pension systems, fix the worst roads in the nation and create education geared to the students, not the unions.

“Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, alarmed by a report of a draft plan to mobilize 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, has quietly concluded that the Trump White House legally cannot take command of California’s National Guard short of declaring immigration to be an “invasion.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Friday said the report by the Associated Press about plans to dragoon the Guard was “100% not true. It is false. It is irresponsible to be saying this. There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.”

Poor Jerry is getting very old and confused—when you have up to two million people illegally in your State and nation, it is not a tourist trip—it is an invasion, what else could you call it.  Good thing Brown is not President, he would invite more to invade our nation.

JerryBrownSchw

How Jerry Will Keep the Trumpster from Seizing California’s National Guard

Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, City Watch LA,  2/20/17

CALBUZZ EXCLOO–Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, alarmed by a report of a draft plan to mobilize 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, has quietly concluded that the Trump White House legally cannot take command of California’s National Guard short of declaring immigration to be an “invasion.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Friday said the report by the Associated Press about plans to dragoon the Guard was “100% not true. It is false. It is irresponsible to be saying this. There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.”

Of course, Trump famously told Fox News bromance buddy Bill O’Reilly recently that California is “out of control” on immigration. So even the suggestion that Trump might try to seize command of the California National Guard was disturbing enough to cause Brown legal advisers to analyze the state’s options, should Trump seek to activate the Guard as a deportation force.

Don’t Tread on Me. In the normal course of events (how fondly and wistfully we remember such bygone days) National Guard troops are under the command of the governor of each state.

At the same time, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the use of federal armed forces (except the Coast Guard) for peacetime law enforcement within the United States. And under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, the president can only call up the National Guard for active duty for a congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war.

Moreover, according to a high-ranking source in the Brown administration, Trump “would have to get the consent of the governor” – something Brown would not provide.

While Brown has not spoken on the issue directly, at least three Republican governors, in Utah, Arkansas and Nevada, have objected to the suggestion that their National Guard troops should be used as a deportation force.

Under federal law, whenever:

(1) The United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) The President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Stay Off Our Lawn! California officials thereby have concluded that the state cannot be compelled to use its police or military forces for law enforcement purposes;  in their analysis, controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, not a matter for state or local law enforcement.

On the other hand, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly last week signed new guidelines empowering federal authorities to aggressively detain and deport unauthorized immigrants.

“The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States,” Kelly stated in the guidelines.

According to the Washington Post, Kelly cited a surge of 10,000 to 15,000 additional apprehensions per month at the southern U.S. border between 2015 and 2016.

Gov. Brown’s lawyers don’t believe that rationale would hold up in court as an “invasion” justifying federalizing the Guard. And without consent of the governor, they have concluded, Trump cannot deploy California National Guard troops as a border-control or deportation force.

By now, of course, we’d be surprised by exactly nothing that President Screw Loose might attempt to do.

(Jerry Roberts is a California journalist who writes, blogs and hosts a TV talk show about politics, policy and media. Phil Trounstine is the former political editor of the San Jose Mercury News, former communications director for California Gov. Gray Davis and was the founder and director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University. This piece appeared originally in CalBuzz.)

The Oath of Hypocrisy—and the Politicians’ “Disease”

Baghdad Bob San Fran Nan said we had to pass the ObamaCare bill to know what is in it.  Her policy on terrorists from the Middle East seems to be saying, “you have to let in all the people from the Middle East to find out which ones are terrorists.”  Why do the Democrats lie to us and create policy that will harm our health and safety.  Why claiming to be for the worker man, they created policies to kill jobs and the economy.  Only President Trump is bringing jobs back.

“In honor of Black History Month, let’s look at the different responses to racial insensitivity. Joe Biden was rewarded with the vice-presidency for his ringing endorsement of Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Part of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s assessment of candidate Barack Obama’s chances to win the presidency was that he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect”? Was he censured? No. Did he have to resign? No.

At the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond, a 1948 (anti-integration) Dixiecrat presidential candidate, former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott praised him, saying South Carolina proudly voted for him. He was forced to resign his position. However, Democrats heaped praise upon Hillary Clinton’s “friend and mentor,” Robert Byrd who was unanimously elected the top officer in the local Ku Klux Klan unit. Bill Clinton dismissed the Klan membership, saying “he was only trying to get elected.”

The bigotry and hatred of the Democrats of Americans is historic—yet CNN and the mainstream media say nothing about the Obama hatred of white people and instead pretends that Trump is the problem—because he wants all people treated equally.  Sick.  Hypocritical.  The Democrats.

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image9328950

The Oath of Hypocrisy—and the Politicians’ “Disease”

By Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D., California Political News and Views,  2/22/17

As I physician, I proudly recited and adhere to the Oath of Hippocrates, which commands physicians to “use treatment to help the sick according to [their] ability and judgment … and [to] abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.” Physicians don’t all think alike—medically or politically—but when a patient’s health is at stake, we find a way to work together for the patient’s best interest.

In 2016 a bipartisan Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, ostensibly designed to speed up research and drug approvals. They should have legislated a cure for a highly contagious disease that infects politicians in staggering numbers: chronic, relapsing, terminal hypocritical churlishness (the “Disease”).

The current acrimonious and vitriolic hyper-partisan rhetoric is making our country sick.

When the Republicans did not support the Affordable Care Act they were heartless dunderheads who wanted to see women and children suffer. It was irrelevant that the law had serious flaws that have now fully manifested themselves. In a tit-for-tat fashion, the Democrats have made it clear that they will obstruct President Trump’s efforts irrespective of whether doing so harms the American citizenry. There is no question that the value of a two-party system is exposure to a spectrum of ideas and opinions. However, dissent for the purpose of partisan posturing must not blind our legislators to novel solutions in America’s best interest.

In honor of Black History Month, let’s look at the different responses to racial insensitivity. Joe Biden was rewarded with the vice-presidency for his ringing endorsement of Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Part of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s assessment of candidate Barack Obama’s chances to win the presidency was that he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect”? Was he censured? No. Did he have to resign? No.

At the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond, a 1948 (anti-integration) Dixiecrat presidential candidate, former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott praised him, saying South Carolina proudly voted for him. He was forced to resign his position. However, Democrats heaped praise upon Hillary Clinton’s “friend and mentor,” Robert Byrd who was unanimously elected the top officer in the local Ku Klux Klan unit. Bill Clinton dismissed the Klan membership, saying “he was only trying to get elected.” In December 1944, Byrd wrote to Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times… than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.” Moreover, he launched a 14-hour filibuster and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Republican Senator Everett Dirksen is credited with rallying enough senators to allow the bill’s passage.)

The Democrats tout themselves as the advocates for black people, but have allowed politics to trump exploring new ideas. Although the large majority of black parents support increased educational options, including traditional public, public charter, and opportunity scholarships to attend private schools, the Democrats thrashed Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos for her support of school choice. Senator Cory Booker while Newark’s mayor promoted Ms. DeVos’s ideas on school choice to improve Newark’s failing schools. Stricken with the Disease, he conveniently had a change of heart.

 

In 2016, Senator Booker felt “blessed and honored to have partnered with Sen. Sessions” to pass legislation honoring those who participated in the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, with the Congressional Gold Medal. But a year later, Booker chose to testify against Sessions’s nomination for Attorney General. Senator Tim Scott’s endorsement of Sessions netted him being called (among many other N-words) a “house negro” and “a big ‘Uncle Tom’ piece of fertilizer,” and “a black man who is racist.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed her peace, love, and teamwork by tweeting, “If Jeff Sessions makes even the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry into the Justice Department, he’ll hear from all of us.” Senator Charles Schumer ungraciously said that Sessions’s confirmation “turned my stomach.” Kerry Kennedy of the Robert Kennedy Center for Human Rights said that the Senators who voted for Jeff Sessions absolutely were racists.

It is unsettling that “racist” has become the new synonym for a political foe, or simply someone with whom one disagrees. Derisive name-calling is an unprincipled substitute for honest discussion.

The apparent game plan to cut the new administration off at the knees may backfire. We don’t want to discover that their operation was a success, but the patient died.

###

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist and Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Board member. She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law.  She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers.

 

Trump May Kill Off AmeriCorps, a Bill Clinton Creation

Is it the role of government to provide you biased news on the radio with NPR?  We can get that, for free, without tax dollars from CNN.  Want childrens programs like “Sesame Street”?  You do not need the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Disney has many channels geared to young people—at no cost to the taxpayers.  Do we need a program to give radical non-profits workers, paid for by taxpayers, to promote anti-freedom programs and policies?

“AmeriCorps has been a meaningful source of money for college for its participants. For a year of service, students can receive a grant equivalent to the maximum Pell Grant to use for future college costs or to repay student loans, and students may receive up two of these educational awards. (The maximum Pell Grant for 2015-16 was $5,775.)

See that? For two years of service, an AmeriCorps participant during 2015-2016 will get, at most, $11,550.

The average tuition for 2016? For a state college, in-state tuition and fees run $9,650 per year. A student would need to spend two years with AmeriCorps to cover the cost of one year of college.

This is a failed program—giving a bunch of people in D.C. “jobs” so they can earn money to promote big government and the Democrat Party.  It is time to clip government back to the basics.  We could cut 10% of the budget without harming anything!  Would you notice of there were fewer leftists paid to do political work on the government payroll?

trump-debate

Trump May Kill Off AmeriCorps, a Bill Clinton Creation

By Tom Knighton, PJ Media, 2/21/16

AmeriCorps sounded like a good idea. Create a program where American youth could basically earn free college by working and helping their communities. On the surface — and if you don’t understand the inherent issue with any government program — it sounds like a great way to help people get their educations.

The program — which never reached the level its creator Bill Clinton envisioned — now finds itself on the chopping block along with other left-wing darlings such as the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

College officials are freaking out:

The Trump administration is circulating a list of programs to eliminate — and it includes the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that finances AmeriCorps, which places young people in service positions in which they earn money for student aid or to repay student loans.

The list, revealed by The New York Times, also includes the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, previously reported to be targets for elimination in the first Trump budget. Both the NEH and the NEA support campus programs, and their advocates in higher education are already seeking support to save the agencies.

In the case of AmeriCorps, the program was a major initiative of President Clinton, and has long been associated with him. Hillary Clinton, in her campaign, vowed to expand the program. While many have praised the program for promoting service among young people and providing them with money for college, the program has been stymied by tight budgets and has never become as large or influential as President Clinton envisioned. (Here is a background article from 2014 about the program on its 20th anniversary.)

AmeriCorps has been a meaningful source of money for college for its participants. For a year of service, students can receive a grant equivalent to the maximum Pell Grant to use for future college costs or to repay student loans, and students may receive up two of these educational awards. (The maximum Pell Grant for 2015-16 was $5,775.)

See that? For two years of service, an AmeriCorps participant during 2015-2016 will get, at most, $11,550.

The average tuition for 2016? For a state college, in-state tuition and fees run $9,650 per year. A student would need to spend two years with AmeriCorps to cover the cost of one year of college.

That means students are left having to pony up for the other three years through some other means — either another college payment program like student loans, or the oldest college payment program, called “a job.”

But if a student can find a more efficient means to pay for three years of college, doesn’t it make sense for them to do so for the fourth? Why should the American taxpayer be on the hook to fund a program that represents the worst option?

Anyway, why would the public pay for work normally assigned to volunteers?

While some who took part in the program worship it, their fuzzy feelings are irrelevant. This is a financial decision, and should be based on whether it makes sense, and AmeriCorps does not.

 

Sacramento State: Assault/Harassment/Bullying of Black GOP’ers OK’d

Add Sacramento State University to the list of schools where fascist bullying and violence occurs, with the Administration playing blind to the facts.  If Floyd Johnson was a Democrat the Obama Department of Justice would have opened a full scale investigation of the “persistent” racism on the campus and the climate of hate in the community.  If Johnson was a Democrat he would have been on CNN, then invited to the White House.  But since Floyd Johnson is a black Republican violence and bulling of him is OK’d.

“When the protesters saw the College Republicans walk up peacefully, they began to insult them, even calling CR member Floyd Johnson the club’s “token n****r.”

As the group navigated around the crowd, protesters began to call the members “racists” and “white supremacists,” despite the group of six CR’s containing two Hispanic women, a gay man, an African-American, and an immigrant.

When Floyd Johnson spoke up, a protester told him to “join us,” and when he refused, they told him to “learn his history.”

As Johnson attempted to peacefully walk into the crowd with the College Republican flag, several protesters allegedly ripped it violently out of his hands. As he attempted to exit the crowd, the group claims, an unidentified protester put their hands on him and forcefully threw him back.”

The totalitarian left could be wearing brown shirts when describing their actions.  Isn’t it time to end fascism on our campuses?

Credit: sfgate.com

Credit: sfgate.com

African American CR assailed by leftist protesters at Sac State

Peter Van Voorhis, Campus Reform, 2/20/17

  An African-American member of the Sacramento State College Republicans was assaulted and harassed by protesters with the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine club.

  The CRs have filed a report, and campus police are investigating in an effort to identify the perpetrator.

An African-American member of the Sacramento State University College Republicans was assaulted and harassed by protesters with the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine club.

The group, known for claiming that Israelis and Jews are responsible for “genocide,” had over 300 protesters marching against President Trump’s proposed immigration policies.

“Republicans and conservatives do not feel safe on campus, and the past few weeks have absolutely shown why.”    Tweet This

When the protesters saw the College Republicans walk up peacefully, they began to insult them, even calling CR member Floyd Johnson the club’s “token n****r.”

As the group navigated around the crowd, protesters began to call the members “racists” and “white supremacists,” despite the group of six CR’s containing two Hispanic women, a gay man, an African-American, and an immigrant.

When Floyd Johnson spoke up, a protester told him to “join us,” and when he refused, they told him to “learn his history.”

As Johnson attempted to peacefully walk into the crowd with the College Republican flag, several protesters allegedly ripped it violently out of his hands. As he attempted to exit the crowd, the group claims, an unidentified protester put their hands on him and forcefully threw him back.

After the incident, the group went to police with video evidence, and filed battery charges against the protester. Campus police and administration are attempting to identify the student who assaulted Johnson, while the College Republicans have offered a reward for his identification.

Mason Daniels, Chairman of the Sacramento State College Republicans, told Campus Reform that after he sent an email to the school’s president asking him to condemn the violence at UC Berkeley, someone published it in the school newspaper. After that, he began to receive inflammatory comments from Students for Justice in Palestine and other leftist groups on campus.

Several letters attacked Mason and the other CR’s for quoting MLK, and said that white people need to know the difference between privileges and rights. The group was also harassed on their Facebook page, with several minority members of the club receiving racial insults from campus leftists.

A letter written by Students for Justice in Palestine said that the club doesn’t care about broken windows, while one student, Terese Taylor, said, “I don’t give much of a fuck about what the Constitution, a piece of paper written generations ago by rich, slave-owning white men says,” in defense of the protests.

“Republicans and conservatives do not feel safe on campus, and the past few weeks have absolutely shown why,” Daniels told Campus Reform. “[We have experienced] a battery on our African American CR, him being called a ‘token n****r,’ an ‘Uncle Tom,’ our Facebook page being harassed with talk of white genocide, the Berkeley protests,” and more.

“As Republicans we face acceptable discrimination on campus every day,” Daniels said in a press release on behalf of the College Republicans. “I have never seen so much hate towards our ideas and values than what is occurring right now. If this attack happened to any other club or group of people on campus, there would have been multiple inquiries and task forces into investigating such a travesty. This campus rewards those who attack us, plain and simple.”

 

Left Still Pushing Silly Policies in Face of Deficit/$1.5 Trillion Debt

California has the worst roads in the nation, LA has the deadliest streets in the nation, LAUSD had a 54% real graduation rate.  The State has a $1.5 trillion debt and CalPRS is $1.4 trillion underfunded.  We have the highest cost housing, energy and water, along with taxes, in the nation.  California has real problem.  But, to some, like Hillary sycophant Richard Clarke, it is the Al Gore scam that is the real problem.

““Californians and anyone living on the coast need to be worried about sea level rise, which can happen much faster than we anticipated,” he said.

Clarke is concerned about chaos that will occur not just in California, but around the globe from rising seas that could displace millions of people.

He noted that the drought in Syria contributed to that country’s refugee crisis, and pointed to the situation as an example of how a changing climate can lead to political instability.

If this was true, why did Al Gore pay cash for a $9 million mansion by the beach in Montecito?  This is a joke on the people—the rich like Clarke and Gore are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sunset_at_Huntington_Beach

California’s Biggest Security Threat? Climate Change, Says Former Adviser

By Sarah Craig, KQED,  2/20/17

Charges of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, cybersecurity and terrorism are topics that have recently dominated the national security conversation.

But according to Richard Clarke, it’s climate change that poses an imminent threat to our nation’s shores.

Clarke is the former U.S. national security adviser who gained notoriety after criticizing the George W.  Bush administration for the war in Iraq, saying Bush is guilty of war crimes.

He was in San Francisco last week for the 2017 RSA Conference — the world’s leading conference on cybersecurity — but he had rising seas on his mind.

“Californians and anyone living on the coast need to be worried about sea level rise, which can happen much faster than we anticipated,” he said.

Clarke is concerned about chaos that will occur not just in California, but around the globe from rising seas that could displace millions of people.

He noted that the drought in Syria contributed to that country’s refugee crisis, and pointed to the situation as an example of how a changing climate can lead to political instability.

“If sea level rise happens to the extent it could … when you have millions of people who are on the move … that usually results, as we’ve seen in the Syrian refugee crisis, in political disruption and security problems.”
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Richard Clarke. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Clarke also stressed that the United States’ federal budget will be hit hard.

“You are going to be spending huge amounts of money on flood control and reconstruction of infrastructure,” he said.

“So much so, that you won’t continue to have money to continue to afford a large defense establishment like we have now.”

 

Radicals Hold Phony Townhall meeting—Accuse Congressman of Not Attending

Radicals in San Diego County declare they are holding a “townhall”, invite Congressman Issa, who did not respond to the short notice, and the fascists send out a press release denouncing the Congressman for not meeting THEIR schedule.  Next Tuesday I am holding a townhall at my home in Simi Valley for Sen. Kamela Harris—if she doesn’t come that proves she hates California voters?  Why hasn’t the media outed this scam by the Left?

“Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) may not attend a town hall meeting on health care in Vista on Tuesday, but organizers said they will go ahead without him.

A coalition of local and statewide groups, including faith leaders, community health advocates and labor groups have called the town hall. They invited Issa and took out a full-page advertisement in The San Diego Union-Tribune after they did not hear back from him.

Organizers said the event is the second in a series of statewide town halls to draw attention to the danger of repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan.

A phony townhall was held in Modesto, to scam Congressman Jeff Denham..and the media was silent on that scam. The good news is that the public see’s these effort for what they really are—fascist rallies to berate people for supporting honest elections.  Sick people.

Public Employee Unions

Town Hall On Health Care To Go Ahead With Or Without Issa

By Alison St John, KPBS,  2/21/17

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) may not attend a town hall meeting on health care in Vista on Tuesday, but organizers said they will go ahead without him.

A coalition of local and statewide groups, including faith leaders, community health advocates and labor groups have called the town hall. They invited Issa and took out a full-page advertisement in The San Diego Union-Tribune after they did not hear back from him.

Organizers said the event is the second in a series of statewide town halls to draw attention to the danger of repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan.

They said 300 people attended a town hall in Modesto last week, hoping to hear from their representative, Rep. Jeff Dunham (R-Turlock). He did not attend.

Earlier this month Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) of Northern California was met by angry crowds at a town hall and had to be escorted out by police.

Issa’s office said he has a prior commitment Tuesday.

Issa spokesman Calvin Moore said district staff have met with coalition members and relayed their concerns to the congressman.

“Large numbers of these groups were able to participate our first telephone town hall and ask him questions directly on that call,” Moore said. “The congressman has written back and responded to their letters and phone calls to our office.”

Issa has proposed replacing the Affordable Care Act with access to the health benefit plan that federal employees use. He released a draft of his proposal Tuesday.

In a statement, Issa said he encourages “feedback so that together we can advance a solution that protects patients, and truly puts your needs first.” He said he hears every day from constituents who have lost coverage or are worried they will lose it.

“The plan I’m proposing frees us from Obamacare’s burdens, while focusing on what works, to create a simpler, patient-centered, market-based health care alternative that puts patients back in the driver’s seat of their health care,” he said in a press release.

Issa has supported federal block grants that could leave states or counties responsible for much of the subsidies to make that insurance coverage affordable.

More than 370,000 San Diego county residents are enrolled in health insurance plans under Covered California or the expanded Medi-Cal coverage provided under Obamacare.

 

Calif. Lawmaker Readies Estate Tax Plan if Congress Repeals

If the Republicans in Washington and President Trump end the death tax, the Democrats in Sacramento will re-create one—forcing you to die outside the State of California.  That is how desperate the confused Guv Brown and his buddies are.  We are going to have a deficit of up to $10 billion next year—unless the Trump economy comes to California.  We have a $1.5 trillion debt and CalPERS has a $1.4 trillion unfunded liability.  Sacramento is desperate for money.  Any way they can get it.

“State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, notes the federal estate tax generated $4.5 billion from wealthy Californians in 2015, and that the state version would only be necessary if Washington follows through with scrapping the federal levy.

Wiener claims his measure will help the Golden State recoup valuable tax revenue and accused President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans of being “hell-bent on cutting taxes” for the rich.

“Our state has many needs, and a massive tax cut for the wealthy is not one of them. Let’s keep these estate tax funds working for our community, particularly given Trump’s efforts to cut critical needs such as health care and transportation,” Wiener said in a statement.

Yup—he wants a $4.5 billion tax increase on the dead of California.  How sick is that?

taxifornia

Calif. Lawmaker Readies Estate Tax Plan if Congress Repeals

NICK CAHILL, Courthousenews,  2/21/17

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Warding against the possibility of Congress nixing a lucrative federal estate tax, a California lawmaker on Tuesday announced a measure to ask voters to approve a mirroring state version.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, notes the federal estate tax generated $4.5 billion from wealthy Californians in 2015, and that the state version would only be necessary if Washington follows through with scrapping the federal levy.

Wiener claims his measure will help the Golden State recoup valuable tax revenue and accused President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans of being “hell-bent on cutting taxes” for the rich.

“Our state has many needs, and a massive tax cut for the wealthy is not one of them. Let’s keep these estate tax funds working for our community, particularly given Trump’s efforts to cut critical needs such as health care and transportation,” Wiener said in a statement.

Senate Bill 726 would ask voters to repeal a 1982 ballot measure that prohibits state-level estate tax programs. If the federal estate tax is abolished, the state version would allow billions in estate taxes to go directly into California’s coffers.

Since being elected, Trump has hinted at repealing the federal estate tax as part of his larger tax plan. Critics for decades have bemoaned the so-called “death tax,” which taxes inherited estates valued at $5.43 million or above for individuals and nearly $11 million for married couples, calling it a financial roadblock for fortunate heirs.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, California filed more estate tax returns in 2015 than any other state, followed by Florida and New York. The program generated $17 billion in federal tax revenue nationwide, primarily from real estate and stock assets.

The federal estate tax was last repealed by President George W. Bush during his first term, but was revived by President Barack Obama in 2010. Congressional Republicans could pass tax reforms through budget reconciliation procedures, which only require a simple majority but have a 10-year expiration date.

While Wiener says his proposal is simply a method of recovering “critical needs threatened by the current administration,” the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association paints it as an impulsive tax increase.

“Any removal of the federal estate tax replaced by a state tax is of course a tax increase, we will treat it as such and we will oppose it,” David Wolfe, the group’s legislative director, said.

Wolfe says voters overwhelmingly rejected a state-level levy in 1982, and that Wiener is jumping the gun with his proposal.

“There’s been no concrete tax reform proposal put in place by the Trump administration,” Wolfe said in a phone interview. “I think it’s extremely premature and just a scheme to increase taxes on a decently large number of Californians.”

Wiener says he will withdraw SB 726 if Congress does not repeal the tax.

“If Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are hell-bent on cutting taxes for our wealthiest residents, we should counter-balance those tax cuts by recapturing the lost funds and investing them here at home in our schools, our health care system, and our roads and public transportation systems,” Wiener reiterated.

H-1B visa: Gateway to outsource San Francisco jobs

The Silicon Valley tycoons and tech leaders have made it clear—they do not like President Donald Trump.  They believe he wants to make America safer, create more American jobs, treat people equally and enforce the law.  Amazingly, they do like the idea of school choice—for their children—not yours.  They have abused the H-1B visa’s for years and want to multiply the 85,000 given each year—while killing American jobs.  Even government agencies are working hard to kill jobs for Americans.

“On Nov. 14, 2016, upon receiving notice of termination, a group of nine employees who were laid off — Robert Harrison, Kurt Ho, Audrey Hatten-Milholin, Brian Joyner, Leland Lam, Jason Macatangay, Emerson Mendoza, Vinny Tateo and Nancy Toth — brought a complaint against UCSF to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging the university “discriminated against them based on their national origin, age, sex, and/or race.”

The complaint notes they were forced to train their “significantly younger, male HCL replacements, who will then perform the work overseas.”

It is more than likely that several HCL replacements for UCSF came to the United States to be trained on an H-1B visa. The H-1B visa is the gateway through which American jobs are shipped abroad. That’s why it’s often referred to as the outsourcing visa.”

Maybe a moratorium on these via’s.  Then hold an audit and fine those companies and government agencies that committed fraud to save a few bucks.  Maybe then the super rich of Silicon Valley, and elsewhere, will understand these visa’s are for an emergency, not a larger bottom line.

Work_in_the_computer_lab

H-1B visa: Gateway to outsource San Francisco jobs

By Jaya Padmanabhan, SF Examiner, 2/22/17

In my last column, I wrote about the H-1B visa system and its many issues, one of which is the lottery scheme to approve petitions. I concluded that one of the ways to move forward is to increase the H-1B quota. In this column, I present the short traversable distance between hiring low-cost H-1B workers from other countries and outright sending jobs to other countries.

In November 2016, UC San Francisco released a media statement explaining that it had entered into a contract with HCL, an Indian software/outsourcing company, “for specified IT services, a move that will save the university more than $30 million over five years and allow it to meet sharply increased demands for IT capacity and strength …” UCSF indicated that 49 IT career positions were to be terminated, amounting to 8 percent of UCSF’s workforce. Another 48 contract positions were also to be eliminated.

By the end of February, close to 100 San Francisco jobs will be moving to India. This is not the end of it. PG&E also announced the California utility company will be sending 70 IT jobs to India via Tata Consultancy, another Indian outsourcing company.

Hank Nguyen is a casualty of UCSF’s decision. Nguyen was interviewed by Sam Harnett on KQED.org, where he beseeched, “How can they do this to us?”

Nguyen arrived in America in 1981 and taught himself the skills required to work on IT servers. His daughter enrolled at UC Santa Cruz, intending to follow in her father’s footsteps in the tech industry, with a degree in computer science. However, as Harnett reports, two letters arrived last July. “The first was the tuition bill from Santa Cruz,” he said. “The second was a layoff notice from UCSF.”

The outsourcing of local jobs to India and other countries is a surefire way companies can lower costs and increase profits. An admirable capitalistic goal, no doubt, but what of the social impact?

Claims of discrimination

On Nov. 14, 2016, upon receiving notice of termination, a group of nine employees who were laid off — Robert Harrison, Kurt Ho, Audrey Hatten-Milholin, Brian Joyner, Leland Lam, Jason Macatangay, Emerson Mendoza, Vinny Tateo and Nancy Toth — brought a complaint against UCSF to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging the university “discriminated against them based on their national origin, age, sex, and/or race.”

The complaint notes they were forced to train their “significantly younger, male HCL replacements, who will then perform the work overseas.”

It is more than likely that several HCL replacements for UCSF came to the United States to be trained on an H-1B visa. The H-1B visa is the gateway through which American jobs are shipped abroad. That’s why it’s often referred to as the outsourcing visa.

This is for three reasons: An H-1B worker is paid less than a U.S. worker by outsourcing companies; the H-1B worker is encouraged to learn the job and revert back to the home country, taking the job with him; and outsourcing companies have commandeered the market for H-1Bs.

Low wages and flooding

A fascinating study of numbers on Myvisajobs.com reveals that between 2014 and 2016, Twitter filed for 934 labor condition applications for H-1B visas, Facebook filed for 2,959, Microsoft for 13,354, HCL America for 15,791, Tata Consultancy for 43,794 and Infosys for 82,506. The latter three are Indian companies.

Ostensibly, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft are using the H-1B visa to hire the people they need. But HCL, Tata and Infosys predict a market need, flood the system with petitions and fill positions from India to fulfill their predictions. By 2001, India was the largest source of H-1B petitions.

In fiscal year 2016, the average salary for an H-1B at Infosys was $81,705; at HCL, it was $84,040. In contrast, at Google the average H-1B salary was $129,997, and at Amazon $121,850.

It’s no secret that more than half of the H-1B visas go to outsourcing companies. Back in 2015, Fusion.net reported that “while the law might prevent a company from directly replacing workers with immigrants on temporary employment visas, it doesn’t prevent companies from outsourcing their services to a third party, such as Infosys.”

Hiring in America

Interestingly, Infosys co-founder Narayan Murthy told the press recently that Indian IT software companies must stop recruiting people on H-1B visas from India and to focus on local hiring in the United States — sage advice from the founder of a company that has largely profited from the H-1B visa program.

But Murthy is right, our businesses must hire H-1B workers from our own schools and colleges, first. And I’m not entirely convinced we have a shortage of graduates.

According to a Pew Research study, in the year 2013-14, there were more than 179,000 international students graduating with degrees in math, computer science or engineering — more than double the H-1B visa quota of 85,000 (including 20,000 for postgraduates).

Since the H-1B system has been flooded by outsourcing companies that find it advantageous to hire tech workers from overseas who are willing to work for much less than the going rate, there seems to be a perception of H-1B shortage here in America.

Yet, I believe we do have enough graduates to satisfy our current H-1B quota of 85,000 right here in the U.S. If we have the need, we also have the people, people that our schools and colleges have trained.