Eber: Grass roots politics Trump style

For my friends that attended the Inaugural in Washington, they traveled 3,000 miles, spent at least $5,000 for travel, hotel and events—most spent double that.  They waited in line for hours in the cold for an historic event—that returned American government from Washington to the people of the United States.  While all those that wanted to personally attend could not, many gathered together to join in celebration to a new era of government. This event happened in Contra Costa County, as reported on by Rich Eber.

“Once the inauguration/coronation began, the party took on the character of a pep rally.  When Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was speaking, cat calls could be heard throughout the room. Pandemonium ensued when the words were spoken “Welcome all of you deplorables” Later as President Obama and his wife took off in the Helicopter following the ceremony’s conclusion a chorus could be heard.

Sha Na Na Na

Sha Na Na Na

Hey, Hey, Good by!”

In Torrance, 300 miles south, dozens gathered at a Sizzler at an event organized by the Bay Cities Republican Club, starting with a 7:00am breakfast.  Fox News covered the event!  Throughout the State a couple hundred such events were held.  Little publicity but lots of love.

As for me—I was at my computer watching the ceremony, tears in my eyes as Donald Trump took the oath of office, popcorn and diet Pepsi in front of me, now seeing we have survived the totalitarian led last eight years.

On Twitter I simply wrote, “Free at last, Free at last, Lordy, Free at last.”

inaurgral photo Photo courtesy of Joe Koman

 

Grass roots politics Trump style By Richard Eber

Richard Eber, California Political News and Views,  1/24/17

This Swearing In party was not an ostentatious affair. Neither Beyonce nor Taylor Swift were giving live performances or was their music being piped in to entertain guests. No celebrities could be found.  Apparently, George Clooney and Susan Sarandon had more pressing engagements than attending the Trump Inauguration gala in Brentwood California.

Without knowing it, those who were present in this Eastern Contra Costa enclave to witness the 45th President of United States taking office, were enthusiastic-engaged citizens.  This group was motivated to see a transformation of American society they hoped would take place in the White House.

Citizens of similar political persuasions could be found all over the country during last year’s campaign. Political Scientists refer to this sub-group as belonging to a grass roots political movement. When the smoke cleared on November 8th, these people pulled off the upset of the century.

“Grass roots”, as those of us who have been around the block a few times, is not a new discovery involving medical marijuana technology.

According to Wikipedia grass roots is one which uses the people in a given district as the basis for a political or economic movement. Grass roots movements and organizations utilize collective action from the local level to effect change. They are associated with bottom-up, rather than top-down decision making, and are sometimes considered more natural or spontaneous than more traditional power structures.

This powerful force in nature was very much in evidence on January 20th as almost 150 people gathered in a hall to witness the swearing in ceremony of Donald Trump.  The event was started by conservative activists Hal and Linda Bray as a small party to celebrate the occasion. Soon word got around and several people had to be turned away because of sponsors having to comply with fire code regulations.

Why the groundswell of enthusiasm for Trump assuming the Presidency? In Brentwood, many people who have been frustrated with the ineptitude of both political parties since Ronald Reagan left office 28 years ago. They wanted a way to demonstrate their desire for real change as opposed to the partisan bickering that has characterized American politics for a generation.

Their pot luck featured a full array of fresh fruits, breakfast items, champagne, and Mimosa’s, that magically appeared.  Arguably, these goodies surpassed the quality and abundance that has been found at both Democrat and Republican functions in recent years.

Debora Allen, newly elected Chairwomen of the Contra Costa GOP was present at this event. Undoubtedly, she would like to bottle the energizer bunny at this affair for future campaigns. Republicans have struggled in recent years to produce viable candidates for local and regional offices.

Once the inauguration/coronation began, the party took on the character of a pep rally.  When Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was speaking, cat calls could be heard throughout the room. Pandemonium ensued when the words were spoken “Welcome all of you deporables” Later as President Obama and his wife took off in the Helicopter following the ceremony’s conclusion a chorus could be heard.

Sha Na Na Na

Sha Na Na Na

Hey, Hey, Good by!

This giddy atmosphere reminded a few folks of what occurred when the San Francisco 49ers won the famous “The Catch” football game against the Dallas Cowboys to advance to the Super bowl in 1982.  When it was over the fans while euphoric, didn’t have any experience in celebrating and had to adjust to their new role of being winners. Such a feeling was very much present at the Trump bash where many his partisans had not triumphed in many moons

The event had its serious notes as well. A solemn Pledge of Allegiance preceded the swearing in ceremony.  A lengthy prayer written by Debbie McDaniel stated, “We pray for Donald Trump and Mike Pence and all those in authority, for every leader of our nation, that you would give them your wisdom and discernment as they lead.”

Naturally the theme “Make America Great Again” could be found everywhere from President Trump’s inauguration speech to the red baseball caps emblazoned with these words which could be found everywhere in the hall.  At my table the gentlemen sitting next to me proudly displayed the head covering he wore.

In looking at this hat which had been purchased on line, I asked how much it cost?  It was surprising to learn his model ran only $ 4.95.  After this became known, he bragged “Mine was made in China.  If I bought one made in the USA it would have cost $ 21.00. With this being the case it was an easy decision for me to go with the Chinese  Make America Great Again cap.”

Ironically, this incident might be considered a poster child for the selling job Donald Trump needs to make in order to convince the American people on his pro USA worker program to move jobs back to this country.  In order to support business in the homeland, are consumers willing to pay more for the same item than what it would cost it were imported  from abroad? We shall see.

While this dilemma and other questions abounded at the party in Brentwood (and throughout the country) on how President Trump’s visions of America First might come to fruition during his term of office, the atmosphere on January 20h was one of Hope and Change.

Ironically, these words were used by his predecessor Barack Obama to propel him to the White house over 8 years ago.  In a way the two expressions are saying the same thing that voters both on the left and right side of the political spectrum are dissatisfied with the status quo. The only question is how to get there to make necessary changes in our democracy?

Following he inauguration, no matter how many demonstrations that will be heard during the next four years, Donald Trump will be still the President. Barring unforeseen circumstances, he will be in charge until 2020. His opponents of all political colors and philosophies will have to determine if they are to be left crying on the sidelines or be a part of the policy discussions of what is to transpire for America’s future.

 

 

 

 

 

California Withdraws Bid To Allow Undocumented Immigrants To Buy Unsubsidized Obamacare Plans

President Trump is winning.  The America public is winning.  The Rule of law is beginning to come back to life.  Obama authorized California to spend money it does not have to give 200,000 illegal aliens free health care.  Guv Brown asked President Obama to give another 1.2 million illegal aliens “free” health care.  Thankfully, time ran out and the Trump Administration will decide the exemption/waiver issue.

“Lawmakers in Sacramento have halted a first-in-the-nation effort by California to expand access to health coverage for immigrants living in the state without legal documents.

At the behest of the state Legislature, Covered California, the state’s insurance exchange, withdrew its request to sell unsubsidized health plans to people who are here illegally. The withdrawal was first reported by the Sacramento Bee.”

Guess they knew two things—first, that Trump would not give a benefit to law breakers.  Second, any illegal alien hat signed up for this benefit would be an idiot.  They would be admitting in writing they broke the law—and would be giving their contact information to the Federal government!  Like those with California drivers licenses, they are admitted law breakers. Guv Brown decided not to put more illegal aliens in jeopardy of having a Federal law enforced.  Good for us.

covered ca

California Withdraws Bid To Allow Undocumented Immigrants To Buy Unsubsidized Obamacare Plans

By Ana B. Ibarra and Chad Terhune, California Healthline,  1/20/17

Lawmakers in Sacramento have halted a first-in-the-nation effort by California to expand access to health coverage for immigrants living in the state without legal documents.

At the behest of the state Legislature, Covered California, the state’s insurance exchange, withdrew its request to sell unsubsidized health plans to people who are here illegally. The withdrawal was first reported by the Sacramento Bee.

Under the Affordable Care Act, people who cannot prove they are in the country legally are barred from purchasing coverage on the exchange.

But some immigrants in this situation had pinned their hopes on the state’s request for an exemption from that rule, submitted last fall to the federal government. Had it been approved, undocumented Californians would have been allowed to buy Covered California plans and join the roughly 1.3 million other people currently enrolled in the exchange.

The effort to give undocumented immigrants access to the state exchange was spearheaded by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and other Democrats. They passed legislation last year and Gov. Jerry Brown signed the measure in June. It authorized Covered California to submit an application to federal officials to waive the ban on such sales.

But the chances of federal approval dimmed considerably with the election of Donald Trump, who has pledged to deport immigrants in the country without official papers, and to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, declined to comment on the withdrawal of the state’s request for the waiver. He referred to a letter the exchange sent Wednesday to the Obama administration, which said the proposal was shelved at the request of Lara.

Lara said in a written statement that he was withdrawing the plan because he feared the Trump administration might use information gleaned from it for the purpose of deporting undocumented immigrants.

The plan to sell to undocumented immigrants is “the first California casualty of the Trump presidency,” Lara wrote. “I take Trump at his words that anyone is subject to deportation at any time, and California will not be part of a wasteful and inhumane campaign against immigrants who are working hard and playing by the rules.”

The decision to pull the plug on the plan comes as the future of health care for millions of Californians hangs in the balance, with Republican leaders in Washington, D.C. moving to repeal the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Anthony Wright, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Health Access California, said California’s move reflects a reorganization of priorities. What is urgent now, he said, is to preserve the current gains in Californians’ health coverage. And in order to bring undocumented immigrants into Covered California, officials must first ensure the exchange survives, Wright explained.

“We didn’t want this waiver request, which was almost assuredly going to get rejected, to get in the way of defending these basic programs that provide coverage for so many,” he said.

The sale of Covered California health plan to immigrants without legal status had not been expected to boost enrollment in the exchange significantly, since they — unlike about 90 percent of current enrollees — would not have qualified for federal subsidies to reduce their premiums. That would have made it difficult or impossible for many of them to afford the policies. Moreover, immigrants in the state illegally can already buy health insurance in the private market, and the coverage options and premiums are similar to the plans sold on the exchange.

Covered California estimated last August that only 17,000 Californians would have gained health coverage as a result opening the exchange to the undocumented population.

Many experts and health care consumer advocates agreed that the effort was mostly a symbolic gesture – but an important one to many people.

Supporters said allowing undocumented immigrants to buy coverage on the exchange would have addressed a problem for many families composed of both legal and non-legal residents. The proposal would have allowed those “mixed-status” families to purchase their insurance together through Covered California, simplifying the process for them. Many argued that it was discriminatory to bar immigrants without papers from the state marketplace.

Lara and other backers of the effort saw it as an important step toward expanding health coverage to all Californians regardless of their immigration status.

Magdalena Velazquez of San Jose, who volunteers with the advocacy group Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN), has been following the issue closely. Although she does not have legal authority to be in the U.S., she has health coverage through her husband’s employer. But many of her family members and friends are uninsured.

“Sadly, once again we’re seeing that the fight for our health care rights has to take a pause,” Velazquez said.

When California submitted its request to the federal government last year, supporters hoped the Obama Administration would review it quickly, increasing its chances of approval, Wright said. But as of Tuesday, the application process had only gone through a preliminary review.

Some health care experts believe approval would not have been guaranteed even if the Obama administration had completed its review before Trump took office. Excluding immigrants without documents was a compromise that helped get the ACA through Congress in the first place, they noted, and Obama officials would have been reluctant to renege on it.

$20,000 to Bribe People to “Teach” for Four Years

After five years 50% of new teachers are out of education.  In the end less than 1/3 of teachers actually earn a full pension.  Now the State is looking at bribing people to become teachers.  My experience is that when you bribe someone, they may take the money but do not put their heart in the project.  Democrats believe you can bribe people to be teachers—Republicans know you can’t bribe people to be good teachers.

Assembly Bill 169, authored by Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, is aimed at recruiting more students into teaching careers in high-demand subjects, those that school districts across the state have struggled to fill amid the ongoing teacher shortage.

AB 169 would award the one-time grants to teaching candidates who commit to working in math, science, bilingual education or special education for at least four years after they receive their teaching credential.

Notice, to earn the money they have to work at least four years.  Guess what—after the four years at least fifty percent will quit, they will take the money and run.  Why are Democrats economic illiterates and do not understand human nature?  If implemented, this will be just another long term failed give away.

California-Federation-of-Teachers-300x224

Bill would provide $20,000 grants to help recruit teachers in high-demand subjects

Fermin Leal,  EdSource,  1/18/17

Students in teacher preparation programs who commit to teach math, science, bilingual education or special education could receive grants of $20,000 under a new bill introduced in the state Legislature.

Assembly Bill 169, authored by Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, is aimed at recruiting more students into teaching careers in high-demand subjects, those that school districts across the state have struggled to fill amid the ongoing teacher shortage.

AB 169 would award the one-time grants to teaching candidates who commit to working in math, science, bilingual education or special education for at least four years after they receive their teaching credential.

“Well-trained teachers are essential to the fabric and success of our society,” said O’Donnell, who serves as chairman of the Assembly Education Committee. The bill would “help attract and retain educators who empower students to pursue careers that move California forward.”

Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown failed to include in his preliminary budget proposal any new funds to address the state’s shortage of qualified teachers. Instead, the governor said school districts would have to rely on ongoing initiatives to help them recruit more new teachers.

In response, some educators and advocates have said they hoped the state Legislature would sponsor bills to fund recruitment initiatives in the absence of initial support from the governor.

“Well-trained teachers are essential to the fabric and success of our society,” said Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach.

AB 169 is the first bill of the new Legislative term to target additional funds aimed at tackling the teacher shortage. O’Donnell’s office said there’s currently no estimate on how much it could cost the state to provide the grants. If approved, lawmakers would have to determine how much to set aside as they work on a new state budget.

The $20,000 grants could become available to students in teacher preparation programs beginning in January 2018.

Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the Learning Policy Institute and chairwoman of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, said that offering financial incentives would be one effective way to recruit more teachers into the high-demand subjects.

She has previously estimated that with $20 million, the state could add an additional 1,000 teachers through forgivable loan or scholarship programs that would require teaching students to commit to three to four years in the classroom in high-demand subjects.

O’Donnell also introduced on Tuesday Assembly Bill 170, which would repeal a state law that prohibits teaching students from earning a bachelor’s degree in professional education. Since 1970, California has mandated that teaching candidates earn a bachelor’s degree in a specific subject and then take a one-year graduate level program to qualify for a teaching credential.

Under AB 170, students who earn a degree in education can also complete their credentialing program within four years. Students would simultaneously take subject courses.

AB 169 and AB 170 will next be reviewed by a series of Assembly committees in coming weeks before they’re voted on by the whole Legislature.

Last year, lawmakers introduced a series of bills to deal with the shortage of teachers with mixed results.

Bills that passed and became law included AB 2122, which allocated $20 million in state funds for an initiative that pays the tuition and other costs for school support staff to earn teaching credentials; and AB 1756, which will help about three dozen colleges and universities create programs that allow students to receive a teaching credential in four years, at the same time that they earn a bachelor’s degree.

Those that failed include one that would have created a loan forgiveness program for teachers, and another that would have funded teacher “residencies” based on the medical school model of training residents.

Despite Reforms, San Diego City and County Pension Funds Are Billions Short

San Diego is $7 billion underfunded for their pension system.  This is the same town where the Mayor wanted to transfer $1.8 billion from the taxpayers to a billionaire for his playtoy football team.  Not enough cops, budget on the edge, pensions costs going up July 1 by double digits and schools in need of repair.  Now the collapse of the pension system is at hand.

“San Diego county and city pension funds have nearly $7 billion less in the bank than they need to cover benefits already earned by current and former employees, a deficit that’s risen 90 percent in just two years, new reports show.

Assets held by the county pension fund topped $10.2 billion last fiscal year, but are more than $4 billion short of the money needed to fulfill retirement promises in the coming years. Despite county reforms in 2009 and state reforms in 2012 that lowered retirement payouts for new employees, the funding gap is growing.

Statewide CalPERS unfunded liability went up 45%.  In San Diego, in the past two years, it has gone up by 90%–not a typo.  Yet, not a single voice to discuss reform.  A few years ago 70% of the voters approved a reform to save the system—and the courts over ruled the voters and declared the retirees, at the demand of the unions, lose their pensions, totally.  Why is California in a recession?  Watch San Diego.

ShakingHandsWithMoney

Despite Reforms, City and County Pension Funds Are Billions Short

By Ashly McGlone, Voice of San Diego,  1/20/17

San Diego county and city pension funds have nearly $7 billion less in the bank than they need to cover benefits already earned by current and former employees, a deficit that’s risen 90 percent in just two years, new reports show.

Assets held by the county pension fund topped $10.2 billion last fiscal year, but are more than $4 billion short of the money needed to fulfill retirement promises in the coming years. Despite county reforms in 2009 and state reforms in 2012 that lowered retirement payouts for new employees, the funding gap is growing.

Meanwhile, the pension fund for city employees topped $6.3 billion in assets – $2.7 billion below what it needs to satisfy pension obligations. Another $21.8 million is lacking in the city pension fund for airport employees, and $136.6 million is lacking for Port of San Diego employees, according to market numbers reported in actuarial valuations for the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System.

The imbalance persists despite major reforms in the city of San Diego. Voters eliminated guaranteed pensions for all new city employees – except police officers – in 2012. This followed a previous decrease of new employee pensions. Employee salaries were also frozen for several years to keep pension liabilities from spiking. But that has ended and several employee groups expect across-the-board raises.

Pensions are calculated based on salaries, so any increase in across-the-board wages beyond what is expected by pension trustees increases the long-term liability.

The $4 billion county pension deficit amounts to more than $3,700 per household countywide, up from $1,900 in 2013-14, while the three city pension fund deficits equate to $5,900 per city household, up from less than $3,400 two years ago.

The rising figures, called the unfunded accrued liability, reflect the widening gap between pension fund assets and liabilities – a nationwide trend that can be hard to reverse and can threaten other government services sometimes cut to make higher pension contributions.

Driving the problem: longer life expectancies and poor market gains for years. Each year pension fund investments fail to reach targeted gains (usually 7 percent or more), the problem grows. Decreasing investment expectations to bring them closer to recent realities also has the effect of growing the liability, sometimes by millions.

The latest shortfalls mark new troubling heights for each pension fund, surpassing levels that rocked the city during the pension scandal of the early 2000s. San Diego was dubbed “Enron by the Sea” when news surfaced that city officials moved to underfund pensions while boosting benefits and failed to disclose growing liabilities to bondholders.

“The magnitude of the City’s unfunded liabilities was enormous,” a 2006 cease-and-desist order by the Securities and Exchange Commission said. “For example, the City knew that by 2009 the unfunded liability would reach $1.9 billion and its actuarially required contribution would be approximately $240 million compared to $51 million in FY 2002.”

Those once-alarming numbers seem a bit paltry today.

Despite annual contributions above $250 million in recent years, records show the city employee pension fund has remained more than $1.5 billion short in the last five years and now approaches the $3 billion mark. The city’s annual pension payment will exceed $261 million this year and $324 million next fiscal year, putting a pinch on the city budget.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer highlighted “skyrocketing” pension payments in his State of the City address earlier this month, saying, “Sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and tourism revenue are all up. But all of this revenue growth – and more – will be entirely consumed by this year’s increased pension payment.”

To address rising pension costs, each of the city’s general fund departments is working to cut at least 3.5 percent of its budget for next year.

“The bottom line is taxpayers continue to pay for the financial mistakes of past city leaders,” said Craig Gustafson, a spokesman for Faulconer, in an email. “The city has fully funded its pension payment every year since 2006 and will continue to do so.”

Despite having the largest pot of assets, the county pension fund’s health has also taken a turn for the worse in the last two years. Unfunded pension liabilities rose more than 100 percent  – doubling from $2.03 billion in 2013-14 to $4.09 billion, as of June 30 last year.

The county’s contributions to the fund are expected to rise 19 percent from about $394 million this year to nearly $469 million next year. This does not include payments of $81 million made every year to pay off pension obligation bonds  – loans the county borrowed a decade ago to invest more in its pension fund.

County spokesman Michael Workman said the county “has proactively and strategically prepared to address increased contributions” so they “will not result in a reduction of services.”

Much of the jump was caused by a recent half-percent decrease to expected investment returns, said Mary Montgomery, spokeswoman for the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association. “If all current actuarial assumptions are met, the plan will be fully funded in 2036.”

But for that to happen, investments must earn at least 7.25 percent annually, far above the 0.48 percent market earnings posted last year and higher than average gains seen over the last five and 10 years, records show.

How the county ultimately bridges the gap will make all the difference for employees, recipients of county services and taxpayers. Montgomery said employee pension contributions may need to rise.

The pension fund for airport employees has seen the most dramatic rise in its unfunded liability. Two years ago, the airport pension fund had a surplus of $3 million in assets. Now, the fund has a nearly $21.8 million deficit. Airport pension contributions will rise from $3.8 million this year to $5.4 million next year.

The Port of San Diego’s unfunded liability nearly doubled in the last two years, rising from $71 million to $136.6 million. Pension contributions from the Port will rise from $14.6 million this year to $17.7 million next year.

Port spokeswoman Tanya Castaneda said some relief is coming. Beginning in 2026, Port contributions will drop off to $12 million to $13 million a year thanks to reforms implemented in 2003 and 2009, including a hybrid pension-401(k) retirement plan for employees hired after 2009.

“We do not expect any material impacts to Port operations,” Castaneda said of the rising costs. “We anticipated the need to reform the pension plan, and thanks to the Port’s forward-thinking actions, the pension contributions are projected to decrease in future years.”

As unfunded liabilities rise, another key measure of pension fund health – funding ratios  – are falling, despite gaining some ground in recent years. The lower the ratio, the more likely it is the fund will run out of money before all owed benefits are paid.

According to new actuarial reports, pension funding ratios for the county, city and Port are now below the trigger minimum level of 82.3 percent that helped precipitate the city’s pension scandal when officials postponed making accelerated contributions.

City employee pensions dropped from 80.1 percent funded in 2013-14 to 70 percent last fiscal year. In the same two-year span, the Port of San Diego pension fund fell from 83.6 percent to less than 73 percent funded, and the county pension fund fell from 83.3 percent funded to 71.5 percent based on market figures, records show.

The airport pension fund  – which was more than 102 percent funded in 2013-14  – fell even more to 86.8 percent last fiscal year, but remains the most funded of the bunch.

Board policy requires the airport pension fund to remain at least 95 percent funded, so action will be taken to return to that level in the coming years, said Airport Authority spokeswoman Rebecca Bloomfield.

“Our funding ratios are exceptionally high in comparison to many state and local agencies pension funds,” Bloomfield said in an email, adding that plans are in place to ensure rising pension costs “would not impact the level of services provided to the traveling public.”

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement Association – which manages pensions for the city, Port and airport – downplayed the shortfalls in FAQ sheets posted on its website.

Having an unfunded liability “is not in itself bad, any more than a mortgage on (a) house is bad,” the city’s pension fund site says, adding that the “liability does not represent a debt that is payable today.”

That’s true, but the retirement checks will come due, and there are currently 7 billion reasons to be concerned.

(Note: Market value numbers were used throughout this report, which reflect current fund realities, rather than actuarial numbers “smoothed” differently for each fund.)

Caldwell: Guest Opinion: The hound of heaven

How generous is the Hollywood Left?  They want the farmer in Nebraska to pay for the abortion of a baby by Planned Parenthood in San Diego.  Think Tom Steyer is rich?  He spends his money on elections to promote the use of money meant for roads, schools and welfare to be spent on the killing of babies via tax dollars.  Why don’t Madonna, Cher and Steyer donate and raise the money for abortions instead of mandating tax payers financed this vile practice?

“Whereas, it was once politically correct to say that nobody favors abortion except to preserve the well-being of the mother. Well, those days are gone. We now have completely reprehensible people, e.g., Amelia Bonow, touting abortion as a happy experience, not a necessary evil, but a positive component of society. Accordingly, Ms. Bonow will be the guest speaker at an event celebrating Roe v. Wade hosted by the Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition. The event is aptly titled “Shout Your Abortion,” an indication that having an abortion is now touted as a proud moment in the life of a woman.

Personally, I believe the people supporting and participating in this event are suffering from nothing less than a seared conscience. To escape personal moral conviction, they have cauterized their own conscience, overcompensating themselves in the process of denial by way of celebrating that which is nothing less than soul-wrenching, dark and grievous.

“Proudly” promoting killing?  Sick people need help.  First, they need to stop stealing to pay for their lack of value in human life.

Planned Parenthood Abortion Pro Choice

Editorials : Guest Opinion: The hound of heaven

By Andy Caldwell, Santa Barbara News-Press,  1/22/17

With all due respect and compassion to women who could not or chose not to have children, I can’t think of anything more feminine than motherhood. Admittedly, the pill and on-demand abortion, along with the sentiment that having children is a burden, not a blessing, fomented a paradigm shift in our country, making me an obvious outlier.

In this day and age of fluid sexual identities coupled with the remnant confusion and delusions associated with the radical feminist movement, the ability and commitment to live in denial of biological destiny is nonetheless at a fever pitch. However, demography is still destiny, and biology remains immutable, no matter how many babies are suctioned out of the womb, or body parts are cut off or added to conform with one’s perceived gender identity.

In view of the impetus to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, we can expect radical feminists to pull out all the stops. They will manipulate, exploit and magnify the problems stemming from this organization’s business model as if the indictment against the organization is an indictment against women in general.

In other words, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to prop up Planned Parenthood will be presented as a de facto referendum on a woman’s right to choose. But, the real story is no reflection on a woman’s right to choose. It has to do with the “success” of the morning-after pill, which has served to reduce the number of clinical abortions in America. This explains why Planned Parenthood’s business model is failing, as abortion is Planned Parenthood’s biggest cash cow.

We are supposed to believe that Planned Parenthood must be funded, as it is the one organization that stands between a poor woman and a back-alley abortionist and his coat hanger. However, in addition to the morning-after pill, then came the story of the butcher of Philadelphia, Dr. Gosnell, followed up by the expose of Planned Parenthood’s latest money maker — black market baby parts. In response to the resultant backlash against the industry, die-hard abortion apologists have stubbornly failed to make amends, deciding instead to double down.

Whereas, it was once politically correct to say that nobody favors abortion except to preserve the well-being of the mother. Well, those days are gone. We now have completely reprehensible people, e.g., Amelia Bonow, touting abortion as a happy experience, not a necessary evil, but a positive component of society. Accordingly, Ms. Bonow will be the guest speaker at an event celebrating Roe v. Wade hosted by the Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition. The event is aptly titled “Shout Your Abortion,” an indication that having an abortion is now touted as a proud moment in the life of a woman.

Personally, I believe the people supporting and participating in this event are suffering from nothing less than a seared conscience. To escape personal moral conviction, they have cauterized their own conscience, overcompensating themselves in the process of denial by way of celebrating that which is nothing less than soul-wrenching, dark and grievous.

Instead, how about shouting the numerous, statistically profound, international studies which demonstrate that abortion is not a healthy choice for the mother, let alone her dead baby? The studies reveal suicide rates of women who have had abortions are significantly higher than those giving birth, conscience being the hound of heaven that it is.

Then there is black megastar Nick Cannon correctly observing Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenics-based racist and that the organization purposely fomented nothing less than black genocide in America. Let’s shout that.

Andy Caldwell is the executive director of COLAB and the host of The Andy Caldwell Radio Show weekdays from 3-5 pm on News Press Radio AM1290.

San Fran Policy Results? 13% Children=As Many DOGS as Kids

When you are a tolerate city, children do not fit in.  This is a city that is proud of the fact they have as many dogs as they do children.  Druggies and lifestyles are celebrated while children are barely tolerated.  On a given day in San Fran the downtown area fo the city is taken over by NAKED people—thousands of them.  On the same day public sex, of all kinds is on display.  This is a X rated town—not a town for moral values to bring up kids—unless you want hedonistic, self absorbed, druggies as role models.  San Fran does not allow free speech—try walking down Market Street at noon wearing a red cap with the words “Make America Great Again”—as long as your insurance is paid up.

“Many immigrant and other residential areas of San Francisco still have their share of the very young and the very old. The sidewalks of some wealthy enclaves even have stroller gridlock on weekends. But when you walk through the growing number of neighborhoods where employees of Google, Twitter and so many other technology companies live or work, the sidewalks display a narrow band of humanity, as if life started at 22 and ended somewhere around 40.

“Sometimes I’ll be walking through the city and I’ll see a child and think, ‘Hey, wait a second. What are you doing here?’” said Courtney Nam, who works downtown at a tech start-up. “You don’t really see that many kids.”

Seriously, if you want a family, is San Fran a community that is rational sensible, law abiding, tolerant?  San Fran stills allows naked people to eat in restaurants-explain that to your kids.

Kids

San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone?

By THOMAS FULLERJAN, NY Times,  1/21/17

 

TO SEE WHOLE ARTICLE CLICK ON BLUE HEADLINE

SAN FRANCISCO — In a compact studio apartment on the fringes of the Castro district here a young couple live with their demanding 7-year-old, whom they dote on and take everywhere: a Scottish terrier named Olive.

Raising children is on the agenda for Daisy Yeung, a high school science teacher, and Slin Lee, a software engineer. But just not in San Francisco.

“When we imagine having kids, we think of somewhere else,” Mr. Lee said. “It’s starting to feel like a no-kids type of city.”

A few generations ago, before the technology boom transformed San Francisco and sent housing costs soaring, the city was alive with children and families. Today it has the lowest percentage of children of any of the largest 100 cities in America, according to census data, causing some here to raise an alarm.

“Everybody talks about children being our future,” said Norman Yee, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. “If you have no children around, what’s our future?”

As an urban renaissance has swept through major American cities in recent decades, San Francisco’s population has risen to historical highs and a forest of skyscraping condominiums has replaced tumbledown warehouses and abandoned wharves. At the same time, the share of children in San Francisco fell to 13 percent, low even compared with another expensive city, New York, with 21 percent. In Chicago, 23 percent of the population is under 18 years old, which is also the overall average across the United States.

California, which has one of the world’s 10 largest economies, recently released data showing the lowest birthrate since the Great Depression.

“Sometimes I’ll be walking through the city and I’ll see a child and think, ‘Hey, wait a second. What are you doing here?’” said Courtney Nam, who works downtown at a tech start-up. “You don’t really see that many kids.”

There is one statistic that the city’s natives have heard too many times. San Francisco, population 865,000, has roughly the same number of dogs as children: 120,000. In many areas of the city, pet grooming shops seem more common than schools.

In an interview last year, Peter Thiel, the billionaire Silicon Valley investor and a co-founder of PayPal, described San Francisco as “structurally hostile to families.”

Prohibitive housing costs are not the only reason there are relatively few children. A public school system of uneven quality, the attractiveness of the less-foggy suburbs to families, and the large number of gay men and women, many of them childless, have all played roles in the decline in the number of children, which began with white flight from the city in the 1970s. The tech boom now reinforces the notion that San Francisco is a place for the young, single and rich.

“If you get to the age that you’re going to have kids in San Francisco and you haven’t made your million — or more — you probably begin to think you have to leave,” said Richard Florida, an expert in urban demographics and author of “The Rise of the Creative Class.”

In 1970, a quarter of San Francisco’s residents were children, nearly twice the level of today. The overall demographic picture of San Francisco is a city with more men than women — 103 for every 100 women — and with no ethnic majority. Whites make up slightly less than half the population, Asians about one-third and Latinos 15 percent. The black population has markedly declined and stands around 6 percent.

A report released on Tuesday by the San Francisco Planning Department said the building boom in the city, which for the most part has introduced more studios and one-bedroom apartments, was unlikely to bring in more families. For every 100 apartments in the city sold at market rates, the San Francisco school district expects to enroll only one additional student, the report said.

“We are trying to do our part to send a very strong message that San Francisco is an awesome place for kids,” Mr. Ginsburg said. The city has increased its offerings for summer programs, many of which were fully enrolled last summer.

Yet even those with the means to stay find themselves looking elsewhere when children come along.

Liz Devlin with her children, Ella and Jack. She said San Francisco was a “phenomenal place to raise kids” but is considering a move because of schools and the cost of living. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Liz Devlin, a senior manager at Twitter, which like other technology companies offers generous parental leave, took 20 weeks off at full pay when her second child, Jack, was born in 2014.

Living in a three-bedroom apartment in the Marina district, Ms. Devlin said, she considered San Francisco a “phenomenal place to raise kids.”

But last July when the energetic Jack turned 2, she and her husband decided it was time to leave.

“In terms of cost of living, space and schools I think it’s definitely attractive for people to look outside the city,” said Ms. Devlin, who moved across the Golden Gate Bridge to Marin County.

Those who make it work in San Francisco speak of the compromises.

When her daughter turned 5, Ms. Covington applied to 14 public kindergartens, but her child ended up being placed in another. She chose a private school instead, along with the strain on the family budget that it entailed.

San Francisco’s public school system has around 53,000 students, a sharp drop from 90,000 in 1970.

The decline is a reflection both of families leaving the city and wealthier parents sending their children to private schools. Around 30 percent of San Francisco children attend private school, the highest rate among large American cities.

 

County Clerk Emeritus John Taylor Discusses the History of Our Counties

Ventura County was once part of Santa Barbara County. Ever heard of Branciforte County?  That was one of the original counties when California became a State.

“Klamath County was created in 1851 from the northern half of Trinity County’s mostly mountainous mining country. In 1857 Klamath County, in turn, lost significant territory to the newly formed Del Norte County. In 1875, as charges of corruption in the county increased, Klamath County was abolished. Its territory was divided between Humboldt and Siskiyou counties. Territory that at one time was in Klamath County is now in Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties.”

To understand the politics, policies, culture and traditions of the 58 counties you need to understand the history.  This short article gives you the information you need.

521px-Map_of_California_highlighting_Modoc_County.svg

County Clerk Emeritus John Taylor Discusses the History of Our Counties

John Taylor, California State Association of Counties,  January, 2017

One hundred and fifty years ago, the first gathering of the California Legislature divided the state into 27 counties. Over the next 57 years, the state’s territory was further subdivided and county boundaries were changed to create the names and places we recognize today.

It could be said that the history of California’s counties began when the “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic” was signed on Feb. 2, 1848. The treaty ended the Mexican War and placed California under jurisdiction of the United States. Better known as the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it was named after the city, near Mexico City, where it was signed. Treaty copies were subsequently exchanged and ratified in the Mexican city of Queretaro on May 30, 1848, and the treaty was proclaimed by President James K. Polk on July 4, 1848.

California’s first constitutional convention was held in Monterey, starting in September 1849. Delegates came from ten districts: San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Jose, Sonoma, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Sacramento.

This constitutional convention established a committee, chaired by General Mariano Vallejo, that considered the creation of California’s first counties. On Jan. 4, 1850, the committee recommended the formation of 18 counties. They were Benicia, Butte, Fremont, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Monterey, Mount Diablo, Oro, Redding, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, and Sutter.

First Counties Formed

The first session of the California Legislature was held from Dec. 15, 1849, to April 22, 1850, at the City of Pueblo de San Jose. Based, in part, on further recommendations from General Vallejo’s committee, the Legislature made additions and changes to the list of 18 counties.

Nine more counties were added to the proposal-Branciforte, Calaveras, Coloma, Colusi, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Trinity, and Yuba-bringing the total number of original counties to 27.

Before it finally adopted a statute, the state Legislature approved several name changes. Benicia was renamed Solano, Coloma became El Dorado, Fremont transformed into Yola, Mt. Diablo became Contra Costa, San Jose was renamed Santa Clara, Oro shifted to Tuolumne, and Redding became Shasta.

Following these additions and name changes, the state’s first counties were created by an Act signed Feb. 18, 1850. In summary, the first 27 counties were Butte, Branciforte, Calaveras, Colusi, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yola, and Yuba.

Not long after the Legislature adopted its first statute creating counties, subsequent statutes changed additional county names to those now familiar to us: Branciforte to Santa Cruz, Colusi to Colusa, and Yola to Yolo.

County Seat Struggles

On Sept. 9, 1850, California became one of 31 states in the union at that time. Proposals for many more counties were soon presented.

Particularly in the northern part of the state, fights arose within counties between mining districts and agricultural districts. Conflicts also developed in many counties over what community should be the county seat. Without paved roads, automobiles, and telephones, the distance from a home or business to a county seat was more important than it is now.

Some of these issues could often be partly resolved by dividing counties.In every one of the first seven years after 1850, at least one new county was created. Eighteen of the original 27 counties helped give birth to another county.

Boundaries Continue to Shift

The California Legislature also created counties that are not found on today’s maps.

  • Klamath County was created in 1851 from the northern half of Trinity County’s mostly mountainous mining country. In 1857 Klamath County, in turn, lost significant territory to the newly formed Del Norte County. In 1875, as charges of corruption in the county increased, Klamath County was abolished. Its territory was divided between Humboldt and Siskiyou counties. Territory that at one time was in Klamath County is now in Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties.
  • Pautah County was created in 1852 by an act that was to become effective when the United States Congress ceded to California territory in what is now Nevada. The county seat was to have been Carsonville. California never acquired the territory, and the act creating the county was repealed in 1859.
  • Los Angeles County transformed from a small county along the coast to a large county extending to the Nevada border and then back again to being a relatively small county in area, although now it has about 29 percent of the state’s population.
  • In 1850, Mariposa County was the largest in area of the original counties: It covered about a sixth of the state. It was larger than the present San Bernardino County, which is now the largest county in the country. Today’s Mariposa County is the parent or grandparent of all or parts of 12 other counties, more than produced by any other California county. Territory that at one time was in Mariposa County is now part or all of Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Mono, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare Counties.

An Almost Impossible Task

In California’s early history it was relatively easy to create a new county. You simply had to convince the state Legislature. As a result, to the original 27 counties, 33 more were added, one of which (Klamath) died and one of which (Pautah) was never in California.

Today it is much more difficult to establish a new county. In 1894 the state constitution was amended to require uniform laws concerning county creation. In Sections 23320 through 23374, the California Government Code specifies the procedure: A favorable majority vote is needed both in the entire county affected and in the territory of the new county, an almost impossible task. As a result of the tougher laws with constitutional foundation, no new county has been formed since 1907, when Imperial County was created from eastern San Diego County, although it is still theoretically possible.

Additions to and Subtraction from Counties During Birth Events

In this table, the left column shows the source of the territory when each county, listed in the middle column, was created. The right column shows the destination of the territory moved from one county to another at the time of the birth of a new county.

Source of Territory

County

Territory Later Given to New Counties

Contra Costa, Santa Clara 1853 Alameda  
Amador, El Dorado, Calaveras, Tuolumne 1864 Alpine  
Calaveras, El Dorado 1854 Amador Alpine 1864
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Butte Plumas 1854; Tehama 1856
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Calaveras Amador 1854; Alpine 1864
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Colusa Tehama 1856; Glenn 1891
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Contra Costa Alameda 1853
Klamath 1857 Del Norte  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 El Dorado Amador 1854; Alpine 1864
Mariposa, Merced, Tulare 1856 Fresno Mono 1861; Madera 1893
Colusa 1891 Glenn  
Trinity 1853 Humboldt  
San Diego 1907 Imperial  
Mono, Tulare 1866 Inyo  
Los Angeles, Tulare 1866 Kern  
Tulare 1893 Kings  
Trinity 1851 Klamath Del Norte 1857
Napa 1861 Lake  
Plumas, Shasta 1864 Lassen  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Los Angeles San Bernardino 1853; Kern 1866; Orange 1889
  1889
Fresno 1893 Madera  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Marin  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Mariposa Tulare 1852; Merced 1855;
  Fresno 1856; Mono 1861
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Mendocino  
Mariposa 1855 Merced Fresno 1856
Siskiyou 1855 Modoc  
Calaveras, Fresno, Mariposa 1861 Mono Inyo 1866
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Monterey San Benito 1874
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Napa Lake 1861
Yuba 1851 Nevada  
Los Angeles 1889 Orange  
Sutter and Yuba 1851 Placer  
Butte 1854 Plumas Lassen 1864
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Sacramento  
Monterey 1874 San Benito  
Los Angeles 1853 San Bernardino Riverside 1893
One of the original 27 counties 1850 San Diego Riverside 1893; Imperial 1907
One of the original 27 counties 1850 San Francisco San Mateo 1856
One of the original 27 counties 1850 San Joaquin  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 San Luis Obispo  
San Francisco 1856 San Mateo  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Santa Barbara Ventura 1872
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Santa Clara Alameda 1853
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Santa Cruz  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Shasta Siskiyou 1852; Tehama 1856;
  Lassen 1864
Yuba 1852 Sierra  
Shasta and Klamath 1852 Siskiyou Modoc 1855
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Solano  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Sonoma  
Tuolumne 1854 Stanislaus  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Sutter Placer 1851
Butte, Colusa, and Shasta 1856 Tehama  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Trinity Klamath 1852; Humboldt 1853
Mariposa 1852 Tulare Fresno 1856; Kern 1866;
  Inyo 1866; Kings 1893
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Tuolumne Stanislaus 1854; Alpine 1864
Santa Barbara 1872 Ventura  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Yolo  
One of the original 27 counties 1850 Yuba Placer 1851; Nevada 1851; Sierra 1852

John Taylor is a retired clerk of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a past president of the California Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Association.

December: 3700 Get California Jobs—68,000 STOP Looking

On June 15, 2016 Guv Brown admitted the truth while signing the 2016-17 budge, “California is heading into a recession.”  In December sales, income and corporate tax collections were down 12%–in January he submitted a budget with a $2 billion deficit—actually close to $4 billion since he shipped about $2 billion a year in State spending to the counties.  Now we get the December, 2016 job numbers—and they are downright ugly.

“December was a disappointing month for the California labor market. The state added just 3,700 jobs last month, and nearly 68,000 people left the labor market.

Although the unemployment rate dropped, from 5.3 percent to 5.2 percent, that’s only because so many Californians stopped looking for work. That shrinking labor force is largely responsible for the drop in the jobless rate.

It’s the second consecutive subpar labor market report for California, which only added 13,000 new jobs in November.

Bad policies, high taxes, a Nanny State and Democrat leadership in Sacramento has finally presented the expected results—we are in a recession and possible a death spiral.  The legislative Democrats are spending $25,000 a year on one of the sleaziest attorneys is America to “fight” President Trump.  Sacramento does not get it.  Obama gave us Trump.  Brown is going to give us a California version of Trump.  Thank you.

Jobs

California Labor Market Ends 2016 On Down Note

 Ben Adler, Capitol Public Radio,  1/20/17

December was a disappointing month for the California labor market. The state added just 3,700 jobs last month, and nearly 68,000 people left the labor market.

Although the unemployment rate dropped, from 5.3 percent to 5.2 percent, that’s only because so many Californians stopped looking for work. That shrinking labor force is largely responsible for the drop in the jobless rate.

It’s the second consecutive subpar labor market report for California, which only added 13,000 new jobs in November.

But overall, 2016 was a good year for California. The state added more than 330,000 jobs – a growth rate of two percent – and the unemployment rate fell by 0.7 percent.

The two sectors with the largest gains last year were educational and health services, and government. The manufacturing sector was one of two that lost jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in the four-county Sacramento area dropped over the last year from 5.5 percent to 4.9 percent. The capital region added nearly 30,000 jobs in 2016.

From November to December, the construction and government sectors saw the biggest job losses. The state Employment Development Department says there are fewer construction jobs in the winter when it’s raining. And when schools close for winter break, there are fewer government jobs…government includes education. Job losses were offset by gains in: leisure-and-hospitality; and trade-transportation-and-utilities.

 

Salinas Farmers Demand Water They’re Paying For

If you buy a loaf of bread, you expect to take home the bread.  Buy a home and you expect to be allowed to live in the home.  In California paying for water does not guarantee you get the water.

“The Salinas Valley Water Coalition, a collection of farmers in the Salinas Valley, sued the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, its officers and a slew of other county entities in Monterey County Superior Court this past week. They say that despite paying significant sums to the district for maintenance and new capital projects relating the Salinas Valley Water Project, they are not getting their fair share.

“The agency has failed to build and operate the Salinas Valley Water Project as originally described, approved, and assessed through a special ballot assessment proceeding pursuant to Proposition 218,” the coalition says in the complaint. “As a result, the real properties of downstream landowners are not receiving the special water supply benefits for which the agency is annually collecting millions of dollars in special assessments.”

This is another example of out of control, corrupt government.  Tax must be paid—services do not have to be delivered.  This is why we should NEVER vote to raise taxes, vote for bonds or agree to extension of any taxes.  Government is corrupt, we finance it—now is the time to fight back.  The first step is to refuse to approve more funds to be used to abuse us.

Lake Shasta Water Reservoir

Salinas Farmers Demand Water They’re Paying For

MATTHEW RENDA, courthouse News,  1/20/17
SALINAS, Calif. (CN) – A group of farmers in one of the nation’s most productive agricultural bread baskets accuses their water provider of ripping them off.

The Salinas Valley Water Coalition, a collection of farmers in the Salinas Valley, sued the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, its officers and a slew of other county entities in Monterey County Superior Court this past week. They say that despite paying significant sums to the district for maintenance and new capital projects relating the Salinas Valley Water Project, they are not getting their fair share.

“The agency has failed to build and operate the Salinas Valley Water Project as originally described, approved, and assessed through a special ballot assessment proceeding pursuant to Proposition 218,” the coalition says in the complaint. “As a result, the real properties of downstream landowners are not receiving the special water supply benefits for which the agency is annually collecting millions of dollars in special assessments.”

Salinas, the hometown of author John Steinbeck, is one of the foremost agricultural centers in California, called the “Salad Bowl of the World” for its production of the majority of the nation’s salad greens.

The farmers who grow the lettuce, peppers, cauliflower, wine grapes, mushrooms, strawberries, tomatoes and spinach that supply the nation’s dinner tables rely on a large watershed from the surrounding coastal mountain ranges. The lion’s share of the streams and creeks funneling from the mountains converge in the Salinas River, which winds northward and feeds out into the Monterey Bay at Moss Landing.

In the 1950s, farmers in the valley – tired of the vagaries of California’s extreme weather pattern – hired a team of engineers to build the Salinas Valley Water Project, which consists principally of two dams, the Nacimiento and the San Antonio, and allowed the water resources agency to control the release of water for downstream residents.

The coalition says in the lawsuit that the project’s main purpose was twofold: to protect the riparian rights of its customers, or those who have rights to the surface water supplied by the watersheds and river, and to replenish the groundwater.

Replenishment of the groundwater is vital to supplying the wells that farmers use to water their crops. But it also keeps the sea at bay as seawater intrusion, in an increasingly alarming problem for the Central Coast, has the potential to compromise entire freshwater aquifers and cripple the agricultural industry as a result.

“The agency, and its predecessor, have historically operated the Nacimiento Reservoir and San Antonio Reservoir to provide maximum groundwater recharge for the entire Salinas Valley through reservoir releases that maintain the Salinas River’s flows,” the coalition says in its complaint.

But Charles McKee, county counsel for Monterey County and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, said the agency must balance the need to replenish groundwater with provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the Salinas River must retain a certain amount of flow to allow endangered steelhead trout to freely navigate the river. During lean years, the needs of downstream farmers must be balanced with the needs of the fish.

For the coalition, though, it’s more about equity in terms of payment, as it says certain downstream farmers have contributed more than $50 million to the operation, maintenance and capital improvement of the project but have not seen the same benefits as other farmers.

The wrangling over how much water should be released to downstream users is not unique to the Salinas Valley and is a common source of contention throughout California – often pitting farmers who need water for their livelihood against water managers who must balance the needs of customers, the environment and wildlife.

“The Salinas Valley Water Project doesn’t guarantee the amount of water you are going to get,” McKee said in an interview. “The agency can’t simply ignore the Army Corps of Engineers and the biological opinion in favor the folks downstream and their need for water.”

The lawsuit comes as an increasing number of water agencies and their customers are calling for California to end its emergency drought restrictions on water releases.

During a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento on Wednesday, a chorus of representatives demanded the state end the restrictions. They said the abundance of water flowing through California’s waterways is demonstrable evidence the drought is over.

The board said it would prefer to wait, noting that while the 46 inches of precipitation that has fallen throughout the Northern Sierra is a record for this time of year things could dry up before the end of the water year – and the drought would persist.

The Salinas Valley Water Coalition could not be reached by phone as it has a nonworking number listed on its website.

They seek an order to implement the project as approved, a reassessment of what they’ve paid versus what they’ve received, an order to stop diverting water away from senior rights holders, and a bar on the continued imposition of assessments that exceed what they’re getting.

The farmers are represented by Eric Robinson of Kronick, Moscovitz, Tiedemann & Girard in Sacramento, and Pamela Silkwood of Horan Lloyd in Carmel, California.

UC Davis Professors STEAL From Students/Taxpayers

UC professors are above the law.  They have been using government email to promote anti-President Trump political action.  If a conservative professor did this, to delegitimize Obama, they would be fired.  The Janet Napolitano double standard is at work again—pay your taxes to promote an anti-freedom, political agenda of the Far Left.

“Professors at the University of California, Davis are encouraging their colleagues to spread “as widely as possible” a list of anti-Trump teach-ins on Inauguration Day using university list servs.

In fact, Campus Reform recently obtained a copy of an email, sent by out by UC-Davis professor Eric Louis Russell, explicitly calling for the circulation of the list of anti-Trump protests.

“A number of faculty have organized a Teach-In to coincide with…the planned Walk-Out by UAW 2865.”

You reads that right—government employees, UC professors, are using taxpayer’s resources to work in conjunction with an extortionist cabal, to politically oppose a President.  Illegal on so many levels—and Guv Brown allows this—is he a co-conspirator for these criminal acts?  Yup.

Hillary email cartoon

UC Davis profs promote anti-Trump teach-ins with school email

Anthony Gockowski, Campus Reform,  1/21/17

  Professors at the University of California, Davis are encouraging their colleagues to spread “as widely as possible” a list of anti-Trump teach-ins on Inauguration Day using university list servs.

  According to IRS guidelines, using public resources such as internal email list servs could be considered a violation of the school’s tax-exempt status.

 

Professors at the University of California, Davis are encouraging their colleagues to spread “as widely as possible” a list of anti-Trump teach-ins on Inauguration Day using university list servs.

In fact, Campus Reform recently obtained a copy of an email, sent by out by UC-Davis professor Eric Louis Russell, explicitly calling for the circulation of the list of anti-Trump protests.

“A number of faculty have organized a Teach-In to coincide with…the planned Walk-Out by UAW 2865.”

“As some of you are aware, a number of faculty have organized a Teach-In to coincide with and in support of the planned Walk-Out by UAW 2865 (a local teacher’s union), as well as political events in Washington and locally,” Russell writes in his email, before encouraging his colleagues forward the email “as widely as possible” to any interested “faculty, staff, and students, as well as to all others [who] might be interested.”

Indeed, the email was eventually passed to all those in the school’s International Studies Department, as an email obtained by Campus Reform shows that the list of teach-ins was sent to the department’s list serv, potentially violating the school’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, according to IRS guidelines.

The day of teach-ins, set to last well into the evening of Inauguration Day, kicked off with a panel of faculty members reflecting on their reactions to a Trump presidency, called “Faculty Responses to Trump.”

Other teach-ins will discuss the “challenges and opportunities for American Muslims in a post-Trump world,” with another focusing on “LGBTQA rights under Trump,” and yet another looking at “the sciences under Trump.”

Campus Reform reached out Russell for comment on the propriety of using public resources to promote a partisan political platform, but did not receive a response in time or publication.