FLASHREPORT

Recall back on? Perata transfers $110k into Recall Denham Committee

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-16-2008 8:57 am

This time of the political season, we are all following the late-contribution reports to see where the money is flowing -- and a lot of it has been moving around -- millions.

Nary lost amongst the other activity was this transfer of $110,000 from "Leadership California" (Lame-Duck Senate President Don Perata's PAC) to the "We Deserve Better; Yes on the Recall of Jeff Denham" PAC.

Given Perata's public pronouncements recently that he was pulling the plug on any attempt to recall Denham, this transfer raises serious questions.  In addition, the pro-recall committee still has yet to return several six figure contributions sent in by labor unions in recent days.

So it begs the question - is the recall back on?

Senator Denham, of course, hasn't let up from campaigning against this petty political recall instigated by Perata in one of his frequent "I am four years old" moments.  But if the funds don't get sent back to the unions soon, if Perata doesn't explain his transfer quickly, than any statewide GOP efforts to fend off the recall had best be reactivated.

Perata is one of a kind.  Thank goodness for term limits.  California will certainly be a better place when he is OUT of the legislature all together.

Comments (0)

Today's Commentary: Republicans Who Voted For The "Big Government" Farm Bill Want The GOP To Stay In The Minority

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-16-2008 12:01 am

We have some big challenges facing the Republican Party in Congress right now.  The GOP lost our majority 2006 in a large part because our party became that which we opposed – the party of big spending.  When the 2006 elections were over, the Club for Growth conducted surveys in 15 competitive House seats (where neither candidate was tainted with scandal) and guess what they found out?  The GOP had completely lost its fiscal conservative branding.  The most startling results was when those polled asked which political party in Washington was “The Party of Big Government” – the results?  Republicans 39.3% and Democrats 27.9% - shocking, and sad.  (Read more about the CfG survey here).

Yesterday, the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal was all about how the Republicans, now in the minority in Congress, still don’t get it (in terms of the need for fiscal restraint).  Here is an excerpt:

Facing this terrible challenge as a political party, along comes the final vote on the grotesque and bloated Farm Bill. 

Before we go on, let's look more closely at the Farm Bill...

Here are just a few key points about the Farm Bill as outlined by the Club for Growth:

If that isn’t enough to turn your stomach, here is an excerpt from an editorial that ran Wednesday in the Investor’s Business Daily, Harvest of Shame: 

With this as the backdrop, you have to wonder what on Earth nearly half of Congressional Republicans were thinking??  One hundred Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for this terrible legislation, and in the U.S. Senate, it was even worse with only 13 Republican Senators (one third!) opposing the Farm Bill.

Looking at our California Republican Members of Congress, we can be pretty proud of our delegation.  Of 19 Republicans, 14 voted against the bill, and one (Mary Bono Mack, whose father passed away) did not vote.  So only four Republicans voted for the Farm Bill you just read about above – John Doolittle, Elton Gallegly, Wally Herger and George Radanovich.

**There is more - click the link**

View Full Commentary

Comments (4)

Give us the full menu of choices

by Supervisor Matt Rexroad - Statewide (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 9:29 pm

I don't want to hear a bunch of nonsense about a choice between borrowing lottery proceeds and an increase in the state sales tax.

The people of California want the choice between a revenue increase (taxes, bonds, fees, whatever...) and "blowing up boxes" in state government.  Let's blow some boxes up.

If the voters of California actually have to make the decisions for our elected representatives then give us the full menu of choices that includes reductions in state government.

I would chose to completely eliminate the lottery, leave sales tax where it is, and use this opportunity to restructure numerous parts of state government.

Comments (0)

The Campbell Quiz

by Congressman John Campbell - D.C. "Beltway" (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 7:17 pm

I read a lot of political discourse that is pretty tedious and boring. I never want this blog to sink to that level. I understand that there is always a risk of that when I bring up such scintillating topics as international tax policy and mortgage origination regulations. Stop yawning!

Anyway, so here is the very first Campbell Quiz. These are a few questions about current events in Congress and politics. And no, I will not make you wait until next week to find the answers. They are all at the end of each question. Good luck, have fun.......oh yeah and maybe you'll learn something you didn't know too!

1) Two weeks ago, Congress passed a "technical corrections bill" that contained hundreds of new transportation earmarks including $90 million to study a "maglev" (magnetic levitation) train. This train would run a route that is currently served by dozens of daily airline flights and at a fare of about $118. If it takes $90 million to study it, imagine what it would take to subsidize it. This train would run between:

a) New York and Washington
b) Anaheim and Las Vegas
c) Cincinnati and Cleveland
d) San Francisco and Honolulu

Answer: (b). This earmark was originally put forth by Harry Reid (D-NV) to subsidize bringing more people to Vegas. If any of you picked (d) (San Francisco and Honolulu), please stop reading this until you sober up.

2) John McCain's running mate will be:

a) Mitt Romney
b) Former Congressman from Ohio and budget director Rob Portman
c) Ralph Nader
d) I have absolutely no idea

Answer: (d), although Ralph Nader would make McCain look young and conservative

3) When Democrats took control on Congress in 2006, they ran, in part, on a platform promising to balance the budget using a procedure they call "PAYGO" where every expenditure or tax cut would be "paid for" with a tax increase or spending reduction in the same bill. They have since decided to "waive PAYGO," meaning have no offset and thereby increase the deficit on:

a) The so-called "stimulus" package
b) The new farm subsidy bill
c) The housing bail-out bill for banks and subprime mortgage holders
d) the war funding "supplemental" bill
e) all of the above

Answer: (e) The Democrat majority has waived PAYGO on virtually every major new spending program which is pushing us towards a record nominal deficit after 3 years of declining deficits before this.

4) Gas prices are at record highs. Congress has done the following things to help alleviate the "pain at the pump:"

a) Allow environmentally sensitive oil and gas exploration in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico
b) Eliminate the 75% tariff on imported ethanol and related sugar tariffs to lower the price of the most readily available alternative
c) Relax restrictions on construction of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants, not one of which (either) has been built in this country in over 30 years.
d) Lower the gas tax
e) none of the above

Answer: (e) But they have passed several bills raising taxes on domestically produced, and only domestically produced oil and gas. These tax increases either did not pass the Senate or were vetoed by the president or else the price of gas would be even higher.

5) This "do less than nothing" Congress has not done much in the last number of weeks. The following are bills that have passed the House. I made one of them up. Which one is NOT a real bill that passed the real House this year:

a) National Watermelon Month
b) National Funeral Directors and Morticians Day
c) National Take your Ferret to Work Day
d) Support the goals and ideals of National Train Day

Answer: (c) But it was a tough call wasn't it?

6) The federal government is funded each year by the passage of 12 different appropriations bills. In total, they allow the spending of about $3 trillion in the annual federal budget. The majority Democrats apparently may bring up only one or perhaps none of these bills until after a certain date for various reasons. The date and the reasons by which they may hold these bills is:

a) Until after Cinco De Mayo so that spending guilt can be assuaged with plenty of Margaritas
b) Until after Ground Hog Day so the Punxsutawney Phil can be consulted on the matter.
c) Until after Election Day because they don't want to expose earmarks and huge deficit spending increases before then.
d) Until after January so a Democrat president can spend even more.

Answer: (c) Although any of the others may have smidgen of truth in them.

7) An investigation has recently been called into the infamous "Coconut Road" earmark. This was a $10 million earmark for a new interchange in the Florida district now represented by Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL). But Congressman Mack did not request the earmark. Instead it was requested by a member of Congress from out of that state who flew there on a company plane, went to a fundraiser for him held by developers who owned the property next to the proposed interchange, and then put the earmark in a bill after the bill had passed both Houses of Congress! This Congressman recently was seen in heated conversation with Connie Mack, who opposes the earmark, on the floor of the House. The Congressman in question here is:

a) Don Young (R-Alaska)
b) John Murtha (D- Pennsylvania)
c) Millard Fillmore (Whig-New York)
d) Alan Monahan (D- West Virginia)

Answer: (a) However, (b) or (d) certainly could have done it. Since Millard Fillmore has been dead for, oh about a hundred years, he would not be allowed to vote unless he was from Louisiana or Cook County, Illinois.

8) Because of ethanol subsidies and a prohibit-ably high tariff on imported sugar and imported ethanol, corn prices have been skyrocketing. A bushel of corn is now valued at:

a) The same as 10,000 shares of Bear Sterns stock
b) The same as a gallon of gas
c) The same as one Euro
d) The same as a 1200 square foot condo in Miami
e) $5.99

Answer: (e) OK, so it's a joke.

9) The recently House-passed mortgage bill will:

a) Allow the big money center banks to sell the worst-performing of their loans to the government thereby unloading the risk on the taxpayers.
b) Create tax credits that will subsidize foreclosed homes and new homes to the detriment of existing homes owned by people who are current on their mortgages
c) Create a Billion dollar slush fund for a few huge low-income housing builders
d) All of the above

Answer: (d) I guess you can tell that I didn't like that bill very much

Comments (0)

I Hate to Say It

by Ray Haynes - State Capitol (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 5:21 pm

...but I told you so.

In 1998, I was appointed Chair of the Republican Party's Judicial Evaluation Committee.  Specifically, the committe was asked to evaluate the Justices and Judges up for election in 1998.  The most public individual up for election that year was Chief Justice Ron George, who, through a set of very ugly legal maneuverings, was able to reverse the decision of the California Supreme Court prohibiting abortions for minors without parental consent.  George was not content to allow the decision of the then Lucas Court affirming the law requiring parental consent to stand.  In his first act as the Chief Justice, right after the retirement of Chief Justice Lucas, George, abusing his power as the new Chief Justice, went about acting to reverse the decision.  He had no scruples about ignoring the tradition of the court, stare decisis, or judicial restraint to promote his own version of how society should be organized.

Then Republican Party Chair Mike Schroeder stacked committee to support Chief Justice George (after he appointed me chair), but I made my case to the committee. I argued that a Justice who would ignore the tradition of the court (Justice George used his power as Chief Justice to reverse the Lucas decision simply because the personnel on the court had changed, which had never been done in California before that time), or stare decisis or principles of judicial restraint (the dissenting opinions of Justices Baxter and Rogers Brown demonstate how tortured the majority decision had to be to reverse the Lucas decision) could not be trusted to be a justice that would exercise judicial restraint in the future.  I was overruled by the majority of the committee, who felt it was more important to have a justice that was tough on crime, rather than one who knew and respected the role of judges in a constitutional republic.

They were wrong, and Chief Justice George's decision on Proposition 22 is the culmination of his judicial activism.  Chief Justice George was then, and is now, a judicial activist, and the fact that he was appointed by Republican Governors doesn't change that fact.  It merely points out how foolish some Republican Governors can be.  The overriding consideration for judicial appointments (or our support of a judicial candidate) cannot be their support of one or more parts of the Republican agenda, it has to be their view of the role of a judge in our constitutional republic.  Judges are not legislators.  They don't get to write law.  They don't get to use the Constitution as an excuse to substitute their idea of a good law for the law enacted by the Legislature or the people through initiative.

Yet that is exactly what Ron George did in the Prop. 22 case.  There is no law anywhere allowing the marriage of homosexuals, yet, not only did the court declare that Prop. 22 violated the State's Constitution, they declare a positive right for homosexuals to marry.  That is judicial activism at its worst.  This decision is not historical because of its declaration of rights for homosexuals, it is historical because it is the nadir of judicial restraint in California.  The Legislature might as well go home, and let the Supreme Court do the Legislature's job.  According to Ron George, the Supreme Court is obviously better at that job.

We should have kicked him out in 1998.  He deserved it then.  We'll have another chance in 2010 (if he doesn't quit before then).  Maybe this time, the Republican Party will do the right thing, and oppose this guy, no matter who appointed him.

Comments (0)

Jerry McNerney - Tax Hike King

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 3:15 pm

Apparently freshman Democrat Jerry McNerney is unconcerned about being named one of Roll Call Newspaper's most vunerable incumbents. Just in from our friends at The Club for Growth...

Jerry McNerney Adds Another Tax Increase to His Record

  Washington – As if Jerry McNerney’s tax-and-spend record is not sufficiently hostile to taxpayers, today, the California representative voted for the absurdly named “Patriot Tax” in the war supplemental.  The amendment is an unambiguous income tax increase, imposing a 0.5% surcharge on gross income on earnings over $500,000 a year or $1 million for a couple.  

Without a doubt, this tax increase will prove harmful to the economy, stifling innovation, productivity, and job growth.  To make matters worse, the tax will be especially harmful on small businesses whose owners often file their business income on their individual tax returns.  In fact, the Tax Foundation reports that almost 83% of all income tax returns with over $1 million in income are business owners.  A tax that is supposedly on the rich will in fact hurt everyone.  

“Jerry McNerney’s disregard for taxpayers is truly stunning,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey.  “This new tax penalizes hard work, will hurt productivity and job growth, and removes more money from the private sector during challenging economic times.  Next time, Rep. McNerney claims to fight for taxpayers, ask him why he votes to fleece more of their money.”  

“We commend President Bush for his planned veto of the war supplemental, and urge all members of Congress to think about the detrimental effect of this tax increase when it comes time to sustain the president’s veto.”

Comments (0)

A tale of two marriages

by Assemblyman Anthony Adams - State Capitol (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 1:04 pm

California's Supreme Court ruled today that California's statutory ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.  The court also held that the term "domestic partner" creates injury for those who are so labeled in that their dignity is presumptively attacked by carrying such a label.  As such, the court held that to deny a member of a domestic partnership the legal right to call their union a marriage is also unconstitutional.   

Justice Baxter, in crafting his dissent stated: 

"I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its  pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental — article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that “[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)"

Amen to that.  Courts are often labeled as "activists", sometimes befittingly, and other times unfairly.  Regrettably, in this Court's decision, the label fits all too well.  With a State Legislature already running amok with liberal activists, the very last thing we can afford is to have a State Supreme Court join the Legislative liberal majority in this most unholy marriage of convenience.

Now we wait with bated breath for November voters to overturn what Schwarzenegger will almost certainly do in the next few months.  Don't ya just love this State!

Comments (0)

Free Advice, part 2: if you say you've spent your whole life working for conservative Republicans, don't endorse liberal Democrats.

by Tab Berg - Northern California (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 12:52 pm

Yes, I know, more unsolicited and likely unwelcome free advice - it's the bane of consultants and campaigners everywhere.

But anyway, I recently posted information from the Registrar of Voters about Paul Hegyi not actually being a Sacramento Republican for 10 of the last 13 years (for math people that 23%)... now it turns out he was also supporting left-wing candidates as well...

In his "Dear Republicans" splash page, 32-year old Paul claims that he spent his “whole life supporting conservative Republican causes and candidates..."  What he should have said is "Ever since they started paying me, I've been supporting Republicans."

You see, it seems that Paul was a feature endorsement for uber-lefty Sean South (along with the President of the Sac State Young Democrats and former Darryl Steinberg CofS Gary Davis).

South – as many Capitol people will recall - headed up Compassion & Choices and was a leading proponent for creating an "aid-in-dying law like the one in Oregon."  He also ran for office numerous times – everything from ASI to Assembly and Mayor of Sacramento - so his views were well documented.

Now if Paul had an epiphany a few years ago and suddenly decided to embrace Republican values and candidates, I'd be the first to welcome him.

Just don't say that you've spent your whole life fighting for conservative Republicans when you haven't.

Comments (0)

Villines Expressed Disappointment In Supreme Court Decision

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 11:13 am

Offsetting the glee from the loony-left, Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines issued this strong statement in response to the Supreme Court decision to, in essence, prepare the way for legal same-sex marriage in California...

Comments (0)

State Supremes Overturn Prop. 22

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 10:31 am

Minutes ago the California State Supreme Court released its decision on the gay marriage question (they were looking at the constitutionality of voter-passed Proposition 22, which placed into statute that marriage shall be between a man and a woman).

On a 4-3 decision, the Supremes OVERTURNED Proposition 22, striking the language from California law.

You can read their decision here.

You can be sure that the liberal Democrats who control the legislature will have a homesexual marriage bill on the Governor's desk as quick they possibly can, which he apparently will sign.

The Governor released this one-sentence response to the court's ruling:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling.  Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” 

Note that the Governor refrains from any subjective statements such as "I am disappointed by this ruling."  (Probably because he's not.)

This will add some drama to this November's vote on what I call the "Son of Proposition 22" -- a Constitutional Amendment that will likely qualify via signature for the General Election ballot that would place the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman into the State Constitution.

Comments (4)

HJTA Updates Members on Budget Revision

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 10:23 am

TO:    Members and Friends, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
FROM:  Jon Coupal, President
SUBJ:  California State Budget

Yesterday, the Governor released his "May Revision" of his earlier budget proposal. The "May Revise," as it is called, takes into account more recent financial considerations of which our political leaders were unaware back in January.

HJTA has several concerns about the Governor's May Revise. First and foremost, it reflects another failure by projecting a level of spending in excess of revenue. The fact is, the taxpayers of California have done their job -- and then some. You have provided political leadership with billions of dollars more than just a few years ago. In fact, general fund spending has about doubled in just ten years, from $50 billion to $100 billion. It may be a worn-out expression, but it is fundamentally true: California does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

The Governor proposes to close much of the gap, not by reducing expenditures to the level of revenues, but by, once again, borrowing money. This time, there is a complicated proposal involving "securitizing" the revenue stream from the state lottery, in the form of bond debt. This must be approved by voters. The bad news is that there would be a trigger mechanism which would impose a sales tax increase if the voters failed to approved the lottery proposal.

We strongly object to any proposal which threatens Californians with a tax increase if they fail to approve some other proposal.

I had several meetings yesterday with Legislative leaders whom I believe to be fiscal conservatives opposed to tax increases. What they told me is that there is great skepticism about the Governor's spending plan and that it is unlikely that the budget would garner the requisite two-thirds vote in the Legislature needed for passage.

In the meantime, know that your executive, lobbying & legal teams at HJTA are monitoring the budget process very carefully to protect YOUR interests and the interests of all California taxpayers.

Comments (0)

Sean Penn and Mike Spence—A New Political Coalition?

by Meredith Turney - State Capitol (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 9:39 am

It may come as a shock, but actor (and liberal agitator) Sean Penn and FR’s own Mike Spence share a political belief: government should butt out of cigarette smokers’ freedom. Apparently Penn decided to openly defy new French laws that ban all smoking in public enclosed spaces by lighting up during a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival. (I wonder how the French will respond to this latest revolution?) 
 
Anyone who knows Mike Spence is aware that he firmly believes in the rights of smokers to fill a room with the “smell of freedom.” But here is the point that will destroy a potentially highly successful Penn/Spence coalition for smoking rights: Penn opposes smoking bans for his own selfish interest while advocating for government control in areas that don’t affect his life (a true elitist); Spence advocates for personal freedom for all, regardless of whether he personally engages in producing second-hand smoke (which he doesn’t). Politics truly does make strange bedfellows…

Comments (1)

Today's Commentary: Guest Commentary: Jim Brulte Praises Governor's Budget Revisions And Call For Rainy Day Fund

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

5-15-2008 7:33 am

Longtime FR friend Jim Brulte, the former Leader of both the Senate and Assembly Republican Caucuses, penned this commentary after reflecting on the Governor's May budget revisions, announced yesterday.

Fiscal Conservatives Have Got To Rally Around The Governor’s Budget And His Call For Rainy-Day Fund
By State Senator Jim Brulte, Ret.

Before this year’s state budget gets picked apart by the interest groups who always want more funding and spun up by legislators who have to position themselves for re-election, I want to note a few things about the Governor’s May revision.  

**There is more - click the link**

View Full Commentary

Comments (1)

CA Supreme Court to Rule on Proposition 22 Tomorrow

by Meredith Turney<