Calif. Lawmaker's Bill Would Stop Police From Freeing Illegal Felons

If a measure set to be proposed in the California legislature is approved, law enforcement agencies in the Golden State will have to report to federal officials before releasing from prison an illegal immigrant convicted of a felony. 

Republican state Sen. Jeff Stone of Murrieta said that he will propose the bill after two California women were allegedly killed by illegal immigrant felons in Santa Maria and San Francisco, the Los Angeles Times reported.  

Under the expected measure, state law enforcement officials would have to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the illegal immigrant felon was about to be released and also hold the person in custody for 48 hours while ICE decides if it wants the detainee prosecuted or deported. 

Santa Maria resident Marilyn Pharis, 64, was allegedly raped and killed by Aureliano Martinez Ramirez and another man July 24, just days after Ramirez had been released from jail. 

Weeks earlier, Kathryn Steinle, 32, of San Francisco was allegedly killed by Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who had been deported from the United States five times and had several felony convictions when he shot and killed Steinle on July 1, while she was walking on a San Francisco pier with her dad. 

"This has got to stop," Stone said. "If police and sheriff‘s departments were to notify immigration officials before they released these dangerous criminals, murders like these would not take place."

The San Francisco slaying led other lawmakers to look at the city's "sanctuary city" laws with more scrutiny. 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon have authored "Kate's Law," which would require a minimum sentence of five years for any illegal immigrant that re-enters the country after they are deported. 

Cruz, along with Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, has also co-authored a measure that would result in withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities. 

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading......

Jeb Bush blames Clinton for Iraq turmoil

In a 40-minute speech on Tuesday night at the Reagan Presidential Library in California - hallowed ground for conservatives - Mr Bush outlined an argument made by many of the current Republican candidates. By executing a "premature withdrawal" of all US forces in Iraq in 2011, he said, the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Clinton committed a "fatal error", destabilising the nation and setting the stage for the rise of Islamic State militants.

"So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers," Mr Bush said of Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton. "It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."

Rushing into a dangerous war, of course, is the critique often laid at the feet of Mr Bush's brother, President George W Bush, the man who oversaw the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

When your last name is Bush - and not, say, Walker or Rubio - talking about Iraq is always fraught with peril. In May he was ridiculed for struggling to say whether he'd have approved the Iraq invasion "knowing what we know now".

At first, he said he would, then he said he wouldn't engage in "hypotheticals" and finally he announced he wouldn't have authorised the invasion.

Mr Bush never mentioned his brother by name on Tuesday, although he made a few veiled references to his sibling's often tumultuous foreign policy experience.

"No leader or policymaker involved will claim to have gotten everything right in the region, Iraq especially," he said.

He went on to argue that the US military should become more involved in the Middle East - although the extent of such involvement was left unclear. He called for a no-fly and "safe" zones over Syria, the removal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, increasing support for Iraqi Kurds and greater co-ordination between US and Iraqi troops.

After Mr Bush's speech, Clinton campaign advisor Jake Sullivan called the former governor's argument "a pretty bold attempt to rewrite history and reassign responsibility". The 2008 Iraq withdrawal agreement, he noted, was reached while President Bush was in office.

He also contended that the rise of IS is the result of Bush administration missteps, such as disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003 and alienating Sunni factions.

Mr Bush's speech is the latest escalation of a war of words between his campaign and that of his potential Democratic rival. Two weeks ago, Mrs Clinton appeared to catch the Bush camp off-guard with a pointed attack on his record as Florida governor during a speech in front of black activists and entrepreneurs at the Urban League conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Mr Bush didn't directly respond to the attack in his speech later that day - and was criticised by some on the right for being too timid in the face of a Democratic assault. His campaign appears to be taking steps to change that perception.

Earlier this week, Mr Bush and Mrs Clinton engaged in a round of accusations and counter attacks over education policy via Twitter.

Mr Bush said US student debt has increased 100% over the last seven years of the Obama administration. Mrs Clinton countered by citing a grade of "F" Mr Bush received in 2006 as governor for "college affordability" from the Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Both sides likely welcome the opportunity to take shots across the partisan divide, since they could help primary voters who have been reluctant so far to rally behind the supposed front-runners to better envision the candidates as their party's standard-bearers.

The form of best defence, as they say, is attack.

Via: BBC

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Legislation Hiking Initiative Filing Fee Faces Resistance

Unexpected bipartisan opposition has formed against a piece of legislation designed to cut down on California’s sometimes outrageous ballot initiatives.

In addition to the left-leaning Consumer Watchdog organization, citizens’-rights groups like the California Taxpayers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have mustered their members against the bill. Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, told the San Francisco Chronicle “that only six of the 26 states that allow citizen initiatives have filing fees and that the highest is $500, in Mississippi and Wyoming.”

Hoping to stave off a shift in fortunes, Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, has already tweaked Assembly Bill 1100 in an effort to calm the drama. Co-authored by Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, the bill originally proposed a massive increase in the fee charged by the state to file an initiative. Currently just $200, Low and Bloom set out to hike the fee to $8,000 — a daunting number for some, but calculated to just about cover what it costs the state to pay the attorney general’s office for drafting each initiative’s title and summary.

Low was inspired to push for the reform by a contentious recent effort that would have created a so-called Sodomite Suppression Act. “Huntington Beach attorney Matt McLaughlin submitted a ballot measure in February that would have ‘any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method,’” as the Sacramento Bee recalled. “Determined to prevent the measure from moving forward, Attorney General Kamala Harris took the measure to court and was relieved of the official duty to write the title and 100-word summary necessary before signature-gathering.”

A checkered past

Proponents of Low’s reform insisted that the bill was about more than shutting down such lurid proposals. California’s ballot initiative system has seen its fair share of half-baked ideas over the years, drawing criticism from more conservative analysts concerned that the state’s view of direct democracy was too romantic and naive.

As the Chronicle noted, initiatives have now been filed that would ban alimony, create a secession commission, eliminate private power companies, fly the state flag above the national flag, “and call the state’s top elected official ‘president of California.’”

Another ongoing challenge, some critics noted, was guiding voters away from voting in favor of unaffordable but otherwise appealing measures.

In fact, Low’s efforts to curb crazy initiatives have not been the first — nor the first to do so by jacking up the price of admission. “Given the sheer number of proposals that have been submitted recently, the Legislature has actually already tried to make filing fees more expensive,” Civinomics noted. “Laws were submitted in 2009, 2010, and 2011 to raise the fee, but two of them were vetoed by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the other was dropped by the bill’s author.”

GOP opposition

For now, Republicans have recently tended more toward supporting a permissive initiative process, concerned that California lacks many other effective hedges against the state’s near-one-party rule and its more liberal judges, who largely dominate the courts. So when AB1100 came to a vote in the Assembly, votes for and against split almost exactly along party lines. Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, put forth a popular argument on the right, warning “the higher fee would make it difficult for individuals and nonprofit groups to file for an initiative,” as the Los Angeles Times reported. “She said that if the increase in the cost of living since the fee was implemented was figured in, it would now be $2,700.”

Then, as the bill made its way to the Senate, reality set in. In committee, “the filing fee was trimmed from $8,000 to $2,500 and then to $2,000,” the Chronicle recounted. “The plan to hike the charge in lockstep with increases in the Consumer Price Index also disappeared.” Nevertheless, the changes weren’t enough to satisfy critics, who will likely have to count on Gov. Jerry Brown to stop the bill from becoming law.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

SANCTUARY STATE IS A HAVEN FOR CRIMINALS

Another murder, another undeported illegal, another law unenforced. 

By Debra J. Saunders – 8.13.15

I am not remiss to say that from Washington, D.C., to Sacramento, there is a blood trail to Marilyn Pharis’ bedroom,” Santa Maria, California police Chief Ralph Martin charged last week. On July 24, two burglars allegedly broke in to Pharis’ home as she slept. They sexually assaulted and beat her. Pharis, 64, a U.S. Air Force veteran, died in the hospital Aug. 1. It turns out that one of the two men charged for the crime, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, 29, is an undocumented immigrant against whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a detainer in 2014. Ramirez has pleaded not guilty.

The case seems like Kate Steinle all over again. On July 1, Steinle was strolling on Pier 14 in San Francisco with her father, when a bullet pierced her heart. Authorities charged Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon and undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times, with murder. He pleaded not guilty. If the San Francisco sheriff had honored an ICE detainer, Lopez-Sanchez would not have been in San Francisco on July 1.

I always thought there was a covenant with those who come to this country, legally or illegally. They’re supposed to be on their best behavior as a condition of staying. I thought President Barack Obama understood that when he promised to focus on deporting “felons, not families, criminals, not children, gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.” But the administration has overly narrowed its view of criminal behavior, such that ICE targets only felons and undocumented immigrants convicted of three or more serious misdemeanors.

To me, racking up misdemeanors should make an immigrant who is here illegally a suitable subject for deportation — but the law has evolved.

Santa Barbara, California, law enforcement first booked Ramirez in 2009 for driving without a license. In May 2014, authorities booked Ramirez on felony sexual assault and drug possession. The charge was changed to misdemeanor battery. It was not reduced, Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley told me. “The standard for arrest is probable cause.”

 Last month, authorities charged Ramirez with felony possession of a concealed dirk or dagger and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. On July 20, he pleaded “no contest” to a misdemeanor knife charge; he was supposed to start serving a 30-day sentence in October.

For his part, the Santa Maria police chief is steamed because he has watched state and federal law work together to undermine law enforcement. The voter-approved Proposition 47 downgraded classification for drug possession, shoplifting, and theft from felonies to misdemeanors. And a 2013 California law, the TRUST Act, prevents local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers absent a serious or violent felony conviction. (Ramirez has no prior felony convictions.) “We’re a sanctuary state,” explained Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento.

There is a cascade effect: Washington relaxes standards for deportations, and Sacramento cranks out bills and ballot measures to reduce the number of crimes classified as felonies. Deportation is not the law enforcement tool it once was. When there are laws against laws, the immigration and criminal justice systems are destined to fail.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

Beware of Union-Led Anti-Republican Politicking in Your Kids’ Classrooms

“I watched the GOP presidential debate because my students are counting on me” is the title of a piece posted on the National Education Association website by “guest writer” Tom McLaughlin, a high school drama teacher from Council Bluffs, IA. He claims that “… in addition to this debate, I had an obligation to watch future debates, take notes, and share the truth. I have a responsibility to do that for my students.” (Hmm – just why is a drama teacher delving into politics with his students? Brought back memories of a Che Guevara poster prominently displayed in the music teacher’s class at my former middle school.)

So in any event, I’m thinking this will be a commentary about Common Core, since it garnered the only discussion of education at the first Republican debate in Cleveland last Thursday. In reality, that issue provoked a brief back-and-forth between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio which really didn’t shed much light on the subject. But the words “Common Core” never appear in the piece by McLaughlin. Instead, the drama teacher’s “truth sharing” includes comments like:

Many of the candidates on last night’s stage have clear records of draining critical funding away from public schools to give to private schools, supporting charter schools that are unaccountable to students, parents and taxpayers, and slashing education funding and those programs that serve students and help them in the classroom.

As educators and trusted messengers in our communities, we must make sure the public is informed and not fooled by presidential candidates who say they believe in a world-class education system but have a history of starving our public schools of critical funding and supporting flawed so-called reforms that don’t work.

Obviously McLaughlin never intended to report on the debate, but rather to deliver a diatribe infused with standard teacher union talking points against any and all who favor reform and dare have an “R” after their names. (Curiously, Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush all took shots at the teachers unions during the debate and there was no mention of them in McLaughlin’s critique.)

Over at the “NEA Votes” Facebook page, the union faithful were having a field day with McLaughlin’s post and the debate. With one or two exceptions, the comments were posted by pro-union mouthpieces using the same tired talking points that the union elite use. Perhaps the loopiest of all was a post that equated conservatism with Fascism:

The scary part of all this is that these teachers, who don’t seem to have an objective bone in their collective bodies – and are proud of it – have a captive audience of children, many of whom will be the recipients of their teachers’ anti-reform, anti-school choice and anti-Republican rhetoric leading up to the presidential election in 2016.

If you are a Republican parent (or just a fair-minded one of any political persuasion), please be ready for the political onslaught supporting the Big Government-Big Union complex (aka the Blob) your kids may be in for. When the indoctrination starts, don’t be shy about speaking up. Please mention to anyone who is spouting the union party line (and your kids) that in Jeb Bush’s Florida, there are more than 40,000 teachers who do not work for school districts and 14,000 of them have chosen to work in charter schools. They’ve made these choices for the same reason parents do – because charters offer a better fit for their individual needs.

Tell them that despite McLaughlin’s absurd comment, charter and private schools are indeed accountable … to parents. If parents aren’t happy with those schools, they close, unlike traditional public schools which are accountable to no one and typically get more money thrown their way if they are failing.

Tell them that we have tripled our public education funding nationally – in constant dollars – over the last 40 years and have nothing to show for it.

Tell them that Wisconsin’s test scores have risen since the teachers unions’ favorite Republican punching bagScott Walker has been governor.

Tell them that homeschooling is advancing across the country – especially in big cities – because parents of all political stripes are tired of a one-size-fits-all Blob education.

Tell them that in California, the Blob is under attack and that the effort is bipartisan. The Stull, Reed andVergara lawsuits, all of which have successfully challenged Blob work rules like tenure and seniority and fought to get a realistic teacher evaluation system in place, have seen Republicans and Democrats working together to undo the mess that McLaughlin and his ilk have helped to create.

Perhaps most importantly explain that when it comes to education policy reform, the battle is not typically between Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives, but rather between those who defend the status quo and those who are demanding reasonable reforms to an outsized, outdated, outmoded and out-of-touch educational system.

When I was growing up, I never had a clue what my teachers’ politics were. They understood they were not there to indoctrinate me. Accordingly, I followed suit when I taught public school for 28 years. But there are many now who have decided not to check their politics at the classroom door, instead bringing it to their students with a religious zeal that makes Elmer Gantry look like a wallflower. Many teachers now take their cue from the likes of National Education Association Executive Director John Stocks who, at the recent NEA convention, told his flock that teachers need to become “social justice warriors.”

Silly me, all along I thought teachers were there to teach.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Will New L.A. Ordinance Turn Gun Owners Into Outlaws?

If you’re a gun owner in the city of Los Angeles, you may soon be a criminal.

The City Council has passed an ordinance that bans the possession of any firearms magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. With the mayor’s signature Friday, owners of the prohibited magazines now will have 60 days to turn them over to police, destroy them personally or move them to a location outside the city limits. The ordinance says owners can sell them, but don’t try it — state law prohibits the sale of “large-capacity” magazines and has since Jan. 1, 2000.

Because that state law banned the sale but not the possession of large-capacity magazines, existing property was effectively “grandfathered.” The Los Angeles ordinance makes no such accommodation.

“With a stroke of a pen the Los Angeles City Council has not only turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding L.A. residents into criminals, they have made property that was legally purchased under state and federal law illegal to possess overnight,” said Paul Nordberg, director of the Calguns Foundation and president of Calguns.net, a highly trafficked online forum for California gun owners. “To the best of my knowledge there is no method or funding for informing the public of their change in status from law-abiding citizen to criminal.”

Nordberg says the people who will be hardest hit are those who participate in the sport of competitive shooting, enthusiasts who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on fees and equipment. Magazines with a capacity of 15 rounds are standard in national competitions. “I refuse to call them ‘high capacity,’” he said, “Fifteen rounds is the standard, and words have meaning.”

People who don’t live in Los Angeles are unaffected by the ordinance, unless they drive through L.A. to get to a shooting range or competition in an area outside the city’s boundaries. Then, Nordberg says, they risk “arrest, confiscation of property and possible loss of civil rights for simply doing the same thing they did the day before and have done for years, simply going to the shooting range with the legal property they have owned for over a decade.”

The City Council is working on a second ordinance that would mandate the use of gun locks in the home. That ordinance is modeled on laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far been upheld by the federal courts.

But that may not last. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not happy with the lower courts’ decision to uphold the mandatory gun lock law. “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it,” he wrote.

Still, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to the mandatory gun lock law — yet. So Los Angeles jumped right in to pass a similar ordinance.

California is one of only six states that has no “right to keep and bear arms” in its state constitution. In Nevada, for example, the state constitution says, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”

The Arizona constitution says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” In Texas, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

But in California the state constitution is silent, so gun owners in the Golden State must depend on the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment to protect their rights from infringement. That means lawsuits will be filed to challenge the two city ordinances, and city taxpayers will incur the costs of defending the ordinances in federal court.

To better protect Second Amendment rights in California, an amendment to the state constitution is needed that secures for Californians the protections that gun owners have in 43 other states. Without that, we’re at the mercy of politicians who like to score political points by criminalizing the actions of people who didn’t do anything to anybody.

____________________

Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly. Reach her at Susan@SusanShelley.com, or follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

California DMV employees allegedly traded cash for licenses

Aug. 11, 2015: Benjamin B.Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, gestures to a chart showing how California Department of Motor Vehicle employees were bribed for providing fraudulent California licenses to commercial truck drivers in Sacramento,Calif. (AP)

At least 100 commercial truck drivers paid up to $5,000 each to bribe California Department of Motor Vehicles employees for illegal licenses, federal authorities said on Tuesday.Officials said up to 23 traffic accidents could be related to the fraud, though there were no fatalities.

Emma Klem, a 45-year-old Salinas DMV employee, and trucking school owner Kulwidner Dosanjh Singh, 58, both pleaded guilty Tuesday to commit bribery and identity fraud, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said.

Two other DMV employees in Salinas and Sacramento and two other Central Valley trucking school operators have been arrested on similar charges.

The employees changed computer records to falsely show that drivers had passed written and behind-the-wheel tests after they were bribed by the owners of three truck-driving schools between June 2011 and March 2015, according to court documents.

"Individuals who use their positions to obtain commercial drivers' licenses for unskilled and untested drivers jeopardize our nation's security and safety. Allowing unqualified drivers to operate heavy commercial trucks on our highways is honestly quite chilling," said Carol Webster, acting assistant special agent in charge of the U.S. Homeland Security Investigations office in Sacramento.

DMV examiners Andrew Kimura, 30, of Sacramento and Robert Turchin, 65, of Salinas were indicted last week on charges of conspiracy, bribery and fraud in connection with identification documents, along with trucking school owners Pavitar Dosangh Singh, 55, of Sacramento, and Mangal Gill, 55, of San Ramon.

Pavitar Singh and Kimura have pleaded not guilty, while Turchin and Gill are expected to be arraigned on Friday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

Kimura's attorney, William Portanova, said his client is a good person caught in an unfortunate situation, "but we're going to work through it and help this young man."

Class A commercial drivers’ licenses are required to operate trucks, including 18-wheel cargo semitrailers. They are tougher to obtain than regular driver licenses. Applicants must pass both a written test and a behind-the-wheel test that is offered at a limited number of DMV locations, including Salinas.

The DMV has canceled or revoked more than 600 licenses that are potentially linked to fraud, including 100 that were pinpointed by investigators, DMV chief investigator Frank Alvarez said. Drivers can retake the tests, sometimes after a hearing, and Wagner said none are likely to be prosecuted during the ongoing probe because investigators are targeting the organizers.

It is the latest in several similar bribery schemes in recent years, including a Fresno case involving 15 people that resulted in a sentence of more than five years in federal prison for the DMV ringleader in 2013.

Alvarez said his department is considering additional safeguards to prevent employees from altering computer records, and it’s attempting to better screen its 10,000 employees and the way it issues commercial drivers’ licenses as it tries to prevent more bribery and fraud crimes.

The charges filed in federal court in Sacramento allege three separate conspiracies. Two of them purportedly involved Gill, who owns trucking schools in Fremont, Lathrop, Fresno and Salinas.

The third involved Pavitar Singh, owner of a school in Sacramento. His attorney, Anthony Capozzi of Fresno, and an attorney for Klem did not return telephone messages.

Christopher Morales of San Francisco, attorney for Kulwinder Singh, said his client is a good family man who recognizes that he erred when he "took shortcuts" to help members of the Indian community who had trouble passing the tests.

His client and Klem face up to five years in prison when they are sentenced Nov. 17.

No attorneys were listed for the two defendants who have yet to appear in court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

How is Government Spending Hidden Tax Revenue?

​Especially in California, the word “taxpayer” is frequently preceded by the word “beleaguered.” Given our large tax burden and the tragic level of government waste, perhaps there should be a grammatical rule that these two words must always be combined.

While some California taxes are hidden, most are unfortunately and painfully obvious. But the same is not true for the level of wasteful spending by government. The unstated rule of politicians and bureaucrats is that average taxpayers must be kept in the dark about how their money is being spent.

Ask the average man or woman in the street what they think the 87 cent tax on a pack of cigarettes goes to and they will likely respond that it goes for anti-smoking programs – like those scary TV spots – and for health care.

Because of the detrimental impact of smoking on health, most Californians will agree that there seems a logical connection between what is being taxed and how the money is being spent. However, most of the tobacco tax does not go to these programs. Of the 87 cents, 50 cents goes to children’s programs administered by First Five California, a creation of Proposition 10. Now children’s programs may be a great idea, but many ask why these are not funded openly out of the state general fund instead of having the costs hidden inside the tobacco tax.

Ironically, we have seen First Five California objecting to additional taxes on tobacco products because the number of smokers might decrease and thus reduce revenue to their programs. So what we have, in effect, is an agency that is tacitly supporting what they concede is an unhealthful habit, simply because it wants the revenue.

Then there are parking tickets that in cities like Los Angeles can cost more than $60. While parking fines are imposed, in theory, to make spaces available to all motorists, the real motivation is to satisfy the appetite for revenue. Because Los Angeles has some of the highest paid workers in a state that the federal government says has the highest paid government employees in all 50 states, it desperately needs the revenue to support payroll and benefits. This may help explain some of the city’s confusing signage that makes it difficult for drivers to tell when they can park and where.

More confusion that benefits the public sector, and puts taxpayers at a disadvantage.

But state and local governments do not have a monopoly on confusing or hidden taxes, charges and other revenue enhancements.

Enter Congress and the highway bill. The version being considered by the Senate would place a new tax burden on home buyers by increasing the fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge for their loans. “Not only will it increase the cost of homeownership and make it more difficult for a buyer to purchase a home, it will hinder future efforts at mortgage finance reform,” said California Association of Realtors President Chris Kutzkey.

As bad as that sounds, it is even worse. It is another charge whose purpose is intentionally hidden from the casual observer and where there is a total disconnect between what is being taxed, home loans, and on what the money will be spent, highways. (In California this would be defined as a “special tax” under Proposition 13 and require a two-thirds vote.)

According to the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, America spends more on taxes than on food, clothing and housing combined. In California, the average taxpayer works for government until May 3rd, before they start working for themselves.

It is not too much to demand from politicians that they make clear what taxpayers are being charged and on what the funds are being spent. Maybe then we can remove the modifier “beleaguered” from the word “taxpayer.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published at HJTA.org

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

CA Congressmen Urge Federal Reform of Marijuana Laws

The federal government’s understanding of its own marijuana regulations are willfully “tortuous” and “an obvious stretch,” warned a bipartisan duo of California Congressmen in a sternly-worded letter to the Department of Justice.

An abuse of power

In the letter, obtained by the Huffington Post, Reps. Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., requested that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz open an internal investigation into the department’s continued prosecutions of marijuana dispensaries, against what they said was the clear letter and intent of the law.

In its Appropriations Act for 2015, Congress had passed a provision introduced by Rohrabacher and Farr designed and intended to ward off federal interference with marijuana-related businesses operating legally under state law.

“We, the authors of the language, and our many colleagues — including those who opposed the amendment — laid on the record repeatedly that the intent and the language of the provision was to stop DOJ from interacting with anyone legitimately doing business in medical marijuana in accordance with state law,” wrote the Congressmen.

Signed into law by president Obama, the amendment received a second vote of approval from Representatives this summer. “As the marijuana provision is part of an annual funding bill that will expire,” noted the Huffington Post, “the lawmakers introduced an identical version again in June, which was reauthorized by the House of Representatives.”

In April, Farr and Rohrabacher had also demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder “stop prosecution of state-authorized medical marijuana dispensaries” in observance of the same provision, as the Orange County Register reported.

Federal legalese

But the Department of Justice chose to interpret the law in the most hostile manner possible, the lawmakers suggested, citing an April statement by DOJ spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Rodenbush said Rohrabacher-Farr, as the appropriations amendment was known, didn’t apply to prosecutions directed at persons or groups:

Rather, he said, it stops the department from “impeding the ability of states to carry out their medical marijuana laws,” contrary to some claims from people being prosecuted that the amendment blocks such prosecutions.

As the Times then observed, this “narrow interpretation of the law” had particularly strong implications in the San Francisco Bay Area, “where the Justice Department has initiated forfeiture proceedings against three medical marijuana dispensaries it considers to be in violation of federal law.”

Outgoing U.S. Attorney for Northern California Melinda Haag had become notorious among pro-pot advocates and business people, joining “the three other regional U.S. attorneys in California in cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries perceived to be large-scale commercial enterprises,” as Pleasanton Weekly recounted. One dispensary facing the brunt of Haag’s crusade, Harborside Health Center, met the news of her departure with what executive director Steve DeAngelo called “great relief and great satisfaction.”

“In Ms. Haag’s parting statement she said she felt her office had ‘accomplished most of our goals’ during her tenure,” DeAngelo said in a statement. “The one goal she most assuredly has not accomplished is closing down Harborside Health Center. We hope her successor will have a more finely tuned understanding of compassion and justice than Ms. Haag has displayed, and allow Harborside to focus on serving our patients instead of battling a court case that should never have been started.”

Conflicting actions

Although the Department of Justice could opt to ignore the mismatch between its conduct and the law, the law itself would hold them to account for doing so. At stake is the applicability of the Anti-Deficiency Act, as Farr and Rohrabacher argued; as Reason indicated, that law “makes it a crime to use federal money for purposes that are not approved by Congress.”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

7 Key Measures of California’s Transportation Challenges

1. CA’s gas taxes are the 4^thhighest in the nation.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, California’s 61-cent-per-gallon gas taxes are the 4^th highest in the nation, behind only Pennsylvania, New York and Hawaii. This does not include the recent addition of extra cap-and-trade taxes resulting from bringing fossil fuels under California’s AB 32 law.

2. CA’s gas prices are the nation’s highest.

According to AAA, the current national average price for a gallon of ‘regular’ gasoline is $2.63. California’s current average price is $3.69 per gallon (as of 8/5/15).

3. CA’s gas tax & transportation fees yield $10.6 billion annually.

According to the State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Budgets, 2014/2015 Fiscal Year estimates, the State brings in at least $10.6 billion in taxes and fees “dedicated to transportation purposes.”

4. Caltrans spends just 20% of that revenue on state road repair & new construction.  

Last year, Caltrans spent $1.2 billion in state road maintenance & repair, and $850 million in new construction.  Similar amounts are planned for the 2015/2016 CA State budget.

5. Caltrans wastes half a billion $$ annually on extra staffing.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) report on the review of the Caltrans’ Capital Outlay Support Program found that the agency is overstaffed by 3,500 positions at a cost of $500 million per year.

6. CA’s roads rank near the bottom in every category, including:

• 46th in rural interstate pavement condition
• 49th in urban interstate pavement condition
• 46th in urban interstate congestion

7. Poor road conditions cost Californians $17 billion yearly in vehicle repairs.

34% of CA’s major roads are rated to be in “poor” condition. Driving on roads in need of repair costs California motorists $17 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs – $702.88 per motorist.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

John Moorlach is a California State Senate, 37th District

Via: California Politcal Review

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] James Lacy — Why CA Gas Prices Remain Sky-High

James Lacy, author of Taxifornia, explains to Fox Business’ Stuart Varney how CA’s over-the-top environmental regulations cause the state’s gas prices to soar above the rest of the nation.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

California and the GOP Debate

Looking for California in the GOP debate presented some challenges even with one candidate who has tentative ties to the Golden State and the state’s Democratic governor who tried to put himself into the debate via a letter to the candidates on climate change.

There was only one Californian (sort of) in the field of 17 — Carly Fiorina who made her name as CEO of Hewlett-Packard and was handily defeated by Barbara Boxer for the California U.S. Senate seat in 2010. She now lives in Virginia.

She did fairly well in the first debate, many pundits declaring her the winner. And it appeared that former Texas governor Rick Perry has Fiorina lined up for the Secretary of State job if he becomes president. In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal Perry said, “I’d rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation rather than (Secretary of State) John Kerry.”

Major California companies Google and Apple also made it into the first debate with Fiorina saying they should cooperate with the government on investigations that might prevent terrorism.

Apparently, Jerry Brown sent his letter to the wrong recipients for the main debate. California’s Democratic governor tried to work his way into the debate when he sent a letter asking GOP candidates how they would address climate change. He should have sent his letter to the Fox News Channel debate moderators. They didn’t bother to engage the candidates on climate change in the debate featuring the 10 leading candidates.

There was a reference to climate change in the first debate held for candidates in positions 11 to 17 in the polls. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham responded that if he debated presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton on climate change she would argue cap-and-trade that would ruin the economy while he would focus on energy independence and a clean environment. Cap-and-trade is a key strategy in Brown’s camapign on climate change.

Immigration was a big issue at the debate although nothing specific to California. However, the situation on sanctuary cities was raised in both the earlier and later debates. The sanctuary cities issue gained headlines after the shooting death in San Francisco of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported many times but still came back. Candidates from Jeb Bush to Ted Cruz, to Bobby Jindal said they would eliminate federal funds to sanctuary cities.

There are a number of presidential candidates working with individuals with strong California ties. To name a few: Jeff Miller is campaign manager for Rick Perry, Mike Murphy is a strategist for Jeb Bush and Todd Harris is communication director for Marco Rubio.

While California didn’t have a big role in the debates one of her favorite sons was mentioned frequently –Ronald Reagan. And that will carry over with the next Republican debate scheduled for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley September 16.

Originally published of Fox and Hounds Daily

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....