Why are Democrats resorting wedge issues?

Liberals are always accusing Republicans of promoting divisiveness and campaigning on wedge issues. But this election cycle it is Democrats appear to be doing the dividing and fear mongering; two Sacramento area Democrats in particular.

Assemblyman Dave Jones who is a candidate for insurance commissioner and Dr. Richard Pan have chosen to inject the controversial issue of abortion into the heart of their campaigns. One has to wonder why they have chosen to focus on an issue that has consistently ranked outside the top five issues concerning voters, especially during these trying economic times.

In this campaign speech, Asm. Jones is talking about how he plans to use the office of insurance commissioner to fight for government funding of abortions, an item that was so controversial it was removed from the national health care bill.

Dr. Pan has purchased millions on TV, radio and mail to emphasize the fact that his opponent, Andy Pugno is pro-life. This commercial is just one small example of how Pan is attacking his opponent on the issue of abortion.

So, one has to wonder why these Democrats are so focused on such a divisive issue that voters seem less concerned about than job creation and the economy? I believe it’s because they know that they are on the wrong side of the issues that voters are truly concerned about.

Voters don’t want higher taxes. Both Jones and Pan support higher taxes on Californian’s. Voters want to see government spending reduced. Both Jones and Pan support increased government spending. Voters want to see stranglehold that public employees have on our elected officials ended. Meanwhile, both Jones and Pan are running campaigns that are largely funded by these very same unions.

Dave Jones and Richard Pan are hoping that voters won’t recognize the fact that their campaigns do not speak to the issues Californians are really concerned about. This is because democrats cannot win on the issues. They can only win by demonizing Republicans.

Democrat consultants know that were they to campaign on the Stimulus Bill, Obama Care or tax increases they would lose most swing voters and many of their supporters. So instead, they are focusing on wedge issues and demonization of Republicans. This just goes to show how desperate they really are.

Governor blames GOP Legislators for his failings. Asm Kevin Jeffries sets the record straight.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger chose to use his weekly Raido Address to take aim at four Republican legislators who did not support his legislation that proportedly contained pention reform. Specifically he said"

"Maybe these Republicans just simply sold out because they got campaign contributions from the state prison guard unions,"

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/18/3111520/gop-foes-kindle-governors-wrath.html#ixzz12jks6OIu


Here is Assebmlyan Jeffries offical statement regarding the Governor's Remarks:

"I have enjoyed working with the Governor, and appreciate that he has finally decided to stand and fight for something – anything - even something he abandoned and apologized for after losing in the 2005 special election, leaving those of us who supported him and his efforts out to hang and dry.  And despite the misrepresentations in his remarks, it was very impressive to see that he was actually able to name six Republicans currently serving in the Assembly.   He has been a very entertaining governor and I wish him well in his renewed acting career"

Assemblyman Jeffries did NOT speak against the bill or vote to block it, even though the Governor was reportedly threatening to come campaign against those who opposed him in their districts.  Reports on the floor were that the Governor caved to a last minute threat from another large union (bargaining unit) that was going to fight and kill the pension reform unless he agreed behind the scenes to exclude them (nearly 100,000 employees) from the reforms.

At that point, he reportedly caved and decided to remove them from the bill. Now he is throwing a temper tantrum because some of the legislators didn’t agree to his last minute half-baked reforms?!   Had the Legislature been allowed to examine and discuss the bills in their entirety before they were voted upon in the legislature (as Assemblyman Jeffries’ ACA 8 would have required), perhaps the discrepancies between public safety employees and other state workers could have been explained and he could have supported the legislation.  But while some reform may be necessary in police and fire pensions, he will not cut them until all the other state employees have had their pensions modified as well.

What is the purpose of marriage?

Following the recent decision regarding California's law defining marriage as being one man, one woman; I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?”

This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.

How is marriage defined?
Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.

The first definition was a “... condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life ...”.
Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.

The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together...”
Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).
Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.

What role should government play in marriage?

When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.

…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.
And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate
marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done ...[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”
So why does government regulate and promote marriage?

Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.

So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?

Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.

In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:

“Marriage... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature... the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations... for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress... It is a relation for life...”

This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.

That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states... Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.

And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:

“marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”

This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
So what is the purpose of marriage?

While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.

California government grows as private sector shrinks

With private sector jobs disappearing at an alarming rate, Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick, of Carlsbad, says in his weekly address that California must reduce the size of government to balance the budget. Here is the Assembly Republicans’ compilation of job statistics titled Real Facts: California Private Sector Job Loss vs. State Employee Job Cost.

California Unemployment Rate - 12.3%
Source: California Employment Development Department

Californians Currently Listed as Unemployed- 2.24 Million
Source: California Employment Development Department

Private Sector Jobs Lost in California Since 2005- 1,298,700
Source: California Employment Development Department

State Government Jobs Added Since 2005-  38,100
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average California Private Sector Job Salary- $55,000
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average State Taxes Paid by Each Private Sector Employee- $3,600
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

Average Cost to Taxpayers to Pay Salary and Benefits for Each California Government Job- $90,000
Source: California Department of Finance

Number of Private Sector Jobs it Takes to Support One Government Job- 25
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

So what is the Democrat's answer to these alarming numbers? RAISE TAXES AND CONTINUE TO GROW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS...

The people’s Prop 23 would reverse the politician’s AB 32… Bizzaro World? No, Just California….

When the people California began gathering signatures to overturn the politician’s Global Warming Initiative, who would have thought that irony would be played out so perfectly?

Should it pass, Proposition 23 (The California Jobs Initiative) which was put on the ballot by the people, would REVERSE AB 32 (The California Job Killer) that was passed by the politicians.

As pointed out by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) AB 32’s higher energy prices will increase the cost of doing business here and cause economic “leakage” to occur: meaning that businesses will leave the state in search of greener pastures.

Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association stated, “California has already lost 630,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade, and the state is far below the national average in new industrial job growth. The Legislative Analyst’s most recent report makes it clear we’ll lose even more jobs and manufacturing activity if AB 32 implementation proceeds as scheduled.”

But needless to say, environmentalists will argue that despite the facts, AB 32 will not cost jobs and that those who want to repeal it simply want free reign to pollute California’s air and water.

I can see the commercial’s already- The BP oil spill… George Bush… and somehow referencing children and minorities…

NAACP supports legalization of marijuana... They're fighting for your right to get high!

The California Conference of the NAACP has offered it’s unconditional support for an initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the Golden State.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

In a news conference today, the California State Conference of the NAACP is due to throw its support behind the initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax and regulate pot sales.

In a statement, Alice Huffman, the state NAACP president, said the organization is backing the initiative, Proposition 19, to counter marijuana arrest rates that she contends unfairly target African Americans.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The NAACP’s enthusiasm on this issue is not widely shared amongst African American leaders.

…(Ron) Allen, president of the International Faith-Based Coalition, a Sacramento group representing 3,600 congregations, said he is stunned the state NAACP would favor legalized marijuana.

"Most African American pastors are disappointed, absolutely disappointed with the decision," said Allen, bishop of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church in Oak Park. "If anyone should know the effects of illicit drugs in the black community, it should be one of our most respected civil rights organizations."

The primary issue here is the fact that a greater percentage of blacks seem to be prosecuted for crimes involving marijuana than other ethnic groups.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The problem is not that these young men are arrested for these crimes. It’s that they are involved in these crimes at all. If they did not have possession of illegal substances, then they would not be arrested for having them. And making that substance legal does not fix the underlying problem of drug usage and criminal behavior in the black community. If you want to reduce the number of young black men being arrested for possession, then get them to stop using and selling!

It’s hard to believe that this is the same organization that fought against the proliferation of liquor stores in the black community. I cannot believe they honestly support the idea of unleashing the plague of legalized drugs on those very same neighborhoods.

In California, Top of the GOP Ticket Target Black and Latino Voters Early

Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and leading Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman have begun there general election runs early. And they have done so by targeting those who Democrats seem to take most for granted- people of color.

The LA Times reported that over the weekend Carly was the only candidate of at any level to attend a Juneteenth celebration in Los Angeles.

Though many people had to ask her staff who Fiorina was, they crowded around to shake her hand, request her autograph and thank her for visiting South Los Angeles.

"I think it's very brave of her to come out, because she certainly knows the kind of crowd she's facing," said Cathy Youngblood, 58, a cultural anthropologist from Watts. "She's shown by being here, she's willing to listen. … Do you see any other politicians here?"

And last week Meg Whitman began running Spanish language ads during the World Cup; making her the first Republican I can remember to ever do so, as well as the only candidate doing it at this time.

This just goes to show that these are not your typical Republican candidates. And this is not your typical lineup of GOP slate of candidates. Heavy on diversity and real world business experience, they present a stark contrast to the group of liberal political insiders offered up by the Democrats.

And unlike Republicans of the past (and their Democratic opponents) this new group of conservative leaders are not taking ethnic voters for granted. A strategy that I believe will pay off in the long run.

There may be issues that separate Republicans from Black and Latino voters. However, there are just as many issues upon which we have significant agreement. The need for real reform of our public schools, abortion, protecting the definition of marriage and the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes aggressive enforcement of existing immigration laws; are just a few areas where there is support for conservative ideas amongst black and brown voters. And just like other voters, these groups are not happy with status quo incumbent politics.

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are engaging these voters; and engaging them early. They are hitting Democrats in their own backyard; making them step up and start offering a real alternative to these fresh new faces.

I hope that Meg and Carly keep up the pressure on their Democratic opponents. It will serve to not only help the GOP; but to give all voters a real choice come November.

California Democrats Support Tax Cuts for Business! Well...Sort of…

That’s right! Democrats are once again proposing significant tax incentives to encourage employers to do business right here in California… that is if they happen to be a green technology company. All other employers… you can go take a hike!... a tax hike that is!

Right on the heals of proposing over $12 billion in new taxes on Californians, Assembly Democrats (specifically Assemblymember Joan Buchanan) are proposing an increase in the research and development tax credit for companies that specialize in the development of alternative energy and green technologies. Buchanan states,
 

“Assembly Bill 1565 creates targeted Research and Development Tax Credit Areas with attractive R&D credits to motivate green technology businesses to stay in and move to California.”

In theory, this sounds like something Republicans should support – making it more cost-effective for businesses to come to and stay in California, thus providing much needed jobs. In fact, legislative Republicans have gotten behind such targeted efforts in the past. In 2009, they supported Assembly Speaker Karen Bass’ bill that provided tax credits for movie and television productions to studios that film here in the golden state. And a few months ago, they supported a manufacturer’s tax credit for green tech companies. So, why shouldn’t they get behind this most recent effort to provide much needed tax relief to at least some California companies? One word – Hypocrisy!

The California Legislature should not be in the business of picking winners and losers during these tough economic times. There is a basic hypocrisy in the liberal mindset that says, California is such and attractive place to do business that employers will stay here no matter how much we increase taxes and regulation; then at the same time arguing that we need to provide tax incentives to certain industries (the ones they happen to like) in order to bring and keep them in California. But wait…I thought those incentives didn’t make a difference?

Assemblyman Tom Amiano once lamented in a committee hearing that he was tired of people saying that our anti-business climate was chasing business out of the state. He stated that he just didn’t see the dire emergency. Apparently he forgot that in just a few short years, California went from the world’s fifth largest economy to the world’s eighth largest economy. And that was before the legislature passed the largest tax increase in state history. It is only a matter of time before having the highest sales tax, highest gas tax and second highest corporate tax rate drive us even further down the economic rankings.

It is important to note that is fact is not lost on Democrats. In fact Buchanan herself discusses the vital role that tax incentives can play in keeping businesses in California as she declares,

“This incentive will encourage business to remain in California and motivate new businesses to locate here, retaining and creating permanent jobs and helping to spur California’s economy.”

So what’s with the Jekyll and Hyde impression that Democrats seem to be doing on taxes? They know that tax cuts attract businesses and create jobs. But at the same time they are offering tax cuts to only a few select businesses, they are increasing taxes on the rest of California. What effect do they honestly believe that these tax increases will actually have?

Or maybe a better question is, do they even care?

Fighting for Schools’ Right to Contract Out

The California Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security Committee (PERSS) will be hearing AB 2621 (Norby) which would remove restrictions that have hampered the ability of school districts to contract out non-educational services.

Watch as Craig, a who is a member of the Robla School Board testifies in favor of this measure. He will share why he sees this as an important way to help local school districts save money during these tough economic times.

KCRA Covers Parental Rights Story

As Craig DeLuz made his impassioned plea to the Board Members of the Twin River's Unified School District to end their policy which allows students to be released from school without their parent's knowledge, KCRA Channel 3 was on the scene.

Click Here to see Craig's entire presentation.

Craig stands up for Parental Rights!

On Tuesday, January 19th parents & community leaders attended the Board Meeting for the Newly formed, Twin Rivers School District to stand against their policy of releasing children from school without parental consent or notification.

Here Craig DeLuz, who is also a local school board member, former teacher and parent of two children in the district asked the board to change the policy at their next board meeting. I have been told by at least one member of the board that they will look into this policy immediately.

California’s Race to the Bottom

Currently, the State Legislature is in its Fifth Extraordinary Session, which was called by Governor Schwarzenegger to implement reforms to our educational system that would make our state eligible to compete for over $400 million in federal "Race To The Top" education funds. But, when given an opportunity to make substantive change for the better in California’s education system, the California Assembly’s Education Committee chose to side with those who have destroyed the system in the first place.

On a 6-5-6 vote they shot down SB X5 1 (Romero), which was a bipartisan effort supported by scores of education advocates, school districts, educators and business leaders. Conversely, they approved AB X5 8 (Brownley), which is little more than a union backed attack on California charter schools.

Romero’s SB X5 1 was largely about bringing greater accountability and flexibility to education in California. It removed the cap placed on the number of charter schools that could be established; allowed student performance data to be utilized in the evaluation of their teachers; established an “Open Enrollment Act” which permitted students to opt out of failing schools; required state education leaders to intervene in the California’s worst performing schools; permitted differential pay for teachers; and allowed for parent initiated school reform.

On the other hand Brownley’s AB X5 8 does the bare minimum to qualify California for Race to the Top funds, while at the same time takes a big swipe at charter schools, one of few education reforms that has actually made positive a difference in California. It puts in place new rules and regulations making it easier to deny successful charter schools the opportunity to expand or even to have their charter renewed. In effect, this bill makes it easier to get rid of a successful charter school than to get rid of a bad teacher.

One only need look at the support and opposition to Romero’s measure to know the true story. The list of supporters for SB X5 1 was extensive and diverse. Conservative and liberal advocacy groups; education and business interests; Black and Latino community groups all lined up in support of what they saw as real reform. The only opposition to the bill was the union controlled Education Coalition members and other public employee union groups. Romero’s bill was so comprehensive, that Republicans and Democrats alike voted for it. And most of those who did not vote for it couldn’t even bring themselves to vote against it; choosing instead to abstain or not vote at all for fear of reprisals by the California Teachers Association.

Through it’s actions, the Assembly Education Committee made it clear that the rights and responsibility parents have to make decisions about what is in the best interest of their children comes second to the power of the state to control their children's future; that status quo will trump real reform; that our children come in a distant second to the powerful union lead special interest groups. One can only wonder how the Democratic members of this committee will explain to their constituents why it is that their children’s schools, which are the most in need of reform, will continue to wallow in the culture of mediocrity.

Too many of our children are being failed by our public school system. If there was ever a time to set aside partisan differences, this is it. There is no greater crisis facing California for which the solution is so clearly evident. Accountability, flexibility and increased parental involvement are the keys to true education reform. SB X5 1 was written with this in mind. And nonetheless, it was summarily rejected by the legislature; by those who would put the special interests ahead of our children.

The voters of California are sick and tired of being sick and tired and it is actions like this that will continue to fuel the fire of a citizen’s revolt against the establishment. But it does not appear that the liberal controlled California Legislature is capable of much else.

Welcome to the revolution!

Power to the Parents!

Thanks to the pressure put on by parents, community members and pro-family activists the San Juan School Board voted 3-2 to not implement a new policy that would allow them to release students for "confidential medical services" without even notifying their parents.

"As a former teacher, current parent of two high school age children and a fellow school board member I know what you are going through in making this decision. I know that parents and voters have entrusted you make educational decisions for this district." Craig DeLuz who is a candidate for the State Assembly in California's Fifth District told the board, "But it is completely unacceptable for any board to take the power and trust we place in them and use it to undermine our rights and responsibilities as parents."

Also speaking before the board were known conservative activists, Karen England with the Capitol Resource Institute who made it clear that other area school districts have opted to require parental notification and/or permission before a student is released for confidential medical services. "So far no school districts have been sued." according to England. Karen went on to point out that the author of the legislation being sited as the reason for the policy change never intended for the bill to require a change in school district policy. In fact, she presented a 1987 letter from the assemblyman which stated that his intent was merely to require school districts to notify parents of what their policy was in regards to releasing students for such services.

Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute provided a bit of a legal seminar on the issue, as even the General Counsel for the district seemed to be misinformed as to what the law actually said. "The law say that school districts 'may' have such policies; not 'shall'"

Parents, pro-life activists, community members and the media all looked on as the board, which was clearly uncomfortable with all of the new found attention narrowly voted down the new policy. Board members Larry Masuoka, Greg Paulo and Lucinda Lutgen all voted down the new policy, while Board President Richard Luaney and Assembly District 5 candidate Larry Miles voted to keep parents in the dark.

"It was fact that the people showed up that made the board do the right thing." DeLuz declared "That's why I was here. Because we need leaders who are going to show up."

California's Business Climate - Not Broke and Busted?

Today Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee reports that despite what conservative Republican nay-sayers want us to believe, California is not "inhospitable to job-creating investment".

He offers up evidence from the PPIC, which has produced two seperate reports which blow up conspiracy theories that the Dems in the Legislature have driven businesses from California in record numbers with their 'tax and spend' ways.

Common sense, not hyperbolic rhetoric, is what is going to move our State forward. I would hope that those preaching economic armageddon would look at the facts and get away from the dangerous, irresponsible dogma that hamstrings all of us.

Governor finally agrees with GOP Legislators

Here is a quote from Gov. Schwarzenegger you won’t see in the main stream media:

"And now I understand when Republicans say they say that they are serious about negotiating, but when it comes down to the language itself, that’s where it will fall apart. And that’s exactly what happened this time."

He made this statement after pledging to veto the controversial budget fixed passed on a simple majority vote, in violation of the State Constitution (Click Here to Watch the Video).

What he was commenting on was the fact that when Legislative Democrats negotiate they say they will do one thing. But the devil is in the details-otherwise known as “Bill Language”. Meaning- the bill language that is offered by the Democrats often does not do what they said it would do. This is why it is a general policy amongst assembly Republicans to not agree to any idea- even in concept until you see it in writing. Furthermore, it explains why the GOP has insisted on their issues being address before even considering new revenues.

The truth is that Legislative Democrats don’t believe that they have to actually negotiate with Republicans. They ignore them whenever they don’t need their votes to pass legislation. No matter how salient a point they make may be, it often gets lost in the fervor of getting their bills through the legislative process. They simply state that they are willing to take a look into it as the bill moves along. The bill passes and nothing ever happens.

And when they do need GOP votes, Democrats don’t bother trying to negotiate in good faith. Rather, they try to pick off one or two votes with incentives that may help that member, but don’t necessarily address their overall policy concerns. Of course, the governor cannot necessarily complain about this tactic, since he often employees it himself.

If a deal is going to get done, it will only be when all sides are allowed to sit at the table and negotiate in good faith. All sacred cows need to be on the table- meaning that everyone is going to have to give up something in order to get something.

Did Prop. 8 pass by a landslide or did Obama barely squeak by?

The following commentary is from my good friend and fellow Red County Blogger, Mike Spence. He does a really good job of putting the Prop. 8 victory in persepctive.

Proposition 8 Did Better Than You Think.

The losers in the Prosotion 8 race have tried to portray their loss as a narrow one, caused by various boogeymen. (LDS Church, Black voters, etc...)

Ron Prentice of the California Family Council and ProtectMarriage.com compiled some statistics to put the win in context. Here are some of them:

The official Statement of the Vote has been released by the Secretary of State. Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%. Proposition 8 won by a margin of 600,000 votes: 7,001,084 to 6,401,483.

Prop. 8 received 2,150,000 MORE votes than did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was reelected in 2006.

Prop. 8 received nearly 2 million MORE votes than Dianne Feinstein did when she was reelected to the US Senate in 2006.

Prop. 8 received 250,000 MORE votes than did John Kerry when he carried California in 2004.

Prop. 8 received 45,000 MORE votes than did Barbara Boxer in her landslide reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Prop. 8 passed with approximately the same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received nationally.

So did Prop. 8 pass by a landslide or did Obama barely squeak by?

CA Assembly to vote on $5 billion in new taxes that they are calling “Fees”

Today, Democrats will be offering $5 billion in new taxes, calling them fees. It is believed that by calling them fees, they can be passed by majority vote, rather than the 2/3 vote requirement that is necessary to raise taxes: meaning, they could conceivably pass this without any Republican votes.

Admittedly, I am not sure that this is the case. But cut me some slack, Republicans just got the bill language an hour or so ago. So much for “Open and Transparent Government”.

We have also heard that there will be votes on some education issues and transportation issues, and possibly health and human services. Of course, Democrats may change the whole thing up. Heck, we may not see what is actually being proposed until the members walk into the chamber this afternoon. They have already changed the meeting time. Who knows what else will change.

The California Channel will be broadcasting this session live at 3 p.m. on many local cable channels, or on their live webfeed at http://www.calchannel.com/ . You can also listen to the session live by going to the Assembly’s webpage and clicking on “Floor Session” at the top of this page here: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/Committee_hearings/ . If you are unable to watch live, you will be able to retrieve the broadcast at http://www.calchannel.com/ later in the archives.

Watch the “Why the GOP should cave!” dog and pony show LIVE!

Today at 3 pm the California Legislature will be holding a joint session to hear from the State’s fiscal leaders on why they need to address the State’s massive budget deficit ASAP. Featured speakers include State Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Mike Genest, the Governor’s Director of the Department of Finance, and Mac Taylor, the state’s non-partisan legislative analyst. Each will speak for 15 minutes, and then there will be questions from the legislature afterwards.You can tune in and watch it live at CalChannel.com .

Sacramento Bee writers, Dan Walters and Jon Ortiz will also be hosting a live blog during the presentation at www.sacbee.com/live. That is how important this presentation will be.

But you can be assured that the bulk of the dog and pony show will be focused on why legislative Republicans should cave on their commitment not to raise taxes.

Bill Lockyer has already threatened to withhold the sale of any bonds until the budget is fixed. Furthermore, he would cease the flow of funds to current projects. Additionally, Governor Schwarzenegger has hinted at massive layoffs amongst the ranks of state employees, a proposal that will do more to influence Democrats than Republicans.

But what is missing from any discussions are the substantive requests that GOP legislators have put forward. Namely:

• Economic stimulus proposals (not tax cuts) for employers like:
o AB 32 implementation relief
o Repeal of eight hour overtime
o Regulatory relief

• Substantive budget reform like:
o A real spending cap
o A rainy day fund
o Providing flexibility to agencies (especially schools) on how they can spend their budgets.

• Ongoing spending reductions by:
o Consolidating agencies and departments with duplicative functions “Blowing up the boxes”
o Re-visiting collective bargaining agreements and related side deals.
o Reworking of funding formulas that demand so much of the state budget.


Even as Democrats declare “Everything needs to be on the table”. Please notice that these options will be found nowhere on that table. Not because Republicans have not proposed them. Rather, Democrats have killed them at every turn.

Craig DeLuz on the Capitol Hour: The Republican Reformation

“And if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet seven times for your sins.” Lev 26:23-24

Republican voters sent a clear message to Republican elected and candidates- start governing like Republicans or we will send you packing! So have we learned our lesson?

Is this the beginning of the Republican Reformation?

We will be talking about this and more TODAY on the Capitol Hour.

Details Below:

When: Today, November 26th

Station: KTKZ 1380AM

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.ktkz.com/ (for those of you out of the Sacramento Region)

TIME: 12 noon-1 pm (PST)

Call in Numbers: (916) 923-3300 or 1(800) 923-1380

Thought the 2008 elections were over? Think again!

The battle for CD 4 between Charlie Brown and Tom McClintock is still up in the air as they continute to count ballots. The same is true for AD 10 as GOP hopeful Jack Sieglock hopes to fend off his democratic opponent, Alice Huber.

And what can we expect from Sacramento's Mayor-Elect, Kevin Johnson? He is in the minority (Only three of members of the nine seat city council supported him) and will be facing some of the toughest budget decisions any Sacramento leader has ever had to face.

All this and more will be discussed during this week's show.

To tune in simply go to http://www.deluzbrothers.com/ and click on the Listen Live Button at the top of the page.


You can even join the conversation by calling in at (347) 237-5073. We will be breaking down the upcoming election and much more. You don't want to miss the fireworks!


Details Below:

When: Friday, November 21st


Station: Blogtalk Radio

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/The-DeLuz-Brothers


TIME: 11:30-12 noon (PST)

Call in Number: (347) 237-5073