Two not-so-eco-friendly Congressmen are working on a global warming bill in the House.  The trouble is that the bill includes provisions that block California from implementing stricter global warming measures, such as AB32, the carbon emissions law signed last year.

House Democrats, in their first draft of new energy legislation, would wipe out California’s landmark global warming law — despite their California speaker’s promises that her party would use the state as a model to combat climate change.

The legislation would pre-empt California and 11 other states from implementing laws requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets. The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from granting the states waivers to put their climate change rules into effect. California officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top environmental aides, blasted the legislative proposal.
***
However, the pre-emption plan might never see the light of day — if, as expected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and lawmakers from other affected states use their clout to quash the idea before it gets out of committee. Pelosi was unavailable for comment Monday, but her staff termed the measure a draft that needed much more work. (SF Chron 6/5/07)

So, look like we know what we need to do here. If this comes close to getting out of committee, we need to call California’s Congressional Delegation to make sure the federal government doesn’t tramp all over us. Flip it

It’s not surprising that this is coming from Dems. You see these two Congressmen don’t have the best track record:

The proposal was written by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia and chairs the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee charged with crafting climate change legislation. The full committee’s chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime ally of the auto industry, also played a key role in putting together the new legislation.

However, having a San Francisco Speaker should help things in our favor…

(OK, fixed! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

Today, the FBI confirmed what CA AG Jerry Brown said in May, Irvine is one safe city. In fact, it’s the safest in the nation:

For the third year running, Irvine tops all large cities in the nation with the lowest incidence of violent crime after posting a nearly 17 percent drop in 2006, according to a report by the FBI. Reported violent crimes for the city – which include homicide, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault – fell from a total of 151 in 2005 to 126 in 2006, for a rate of 67 per 100,000 in the preliminary posting of the 2006 FBI Annual Uniform Crime Report. (OC Reg 6/5/07)

Last time, I talked about the importance of parks and recreation.  And of course, economic factors surely weigh into the amount of crime. Given that Irvine has a pretty high per capita income, it’s not surprising to see a low rate of crime. But Irvine actually does better than similarly sized cities with higher per capita income. Take that Sunnyvale! (Ok…Sunnyvale is #2 on the AG safe city list, but that’s one slot below #1).

But something else is also at play here, that is the role of the city’s various crime prevention programs. Irvine has implemented geographic policing, neighborhood watch programs, and Internet reporting.  Follow me over the flip for more..

So for a city of about 200,000 people, how the heck does Irvine stay so safe? Well, how about the Police Department’s various programs. One such program is geographic policing.  This program gets beat officers out from behind desks and in the community, where they are visible. Irvine’s neighborhood alert has also been effective. Knowing your neighbors helps reduce crime and creates a more livable city. Or is it the WatchMail program? Can the internet actually be used as a tool to reduce crime in the community? Whatever they are doing, the Crime Prevention Unit of the Irvine Police Department is proving to be quite effective.

And clearly, it seems like Irvine has enough patrol officers to cover the entire community. And perhaps now that the Irvine Police Department now does “geographic policing”, officers really are connecting more with the community. And maybe, their Crime Analysis Unit is having some effect. Perhaps by finding out what had gone wrong, they can then work with the community to make things right. Whatever is happening, the Irvine Police Department must be doing something right.

And clearly Irvine’s Progressive Mayor and Police Chief know how tough it can be to keep such a big city so safe. Yet for the last three years, they have been remarkably successful in leading the way not just for Orange County, and not just California, but for the entire nation. From The OC Register:

“When you are the safest city in America, you have to work especially hard to maintain that position,” Irvine Mayor Beth Krom said. “This is a source of pride for the entire community.” […]

“Getting to know the people who live and work in these areas helps them to be able to identify the problems in these areas and any impacts on the quality of life,” said Irvine Police Chief David L. Maggard.

And how has Irvine been able to avoid what the other major cities in Orange County are suffering from?

The national crime trends were largely echoed in Orange County, with all eight cities with populations of 100,000 or above recording increases in robberies, and a sharp decline in property crime.

There were 19 more murders in Orange County’s biggest cities in 2006 than the previous year – a jump that can be largely result of a spike in gang violence in Santa Ana, which recorded nine more murders in 2006.

However, car thefts, arsons and other property crimes dipped across the nation for the second straight year, the data show. Huntington Beach – which saw a 12.6 percent drop in violent crime – was the only large Orange County city to see a rise in property crime, recording 365 more property crimes last year compared to 2005.

Huntington Beach must now worry about property crime becoming more prevalent throughout town. Santa Ana is now facing a crisis of escalating gang violence. Up in North Orange County, the cities of Orange and Fullerton are grappling with dramatic increases in violent crisis. Take a look at the major California cities on the FBI’s list, and things aren’t looking very good not just in OC, but throughout the state.

So what is Irvine doing right that other cities in California aren’t? Are Irvine’s police services that much better? Are they doing a better job of preventing crime? Are the parks and community services really making that much of a difference? There’s a secret to Irvine’s success, and more communities should try to learn this secret to figure out how to take a real bite out of crime.

(“Truth is the first casualty” – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

On Sunday, June 3rd 2007, the Los Angeles chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War conducted Operation First Casualty. Former Marine Sargent Jason Lemiuex, who served three deployments in Iraq stated, “…under the premise that the first casualty of war is the truth. And the American people are getting fed this notion that we’re in Iraq spreading freedom and making Iraq safe for democracy when really we’re imposing a state of martial law on the people over there.” For more details and video, read on…

Taking the streets of Santa Monica by storm, Operation First Casualty was a huge success in raising awareness amongst the general population about the need to bring the troops home now. As veterans of the Iraq war shouted at, searched and hooded civilian volunteers, passers-by got a taste of what an occupation is like. During the street theatre, reenactments of a combat patrol, a riot with mass detention, and a soldier wounded by a roadside bomb occurred.

Tim Goodrich
Co-founder, Iraq Veterans Against the War

Back from Vegas with lighter pockets and ready to rock.  Turns out though that the real action is in California Indian Casinos which pulled in $25 billion last year and are growing faster than Las Vegas.  Sure, but are their prostitutes health screened?

Meanwhile, San Diego’s City Council got it right today, affirming their previous vote to ban big-box stores within the city.  Mayor Sanders is whining that it’s anti-business to ban things that are bad for business, but if the current 5-3 vote stands up, his veto is irrelevant.  Story comments are predictably ill-informed for the most part, but probably several are legitimate candidates for the U-T editorial staff.

And continuing on the “reality is whatever I tell you” road, Mayor Sanders is defending his cuts of city services by saying that funding cuts don’t mean service cuts.  He decided that firefighters didn’t deserve a cost of living raise because not enough of them were leaving, then boasted that, while opening several new branches of the library, he wasn’t reducing net hours.  Currently, the city has two fire hazard compliance officers.  I sure hope that there isn’t a really dry fire season or anything.

But anyways. I got my ticket today to see The National at the end of the month and I’m really quite delighted.  On that note (ah ha!), The National – Mistaken For Strangers

“surprise, surprise they wouldn’t wannna watch
another uninnocent, elegant fall into the unmagnificent lives of adults”

Last week, we got some good news regarding the pension fund for our state’s teachers. In 2004, the long-term deficit was projected to be $24.2 billion. Today, the long-term deficit is projected to be $19.6 billion. It’s not quite as good as we want it, but it’s getting better.

So how did our favorite right-wing commentator who always misses the point respond? Oh, Chris Reed just looks for a way to tie this to “the public employee unions’ master-puppet relationship with Democratic lawmakers“. Huh?

Follow me after the flip for more…

So what exactly is Chris Reed angry about? I guess this:

Last June, three state Senate Democrats — Don Perata, Debra Bowen and Gil Cedillo — killed the governor’s nomination of David Crane, a smart, well-regarded San Francisco financier, to the California State Teachers Retirement System board. Crane’s sin? “The three Democrats on the five-member Senate (Rules Committee) agreed that Crane seemed too concerned about the burden of pension shortfalls on taxpayers,” according to a published report.

Perata, Bowen and Cedillo’s open declaration of allegiance to the California Teachers Association over Californians in general showed anew that public employee unions have a master-puppet relationship with Democratic lawmakers — and that taxpayers are being and will continue to be brutalized as a result.

Wait, so how exactly did the Democratic lawmakers act as “puppets” to the “masters” at the public employee unions? And what’s so horrifying about the state teachers’ pension fund? Take a look at this article from The Sacramento Bee last week, and try to explain the “crisis”.

Surging stock markets and three straight years of strong investment returns have pared billions from a long-term pension shortfall plaguing the California State Teachers’ Retirement System in recent years, but it’s not enough.

The state, school districts and teachers still will be forced to dig deeper into their pocketbooks to erase a projected $19.6 billion gap over the next three decades, according to a new report for the nation’s second-largest public fund. […]

The CalSTRS analysis, prepared by the actuarial consulting firm Milliman, shows the giant fund’s financial outlook improved slightly at the end of fiscal year 2006 as the nation’s second-largest public fund continued to rack up double-digit percentage annual investment gains, including a 13.2 percent return in ’06.

The results have cut the long-term deficit to $19.6 billion, compared with $20.6 billion in 2005. That’s an improvement from a $24.2 billion funding gap in 2004.

Milliman said CalSTRS, with nearly 800,000 members, has enough assets to cover 87 percent of its pension obligations decades from now — up from an 82 percent rate in 2003. By comparison, the average for 125 state retirement systems is 88 percent, according to a 2007 report by Wilshire Consulting.

OK, so now the pension fund has enough assets to cover 87% of our teachers’ pension needs for the next few decades. We’re not quite fully funded yet, but we’re getting better. And apparently, there’s already a proposal to fill this gap. Again, from Sac Bee:

The consultant’s report said CalSTRS needs a 3.3 percent boost in annual pension contributions to wipe out the deficit. Currently, school districts pay 8.25 percent of payroll toward teacher pensions, while the state puts in 2 percent and teachers contribute 8 percent of their pay.

In December, trustees backed a legislative measure to increase contribution rates in 2009 while leaving benefits intact. The proposal calls for raising the teachers’ rate to 8.5 percent while gradually increasing the state’s portion to a maximum of 3.25 percent. The school district contribution would slowly rise and be capped at 13 percent.

OK, so what’s the big deal? The teachers pay a little more. The school districts pay a little more. The state pays a little more. And in the end, the pension fund is fully funded. Under the current proposal by the pension fund trustees, everyone chips in a little more (including the teachers themselves) to ensure that our teachers can afford to stay alive after they retire.

So how did Chris Reed respond?

The story noted that CalSTRS still had a projected long-term $20 billion shortfall in paying for the pension benefits of retired teachers. How did the CalSTRS board propose to deal with this huge unfunded liability? Not by trimming benefits, an approach it flatly rejected. By waterboarding taxpayers.

And what does he want to do about this? Go back to whining about one of Arnold’s good buddies from SF not making the pension trustee board. Oh yes, and if one really wants to talk about “master-puppet relationships”, look at this. David Crane is a venture capitalist who served on Arnold’s transition team in 2003. And Arnold placed him on his “Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth“. And he’s part of Arnold’s inner circle as an economic adviser. And even though David Crane calls himself a “Democrat”, he boasts of his admiration of Milton Friedman.

And Chris Reed is really surprised that Senate Democrats won’t nominate someone adamantly opposes “non-market deals” and who calls public pension benefits for workers who serve the public “special privileges”? Give me a break!

So once again, Chris Reed misses the point. The teachers’ pension fund isn’t quite doing as well as we’d like it to, but it’s doing better than it had been just five years ago. And now, the pension trustee board has proposed a solution to the remaining problem. However, Chris Reed doesn’t like a solution. So now, he’s criticizing the State Senate Democrats for rejecting a radical Friedmanite (who despite being a “Democrat”, is VERY CLOSE to Arnold) to serve on the pension board. Can someone please explain Chris Reed’s distorted “logic” to me?

[Orange] County Supervisor Janet Nguyen is 50 days late so far in complying with a county oridinace [sic] on campaign donations. Some time after the Feb. 6 election, she accepted three contributions in excess of the county’s $1,500 limit and put them into a legal trust fund set up by her lawyer. Turns out county code prohibits such trust funds, so the money was moved out of there and the excess donations, they say, were returned.

And once again, Janet’s silence on her funny money hit Total Buzz. Hmmm, so what’s happening with Janet Nguyen? And why won’t she report what exactly happened with her missing funny money?

Follow me after the flip for more…

OK, so how did this all begin? Well, it started when The LA Times reported this:

Newly elected Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen solicited secret donations above the campaign contribution limit in an effort to quickly pay down her legal debts, an apparent violation of campaign finance law, according to interviews and an e-mail obtained by The Times.

The solicitations came as Nguyen was seeking money to cover her legal costs defending a hair-thin victory in the Feb. 6 special supervisorial election. Among those approached were public employee unions and trade groups representing business interests that regularly come before the Board of Supervisors.

Donors were asked to make checks out to a client trust fund of her campaign attorney, Phillip Greer, and to mail the checks to her Garden Grove campaign address.

In an interview Thursday, Nguyen admitted that she sought the contributions but said she did so on the advice of her lawyers, under the belief that it was legal because politicians at the local, state and federal level are allowed to maintain legal defense funds. She said she had selected the people to whom the requests were sent based on personal contacts.

Well, I guess Janet wasn’t paying attention to what was legal at the county level. Here in Orange County, we have a little something called TIN CUP. And clearly, Janet and her campaign team had an idea as to what was allowed and what wasn’t under TIN CUP since they had to ensure early in the campaign that money transferred from Janet’s Assembly account could be transferred into her Supervisorial account. So why did she still violate TIN CUP during the recount?

And oh yes, why hasn’t Janet reported this to the Registrar of Voters? Not only is Janet Nguyen required to return the money, but she must also report it. Well, Janet said that she returned the money, but how do we really know if she hasn’t filed the proper paperwork? No wonder why Martin Wisckol has become so curious over at Total Buzz.

County code says that you have to return such overages within seven days — and then file paperwork with the county Registrar of Voters within 72 hours, documenting how much was returned and to whom.

It’s now been more than two months since the money was allegedly returned. Each day I grow increasingly curious about who those generous donors were and just how much they tried to give Nguyen. Is there some reason she doesn’t want the public to know who they are?

Yes, is there a reason? Why hasn’t Janet filed the paperwork? If she really returned the money, then why won’t she report it? And oh yes, just who was giving her this money? And why did they want to give her all this money?

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with Jubal/Matt Cunningham on this:

But her refusal to comply with a simple provision of TIN CUP is difficult to understand. It’s not a complicated task — all she has to do is fill out some paperwork about three donors to her illegal legal defense fund whose donations exceeded TIN CUP contribution limits. […]

Let’s leave aside the implausibility of Janet’s claim to know there are three donors who gave more than the $1,600 limit, but she doesn’t know who they are, although she does know the excess donations were refunded.

What excuse does she have for refusing to comply with a county ordinance for going on two months now? Janet’s a county supervisor, after all — and flouting county ordinances doesn’t look good.

Yes, what exactly is her excuse? She’s our sitting County Supervisor now. She should be setting an example by following county law. And if she can’t even follow one county ordinance on campaign contributions, then why should we trust her with this and other laws?

If Janet Nguyen wants to all this speculation about her legally questionable contributions, then she needs to report them to the Registrar of Voters. After all, she is the only person perpetuating this scandal by not being forthcoming. So can Janet please just report? There’s something about Janet and her campaign account, and it would be so much nicer for everyone if she can just obey the law and report what she got.

From today’s LA Times:

Two appointees whom Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent to fix California’s dysfunctional prison healthcare system pushed a $26-million, no-bid contract for outside medical services while contract reviewers steadfastly maintained it was overpriced and illegal, records and interviews show.

But instead of providing a strong step toward reforming the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s $1.8-billion medical system, the handling of this relatively small contract erupted into a fight that forced out the two appointees and highlights what critics say are systemic contracting breakdowns that helped bloat healthcare costs at the state’s 33 prisons. (LA Times 6/4/07)

Well, I guess I would add one thing. Privatization is not the answer to all things public. If Arnold wants to get this stuff done, then he should be willing to pump money into prison health care. This little debacle was a disaster from the get-go, but the conservatives just love their privatization and had to help build the prison-industrial complex. But like most other conservative privatization efforts, it was a debacle. Well, at least prisoners get single payer health care…

(Tough to afford decent meals at $21 a week, ain’t it? – promoted by atdleft)

Today I began the Food Stamp Challenge, living off the national average food stamp budget–$21 a week. That breaks down to $3 a day, or $1 per meal.

It’s very hard to imagine how so many eat on so little money. This is exactly why I decided to take on the challenge. Two million people in California are on food stamps, two-thirds of which are children who need nutritious foods to fuel their growing bodies. It’s my hope that this effort makes just a few people think about the difficult choices that so many in our country and our state deal with every day when trying to stretch their food stamp dollar to feed their families.

When I went to the grocery store and bought food for the upcoming week, I have to admit, I got a little nervous about how little I saw in my basket. But I’m eager to raise awareness about hunger in California and gain a better understanding of what so many in the State experience everyday.

Today is a busy day as I’m running back and forth between the Budget Conference Committee where I’m working with my colleagues on the State Budget, and the Assembly Floor where I’m working to win Assembly approval of my own bills by the deadline at the end of the week.

I’m off and running today with the challenge and started my day with a bowl of cereal.

Check back with me a little later and I’ll update you on my progress.