Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

Have you ever bought something online, had a problem, and tried to reach the company’s customer support line?  Could you even find a phone number to call?  If there was a phone number to call did you reach a phone tree or a person?  Were you on hold for a long time?  If you ever did reach a human, was the person in the United States or did they at least speak English (or Spanish) clearly enough to be able to help you?

A local store employs people in your town, boosting the local economy.  The local store either owns or pays rent for their space, which means they pay local taxes to support police and fire services and schools, etc.  The local store has people who can help you when you have a problem.

But buying something from your local store usually costs a bit more.  This is because they pay to have actual employees to help you, pay rent, pay to maintain a building, etc.  And, finally, the goods cost a bit more because you have to pay sales taxes when you shop at your local store.

The state of California, in its wisdom, has chosen to provide a huge tax subsidy to anonymous internet businesses, at the expense of your local retailers.  You pay sales taxes locally, but not online.

Shouldn’t it be the other way around?  Shouldn’t the state want to promote local stores, local employment, local police and fire services, local schools and a prosperous local economy?  Shouldn’t the state be promoting a thriving local economic ecosystem?   Instead the state provides a huge competitive advantage to anonymous internet businesses.

With a huge budget deficit, with the Governor calling for 10% across-the-board cuts in your children’s schools, police patrols, fire protection, parks, and all the other things our state government does for us, the state still hands the anonymous internet businesses a huge competitive advantage over our local retailers by letting them no charge sales taxes.

You owe it to yourself and your local community to find out if YOUR Assemblymember or Senator supports a requirement that internet companies charge the same sales taxes as your local businesses charge.

Click through to Speak Out California.

( – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

Honestly, I can’t do this without you.

From the beginning, this campaign has been about the netroots taking the next step to becoming the mainstream. You’ve been fantastic, but we need more if we are to win the primary. If we implement the plan below we will win and set the stage to win in November. We need to make a lot of noise and talk to a lot of people. Not enough people know about us and even fewer understand why we are doing this.

Without the money, there is no campaign – so I’m not going to beat around the bush.  We need money; we need it now. We need your help.  If you believe in candidates emerging from the netroots, like I know you do, then please contribute.

Click on this button to go to ActBlue.

Jump below for a story and some details on how your money will be spent.

As a candidate from the netroots I know how much we are into meta as our method for understanding. Well, this is probably the first campaign meta. But remember this is real and this is what Obama and Hillary and all the other candidates go through at some degree. Enjoy but remember that this is not a staged reality TV show. I am running for Congress to win and we are a campaign that really needs your help. It’s not hype and it’s not hyperbole.

Next week, Q1 FEC reports come out. I’m going to give you a preview of what they say about my run for Congress. You can see what we’ve raised on ActBlue and how many supporters we have. This doesn’t count a fair number of checks mailed to us outside of ActBlue. Combining them, this isn’t bad for a candidate like me, someone who has led many teams but has never held elective office. Super stars like Darcy Burner and Charlie Brown started in this range and look at where they are now.

WHAT WE NEED	(Details Below)
Voter contact	$36,000
E-Campaign	$3,750
Overhead	$19,500
Fundraising Costs	$5,250
Signs	$2,500
GOTV	$1,000
Misc.	$2,250
Total	$70,250

Why we need to win the primary – Incumbent Gary Miller

Gary Miller is part of the old political style and culture where politicians used their office to benefit themselves and their friends. His questionable style has been to act as if he’s free do what he wants regardless of how it looks and whether it is illegal or not.

From Wikipedia:

2002

Miller sold 165 acres to the city of Monrovia in 2002, making profit of more than $10 million. Normally, he would have had to pay state and federal taxes of up to 31% on that profit.

Instead, Miller told the Internal Revenue Service and the state of California that Monrovia had forced him to sell the property under threat of eminent domain. That allowed him to shelter the profits from capital gains taxes for more than two years before he had to reinvest the money.

The trouble is that the Monrovia city officials said they never threatened him with eminent domain.

2005 and 2006

Miller took an exemption again in 2005 when he sold the 10 lots to the city of Fontana and again in 2006 when he sold a building to Fontana, claiming both were compulsory sales. The lots and building had been purchased in late 2004 with proceeds from the Monrovia sale. Such exemptions give him another two years after each sale to reinvest the funds without paying capital gains taxes.

Again this time city officials said the sale was voluntary.

2005 profits from dealings with business partner and federal transportation bill

As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Miller pushed for a provision in the 2005 transportation bill that allowed the city of Rialto to close its airport, the first time an act of Congress has ever shuttered an airport. It is a power the Federal Aviation Administration traditionally has had sole authority to exercise. The closing of the airport paved the way for Lewis Operating, a business partner and campaign contributor, to win a multimillion dollar contract from the city to develop the airport land and build a planned community consisting of 2,500 homes, parks and 80 acres of retail space on the former airport and adjacent land.

That’s pretty obviously slimy if not illegal.

December 2006 allegations



In December 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Miller had used “congressional muscle” for “personal business matters.”[7] This included having congressional staff do Miller’s personal errands, collecting nearly $25,000 a year in rent from his campaign committee, using the offices of his real estate development firm as his campaign office, and ordering an aide to find a way to get a city business-friendly councilmember on the National Park Board who was involved in a city purchase of Miller’s property.

And there’s more out there. We’ve been contacted by people on other issues not listed in Wikipedia which we are looking into now. That will be revealed soon.

THE VISION

We started with a vision to help change the national conversation. We started this campaign because we wanted to help change our national character to one dedicated to doing what’s best for Americans and America.

Paraphrasing Plato, in a democratic society

“the penalty that good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by lesser people”.

Lesser people do nothing as millions of Americans go without health care.

Lesser people do nothing as our economy degrades under the weight of corruption and special interests.

Lesser people do nothing as our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers, lose their lives in the cross fire of a civil war or on the rubble-strewn streets of a decimated Iraq.

Lesser people serve their own interests, and those of their contributors, at the expense of the general public.

We are all tired of being governed by lesser people. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican, I’m sure that you are too.

THE BEGINNING

Many but not all of you know our story so bear with me while I take us all back to Jan 2007. A group of us who’d met at YK2006 in Las Vegas got together for dinner at Cantor’s for a few beers when Adam “clammyc” Lambert came to LA on a business trip.

This campaign grew out of that gathering, after Dave “dday” Dayen said “Hey Ron — don’t you live in Gary Miler’s district”?

Previous diaries in the CA-42 campaign rollout series:

7/15: thereisnospoon’s CA-42: A Kossack is running for Congress

7/16: atdnext’s CA-42: The Case Against Dirty Gary Miller

7/17: Major Danby’s CA-42:  I’m managing a netroots U.S. House campaign

7/18: CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream’s CA-42: Hi, I’m Ron Shepston and I’m running for Congress

7/19: hekebolos’s CA-42: A Netroots campaign– politics the way it should be.

7/20: dday’s CA-42: The Lay of the Land

7/21: OrangeClouds115 CA-42: “I Know His Heart”

7/22: Shockwave’s CA-42: Ron Shepston rides into a Republican stronghold

7/24: Major Danby’s CA-42: On YearlyKos, anger, and dreams

7/25: thereisnospoon’s Get Off the Internet!

7/26:  buhdydharma’s Help Save This Baby! **

7/28: clammyc’s CA-42, 2008 and the netroots: a jumping off point

THE CAMPAIGN

The creation of this site and the many other left-leaning blogs marked the beginning of a movement to make the changes we all know need to be made and in which we are actively participating. My campaign is a logical extension to actively govern while beating Democrat and Republican leaders about the head and shoulders with facts and the reality- based honest assessment of them.

We don’t get everything right and making mistakes is all part of every movement. We’ve made a few and we’re still here making some waves and giving people in the very red 42^nd a local race to feel good about. We are on the threshold of big things for the country and the world but we need more help and involvement because we are at risk here. I’m sure that we and the country will survive a lose in an +9 Republican district but we don’t want to lose. This is a case where winning and losing are definable and we know how to win.

A SHORT STORY

Let me tell you a short story about myself and something significant in understanding how I approach working with people and how I look at the netroots and grassroots support for my race.

Back in 1992 after training nearly two years and a failure after just 10 months I raced in a 508 mile bicycle race,

The Furnace Creek 508.
After a decent start under control I approached a 10-mile hill up Townes Pass leading into Death Valley. The bottom of the hill is at around 190 miles at approximately 9pm. That’s early enough so that I was still feeling strong. Halfway up the relentless 9-10% grade I was toasted as we say when we have so little left that even standing is difficult.

On a race like this riders have crews. I had a support vehicle which stayed with me and a car to scout the course ahead. They were manned by family and friends. When I stopped halfway up the hill I leaned over my handle bars for support and said to my friend and crew chief Larry – “what makes me think I can complete another 300 miles when I feel like this now”. He didn’t respond directly. I asked for a pair of Teva sandals so that I could walk a while. Larry gave them to me with the words – “Just get to the top, eat a little then you can take a rest”.

I walked about ½ mile, got back on the bike and rode to the top. When I got there at nearly midnight Larry said “sleep for a little and then you can get back on the bike”.

When I did I had new energy and new power. I passed more than a few riders to finish 6th in a field of 28. 19 did not finish.

1992 Furnace Creek 508 Results:

1) Muffy Ritz, 35, Ketchum, ID – 30:54:36

1) Eric House, 30, Palo Alto, CA – 29:54:37

2) Gerald Tessmer, 26, Bramsche, Germany – 34:55:55

3) Rick Adolph, 33, Sunnyvale, CA – 35:23:33

4) Frank Goulard, 40, Beaverton, OR – 35:40:45

5) Ron Shepston, 45, Fountain Valley, CA – 38:49:27

6) Brian Stark, 44, Paso Robles, CA – 40:17:30

7) James Byrnes, 24, Laramie, WY – 41:25:53

8) Barry Martin, 40, San Diego, CA – 43:48:36

THE HARD PART

Our campaign is now heading up the hill and I’m looking for my crew to help me get to the top and then to finish. Just as with my race on a bicycle, this is a race that is not about me but about a team who all have a common goal.

Many of you have already been extremely generous financially and emotionally. For that I’m grateful. We need to take this to the next level.

For my part I’m working from 7:15 am ’til 11-11:30 pm every day. Included in this is about 20 hours a week of call time calling people and directly asking for money.

I’m going to events like the one put on by my friends Dante “hekebolos” Adkins and Netroots Coordinator Dave “dday” Dayen for The Responsible Plan with Darcy Burner and Mary Palent. This event was held at the house of the amazing Rick Jacobs, founder of The Courage Campaign, and Shaun Kadlec.

In May we will be having two fundraisers with Ambassador Joe Wilson. We’re hoping to get his wife Valerie Plame, but we don’t know if we can pull that off. The venues and exact dates and times will be published once arrangements have been completed.

So, we’re busting butt to win the primary. Here’s how you can help.

THE ASK

We have done a cash flow projection for the final two months of the campaign. There are 7 weeks ’til the primary on Jun 3rd. The following is a monthly end-of-week cash projection.

This is an opportunity to encourage others who share our vision to join in definable goals right along with the direct campaign staff and candidate. The campaign can’t do it alone. We need your help.

Voter contact	$36,000
Email	$3,000
Robo Calls	$8,500
Mail	$10,000
Radio	$4,500
Predictive Dialer	$10,000
E-Campaign	$3,750
Google Ads	$1,750
Website Update	$2,000
Overhead	$19,500
Erik	$7,000
Theo	$9,000
Office	$1,500
Printing	$2,000
Fundraising Costs	$5,250
Joe Wilson	$2,000
Direct Mail	$1,500
Misc	$2,250
Signs	$2,500
GOTV	$1,000
Misc.	$2,250
Total	$70,250

From these elements and cash flow projections we get a weekly cash income needs:

Week 1	$13,250
Week 2	$7,750
Week 3	$7,750
Week 4	$24,250
Week 5	$6,750
Week 6	$4,750
Week 7	$5,750

Okay, that’s it. Are we going to be the source of the change we want to make or are we going to let others decide for us? We stand here with an opportunity that rarely presents itself to those in our position. We can ignore that or we can seize it as a community.

I started as a frustrated citizen, now I’m running for Congress but this campaign is not about me. It’s about all of us coming together to make the changes we know need to be made. This is about changing the character of our government to one which cares about America and Americans.

The choice is ours.

With the state budget again in crisis, tax reform is getting more attention these days. But where some see a structural revenue shortfall and a tax system that burdens the poor more than the rich, some of the usual suspects are trying to use the crisis to push solutions that will accomplish little if any good.

A new study from the California Budget Project shows that California’s tax burden is regressive – the lowest 20% income group pays 11.7% of their income in state and local taxes, whereas the top 1% only pays 7.1%. California’s income tax is highly progressive, but that income tax isn’t as high as it should be on the upper ends – as a result of that and of Prop 13, localities have had to turn to sales taxes to provide for police, fire, and public transportation.

The study also shows that corporate income was FAR larger than personal income during the last economic “recovery” – whereas the median income grew by 11%, corporate profits grew by 557%. Yet most of that corporate income went untaxed, contributing to the burden on lower income Californians.

Finally, the study showed that when all taxes – state and local – were taken into consideration, California ranked 18th in overall tax burden. Our income tax is #3, but our property taxes are #38 – explaining both the unfair burdens and the structural revenue shortfall.

Looking at these numbers one might believe that we need to reform the property tax and find ways to force the wealthy and corporations to contribute their fair share to the running of our state. But to hear Dan Walters tell it, we should do no such thing – instead we should pursue pointlessly “revenue-neutral” reforms that would accomplish little of actual value for Californians. More below.

In today’s SacBee Dan Walters argues “It’s time for a state tax overhaul” – and while the CBP numbers say the same thing, Walters goes in a very different direction than the CBP study would suggest.

Demographic change and various decrees by voters and politicians have transformed what was once a system that was roughly equally apportioned among property, sales and income taxes into one that’s utterly dominated by income taxes. The vast majority of income taxes are paid by a relative handful of high- income Californians whose incomes are increasingly tied to stock market trades and other forms of capital gains, creating boom-and-bust budgetary cycles because the spending side of the budgetary ledger has much less flexibility.

It is true that the state is dependent on income taxes that are volatile. But does Walters propose balancing that out by taxing other forms of wealth, such as capital gains and property?

But taxing real estate is a medieval concept based on the theory that such property equaled wealth. If we’re going to tax wealth, why should we tax land and buildings and exempt other forms of wealth, such as stock holdings and gold coins? It makes no sense.

Calling property taxes a “medieval concept” is flatly absurd. It’s as modern a form of taxation as there is. Most wealth in this state is held in the form of land. The primary source of individual wealth is property. In states such as New York, schools are well-funded because property taxes are kept at a sane and reasonable level. Whereas here in California, property taxes are artificially low, fueling a boom-and-bust real estate cycle and leaving the wealth that has been generated in real estate over the last 30 years untapped by taxation.

If Walters doesn’t want property tax reform, what DOES he think we should be doing?

The income tax system, as noted earlier, is terribly skewed toward high-income taxpayers. Some want to increase that burden, but that would exacerbate the volatility of the budget. Real reform would increase income taxes on middle-income Californians, who tend to get their money from wages, and thus bring more stability to a dangerously unstable system – or reduce the overall income tax burden and put more emphasis on sales and other consumption taxes.

Yet middle-income Californians already pay a larger burden of taxes than their wealthy counterparts – from 8.7% to 10.5% of their income. Any budget solution will necessarily involve getting more revenue from middle-income Californians, but it should also involve getting a lot MORE revenue from upper-income Californians.

And we already have enough emphasis on sales and consumption taxes – which are themselves volatile and decline during a recession. Those taxes help create the regressivity in California’s tax system.

Now, I do support sales tax modernization, as Walters does in his column. And I firmly believe the VLF should be restored to 1998 levels, which Walters ignores. But the primary work of tax reform should be done by eliminating the 2/3 requirement in the legislature and at the ballot box for new taxes; by excluding commercial property from Prop 13 protections; and by increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, including but not limited to income taxes. Finally, we should go after the $12 billion in tax loopholes that were created since 1993, most of which favor corporations and were eliminated in the “good times” only to haunt us here in the bad times.

And whereas Walters approvingly quotes Arnold’s call for “revenue-neutral” solutions, it is clear that California needs revenue-adding tax reform. Our schools, our health care, our transportation systems all need massive new investment if we are to maintain economic security and opportunity for all Californians here in the 21st century.

Perhaps the most important tax reform, however, isn’t in the numbers or the brackets or the rates. It’s in the mind. Californians need to start seeing taxes as an investment in their future, in their economic prosperity. A few hundred dollars a year in new taxes per person would generate significant savings to that person, especially if the revenue went to lowering the cost of college, went to hiring new teachers and reducing K-12 class sizes, went to providing alternatives to driving, went to single-payer health care (by far the most significant economic stimulus this state could provide).

The method of tax reform counts, but so does the underlying concept: we need to do a better job taxing wealth, and a better job showing Californians the value of investment in public services.

California’s prison health care czar is asking for seven billion dollars to improve prison medical care.  Before you think this sounds like a luxury, actually it’s mandated

As the state faces a chronic budget deficit of at least $8 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, paying off both prison bond packages would cost taxpayers more than $1.2 billion a year over the next quarter-century.

“This issue is not an elective,” said Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer. “It is a directive. We are under a federal court order to bring the level of health care in our correctional system up to a constitutionally acceptable standard after years and years of under-investment. So in a sense, we are having to catch up for years where this was not adequately financed.”

The alternative is mass release, which to most legislators in Sacramento is not an alternative.  The federal receiver urged some kind of resolution without delay.  We just passed AB900, which called for $7.4 billion in prison expansion bonds.  Now here’s another $7 billion in the same sector.  Lawmakers are not pleased.

Legislators gulped hard Monday as the financial toll of future prison construction rang loud and clear.

Add up the interest and principal on two years’ worth of prison bonds, and the annual hit on the general fund over the next 25 years would be $1.2 billion.

“It borders on the incredible,” said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, at a budget hearing on prison bonds.

Actually, what borders on the incredible is that you think you can keep throwing nonviolent offenders in jail and raising sentences for decades and not have that come back to haunt you.  Nobody funded the ancillary structures associated with the prisons and they fell into disrepair.  If you don’t address issues immediately they become more costly.  What’s so hard to figure?

These should not be funded through bond trickery again.  It’ll cost the state four times as much in the long run to do so.  The prudent thing to do is actually bite the bullet and pay it now, or release enough prisoners to comply with the federal magistrate.  Your choice.  You made the bed, now lie in it.  This is a $25 billion dollar deficit now.  Deal with it.

Let’s say someone comes to your house, has a good time, asks for your support and takes a lot of money with her when she leaves. Someone else drops by and says something stupid. But the first friend who dropped by doesn’t just insult the other guy, she has to use your place as a prop with which to launch her attack, knowing that a lot of folks in the neighborbood do not like your house to begin with. Well, that’s how it feels to be after hearing Hillary Clinton’s remarks the other day.  

I cannot find the quote, but to paraphrase, she said “Senator Obama can go to SAN FRANCISCO (and yes she emphasized it in her own way), raise a lot of money and insult Middle America. So she wasn’t endorsed by Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein? She didn’t raise a lot of money here? She and her husband have been here frequently? She doesn’t hang with the DC cocktail circuit? She didn’t go to Wellsley College for Women?

To those in The City who have not maxed out their contributions to her, I would recommend you ask her a few questions before you open that checkbook again. And to Gavin Newsom, I would ask if he is not tired of being made a fool of by everyone ranging from Hillary to the Olympic Planning Committee. But then again, courage may be the last thing to expect from Feinstein’s golden boy.

The Desert Sun and its online edition, mydesert.com, detailed the California Fair Political Practices Commission complaint against the Perez campaign for the 80th Assembly District for unfair practices during the California Democratic Party convention in San Jose.  For the entire article, refer to FPPC Complaint Alleges Candidate Skirting Campaign Advertising Disclosure.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed today that someone filed a complaint against 80th Assembly District Democratic candidate Manuel Perez accusing him of failing to disclose who paid for his campaign advertising.

The complaint was filed against the Coachella School Board trustee April 4.

“It’s obvious some people want to manipulate rules and don’t want to follow them,” said Greg Rodriguez, who filed the complaint. “I think everybody needs to be scrutinized by the rules they follow.”

More below the flip…

Rodriguez is a Greg Pettis for 80th Assembly District supporter, a candidate for the Palm Springs Unified School District board, and a Sen. Hillary Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this summer.  Pettis, a Cathedral City Councilman and former-Mayor Pro-tem, is the leading candidate and leading fundraiser of the four Democratic contenders for the 80th AD.

According to The Desert Sun,

Perez says he’s complied with the law.

“It’s one thing or another,” he said. “We’ve got more important things to do like walk the streets and talk to voters.”

Apparently one of the more important things that the Perez campaign has to do is voter intimidation in the Coachella Valley.  Perez’ Campaign Director, Amalia Deaztlan, was reported to intimidate one of Pettis’ Latino supporters and endorsers at the Democrats of the Desert Annual Banquet on Saturday, April 5, 2008, harshly pinching him in a manner usually applied by Latino adults to recalcitrant children, telling him after he refused to switch his allegiance from Pettis to Perez, “You are no longer one of us!”  In addition, Perez supporters have attempted to intimidate Pettis bloggers and diarists with threats and accusations.

Created with a ballot initiative in 1974, The Fair Political Practices Commission was created in a 1974 ballot initiative to investigate campaign violations of the Political Reform Act and imposes administrative penalties.

The FPPC will notify Rodriguez in writing by Friday whether the department will investigate or not, said Roman Porter, a department spokesman. Porter would not speculate on the merits of the complaint.

“One advantage of having a formal complaint signed under penalty of perjury is to reduce frivolous complaints,” he said.

State law requires disclosure on campaign advertising when advocating for or against a candidate or ballot measure.

Perez supporters created and distributed fliers advertising the Perez candidacy at the CDP convention in order to attempt to revoke the party endorsement of Pettis for the 80th AD which he obtained with over 70% of the Democratic Club votes at the Moreno Valley confab.  Perez supporters created the advertisements without any FPPC-required denotations as required for the mass production of campaign materials.  Perez supporters to date have not reported exactly how many fliers were created for distribution.  Under FPPC regulations, mass-produced advertisements are often regulated when created in numbers of 200 or greater.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell has a post at the California Progress Report on the declining number of students in teacher credential programs in California:

Since 2001-02, the state has reduced the number of underprepared teachers in the classroom by 25,000. California, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning reported, “…seemed to be on the right track toward building a teacher development system with the capacity to produce an adequate supply of teachers and deliver them to schools where they were needed most.”

So while we’re improving the quality of the teachers in the field, what about the supply of future teachers: those students in college today who are considering teaching as a profession? Unfortunately, the picture isn’t so bright….

For example, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning recently looked at the number of enrollees in teacher preparation programs since the state’s last fiscal crisis in 2003. The Center reports the following: “During the 2002-03 school year, colleges enrolled 74,203 candidates in preparation programs. The next year, that number dropped to 67,595 and the following year (2004-05) the numbers declined further to 64,753, a loss of 10,000 teacher candidates in two years. Similarly, the numbers of teaching credentials awarded dropped from 27,000 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2006.”

O’Connell could be a bit clearer here on the causes of the decline. As a result of the last budget crisis, the CSU system – which handles the bulk of teacher training in California – was hit with hundreds of millions of budget cuts, and a significant increase in student fees for professional education programs. Most students entering these programs already carry significant debt loads from their undergraduate years, and the stagnant pay for California’s teachers often makes it difficult for young people to repay these loans – especially when you add in our state’s high cost of living.

O’Connell does an excellent job of explaining how the current education budget cuts might dissuade future teachers:

This year California once again faces a budget crisis with potential cuts to education of $4.8 billion dollars. Undergraduates or those students already in teacher credential programs are thinking twice about their career choice. They are aware of the 14,000 pink slips just sent to teachers to prepare them for potential layoffs. They are well aware of the “last-hired, first-fired” rule and they ask themselves, “Do I want to pursue a career that is so unstable that I will face potential layoffs year after year?”

If we don’t find a way to stabilize our funding to schools, California may soon be facing another crisis: classrooms full of students with no teachers at the head of the class.

This is already beginning to take place. Between myself and my sister, who teaches 5th grade in Orange County, we know nearly a dozen people who are in their first years of teaching or in a credential program. Many of them have expressed regret about entering the teaching profession, especially as they worry about whether or not they’ll have a job this fall. A friend of ours who came to visit on spring break a couple weeks ago, currently a substitute teacher in Santa Ana, told me she was happy she had an accounting background, and said she thought it would be better for her to pursue an accounting degree instead of a teaching credential.

Not only will the teacher firings discourage new teachers from entering the profession, but further higher ed cuts will have the same effect. The CSU system is facing another hundred million dollar budget cut, which will certainly result in higher student fees. Thanks to the global credit crunch, however, it is now becoming much more difficult to take out student loans – meaning even fewer students will be able to pursue the necessary education for a teaching career.

Californians have to ask themselves what they really care about. A state that prefers to fire 20,000 teachers and place teacher training out of the reach of interested young people is not a state that values education. Teachers have already carried much of the burden of public education for the last 30 years. But without more financial support, and without the ability to have a secure career, one of the state’s most valuable professions is in very serious jeopardy.

John W. McCain has set up a series of “regional campaign managers” who will oversee the campaign throughout the country.  Take a look at the guy they got for California.

John McCain’s campaign has tapped John Peschong to serve as regional campaign manager for California, Republicans close to the campaign said.

Peschong has been a campaign adviser since 2007. He has a large amount of experience in California, having served as GOP executive director there in the 1990s and recently as Northwestern political director for the Republican National Committee in 2004. He was also executive director of Dan Quayle’s political action committee.

So, he helped run the Yacht Party during the Wilson and post-Wilson years just when it ran aground and became the sorry shell it is today.  He was Northwestern political director for the RNC in a year where Republicans lost the swing states in the Pacific Northwest and lost the governorships in Washington and Oregon.  And he was executive director for QUAYLE’s PAC.

Top-notch talent coming out for McCain in California.