~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 3, 2012
Warning!!! SB249 - California's Worst Gun Confiscation Threat in 20 years!!!
Liberal Democrat Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco now trying to ban and confiscate more so-called "assault weapons."
Contact your state Legislator TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE SB 249
Contact information for your state Senator can be found
here.
Contact information for your state Assembly Member can be found
here.
Also, contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to tell the state Legislature that he stands by the existing definition of detachable magazine,just as he did when he was Attorney General.
Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners across California and urge them to do the same.
California is going to need EVERYONE to help fend off this attack!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
July 31, 2012
AB 1050 (Ma)
Telecommunications: prepaid mobile telephony services: taxes and fees.
Scheduled to be heard by Sen Governance and Finance - 08/08/12
This bill would enact the Prepaid Wireless Surcharge Collection Act. The bill would establish a prepaid communications charge, as defined, based upon a percentage of the sales price of each retail transaction that occurs in this state for prepaid mobile telephony services, as defined. The prepaid communications charge would include a state component, as defined, and if a local government has adopted utility user taxes or other specified charges that are otherwise applicable to prepaid mobile telephony services and the retail transaction occurs within that jurisdiction, a local component. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to develop a method whereby a seller is required to collect the local component. The bill would require a seller, as defined, to collect the prepaid communications charge from a consumer and remit the amounts collected to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to remit that portion of the state component collected pursuant to the Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Act to the California Technology Agency and remit the balance of the state component, minus certain administrative costs incurred by the board, to the Public Utilities Commission. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to remit the local component, if applicable, to the local government. The bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to annually compute the commissions reimbursement fee and specified telecommunications universal service program fees, to post notice of those fees on its Internet Web site and to notify the State Board of Equalization of the amounts.
(2)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Brown is at it again!! Another tax!!!!
Jerry Brown is considering imposing a new tax on lumber as part of the budget.
The tax will be paid by all of us when we buy lumber, will kill construction jobs
and raise the price of building new homes and businesses. California's lumber
industry is already overregulated, and this new tax will make the problem even
worse.
It is important for folks in Orange County and San Diego to communicate to Senator
Harman and Senator Wyland respectively that a new tax should not be justified to
pay for the over regulation of the timber industry. We don't need more regulation
and taxes, we need jobs!
so I can keep track of the emails being sent. Because the budget is under consideration now, it's important for folks to get in communication with the senators as soon as possible.
LUMBER ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA & NEVADA
LUMBER ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA & NEVADA
177 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA, 59630
916/235-7490
LACN opposes additional lumber tax
The Lumber Association of California & Nevada (LACN) Board of Directors has taken
a position to oppose a proposal in the governor’s May Revision State Budget that would
apply an additional tax on the retail sale of lumber in California.
The following points are made by LACN:
1. The shifting of paying for governmental regulatory processes by selective fees and
taxes is an inappropriate and deceitful way for the state to avoid accountability to produce
a balanced budget and operate within its means.
2. In this instance, in which the regulatory activities related to reviewing and monitoring
timber harvest plans would be funded through this fee, the state agencies involved will
not and cannot accurately determine the costs of their programs. The state agencies
involved in the review of timber harvest plans are often duplicative, inefficient and subjective.
3. The state proposes to simply collect an arbitrary tax on selected products without
knowing how much revenue will be generated and with no process of sunsetting the tax
if the estimated programs costs are attained.
4. The State of California has no valid data on how much such a tax would produce.
The Board of Equalization has no means to break out lumber sales from other products commonly sold at retail lumber yards and similar businesses.
5. Collecting an additional tax at the point of sale requires, at the least, a significant
and costly reconfiguration of computer based programs that monitor sales taxes.
6. The proposal does not clearly state what type of lumber products would be included
or excluded, adding to the confusion and unfairness of the process.
7. This proposal will encourage builders and other buyers of lumber products to make
those purchases out of state, further adversely affecting the state’s economy.
8. This proposal is yet another example of the dysfunctional state government’s efforts
to operate programs and agencies that go far beyond a reasonable level of providing for
the public good and benefit.
The greater issue
This issue is one of the best examples of the worst of state policy.
The change in state law in 1973 that added significantly to the regulation of timber
harvest accelerated the process of a decline in California’s timber industry and put
this state’s timber industry at a significant disadvantage to surrounding states. It is regrettable that this renewable, environmentally beneficial and economically valuable
resource has been trapped in a combination of regulatory and political actions with a
state bureaucracy that has increased significantly over the years with little to show
for it other than enlarged state agencies, at times at odds with each other in their
regulatory processes.
In this instance the state agencies involved in Timber Harvest Plan review and regulation cannot, or will not, clearly determine the costs of their regulatory processes. That is unacceptable. Secondarily, the issue of these same state agencies at times with
overlapping, duplicative and even contradictory actions is equally unacceptable.
LACN urges this state budget proposal of funding such state agencies from an
additional lumber tax be excluded from the budget discussion until accurate, equitable
and justifiable costs of those agencies are determined.
The consideration of an additional tax to be passed on to the consumer at the retail
level is contrary to current state policy of regulatory costs being assessed to the
responsible parties or those being regulated.
In the discussion of passing on an additional tax to the public through a lumber tax,
there is no determination of how much the new tax will generate. There are no verifiable figures on the amount of lumber sold in California, only rough models conjecturing at
sales volume. This proposal pulls a percentage “out of the air” and hopes it will generate
what the agencies claim is needed to fund their programs. What if the revenue is not
what is anticipated? What if more than the agencies’ cost estimates are produced?
Prior to any consideration of such a tax, there must be accurate and verifiable figures
on the amount of revenue to be generated.
Even the attempt to impose an additional tax on retail lumber sales is not without an
increase in bureaucracy; this time from the State Board of Equalization which must
determine a means to accurately and efficiently assess and collect the tax. That, too,
will be an added cost of state government.
In the discussion to date, there has been no consideration of the effect of such a tax
on the retail sale of lumber coming in from other states. Lumber is sold directly to end
users by out-of-state firms, effectively avoiding even the state’s current sales taxes.
The challenge to the state’s timber producers from out-of-state production is cited as
one of the reasons for this current proposal. It is ironic that this out-of-state issue will
now be passed on to the retail level.
LACN is deeply aware of the challenges faced by the state’s timber industry and has consistently added its support to legislative and regulatory proposals to increase,
protect and advance this critical and historical state industry. We agree on the issues;
we disagree with the timber producers on how the regulations should be funded.
The economic impact to California
In data prepared in May 2012, by the California Forestry Association, it is noted “In
the past ten years, 27 wood products manufacturers have closed, leaving 36 currently
in operation statewide.”
At the retail end of the industry, a total of 71 California retail lumberyards have closed
their doors since 2008. (Data compiled by ProSales magazine). The most recent
closure, on June 2, 2012, is Hoyt Lumber, an Upland, California, business with roots
back to 1929. Fourteen employees lost their jobs in this small community.
In many instances, the closed lumberyards and businesses were among the oldest
and most established businesses in their communities. With the closures went several thousand local jobs and significant impacts to local and state economies. Generally,
the affected businesses were family-owned.
This proposal of an additional lumber tax will increase the costs of construction, both residential and commercial, as retailers pass it
on to consumers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Farm Bill 2012: S 3240
Senate version that they passed S 3240 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s3240pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s3240pcs.pdf
Unethical and immoral to put the Food Stamps programs as well as other “nutrition programs, social welfare” in this bill. As a matter of fact 80 % of this bill is made up of these ~~ California Tea Party
(To read more on this Bill, click here) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
California DREAM Act, AB 131
The petitions to overturn AB 131, the second part of the California "DREAM Act" that would provide public financial aid for higher education to illegal alien students, have been printed. The effort by Assemblymember Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernadino) to invalidate this law via referendum requires 504,760 valid signatures of registered voters. They need to be collected by January 6, 2012 to have the measure appear on the ballot. The referendum will then need majority approval from voters to pass.
AB 131 could require $14.5 million a year in state grants to thousands of illegal alien students at a time when the California university system has had its budget cut by $1.3 billion and there are fewer spots for all students. This bill creates a new entitlement that will entice tens of thousands of people more to come here illegally. Please help with signature gathering.
More information, including a list of distribution centers for petitions, is available at:
Or you can order petitions by e-mail. Send your name, address, and the number of petitions requested to:
or to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWSFLASH!!!!
We all know that AB131 and SB48 is not good for California. Fix the budget first then think of more programs to pander to your voters. For now, Mr. Brown, you are not helping much with California's economic situation.
California DREAM Act, AB 131
The petitions to overturn AB 131, the second part of the California "DREAM Act" that would provide public financial aid for higher education to illegal alien students, have been printed. The effort by Assemblymember Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernadino) to invalidate this law via referendum requires 504,760 valid signatures of registered voters. They need to be collected by January 6, 2012 to have the measure appear on the ballot. The referendum will then need majority approval from voters to pass.
AB 131 could require $14.5 million a year in state grants to thousands of illegal alien students at a time when the California university system has had its budget cut by $1.3 billion and there are fewer spots for all students. This bill creates a new entitlement that will entice tens of thousands of people more to come here illegally. Please help with signature gathering.
More information, including a list of distribution centers for petitions, is available at:
Or you can order petitions by e-mail. Send your name, address, and the number of petitions requested to:
or to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NO ON PROP 28
PROP 28: Limits on Legislators Terms in Office
This proposition is a SCAM on the voters, it claims that no person can serve more than 12 years in either the Assembly or California Senate.
Prop. 28, the “scam” initiative, does the following:
Proposition 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Assembly for 12 years, not the 6 year maximum limit under current law. If passed, State Assembly members will actually have their time in office doubled!
Proposition 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Senate for 12 years, not the 8 year maximum limit under current law. If passed, State Senate members will also have their time in office increased!
Over 80% of current politicians will have their term limits lengthened!
Vote NO on this latest attempt by special interest to maintain control of our Capitol.
NO ON PROP 29!!!!!
Prop 29: Imposes Additional taxes on tobacco products
Another New Tax for California:
Here’s why a growing coalition of California taxpayers, law enforcement, labor, and small businesses have come together to oppose this poorly drafted, flawed measure:
· Billions in new taxes, but nothing to fix the state budget: raises taxes by $735 million annually without allocating any money to pay down our $10+ billion budget deficit or fund existing critical programs like education or public safety.
· Allows California’s tax dollars to be spent in other states and countries: does not require any of the new tax revenue to be spent on research in California, or even the United States. Tax money raised from Californians should be spent in California to create jobs.
· More Wasteful Spending: Allows a new, unaccountable board to spend up to $110 million every year buying buildings and real estate for huge for-profit companies. Nothing requires those buildings to be built in California – they could be out of the state or even out of the country.
· Permits Conflicts of Interest: Allows organizations represented by Commissioners to receive taxpayer funding from the new Commission.
· Circumvents Voter-Approved Protections for School Funding: Voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring 40% of new tax revenue go to schools, but the career politician behind this measure is using a loophole to get around this requirement.
Over 3000 businesses in California have joined the coalition against this proposition, please vote NO on Prop 29~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More ObamaCare Stupidity:
According to our friends at LifeNews…
“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer… The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered.
As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to directly subsidize abortions.”
Here’s the bottom line: All Americans were lied to by our President, who promised that ObamaCare would not enhance abortion services, nor would taxpayer money be used to fund these murderous procedures!
Assembly Bill No. 678CHAPTER 397Pan
Medi-Cal: supplemental provider reimbursement.
Adding Section 14105.94 to the Welfare and Institutions Code,relating to Medi-Cal, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effectimmediately.Reimbursements for Medi-Cal ground emergency medical transportation services.
This Bill is paying for emergency ground transportation services IF you are a QUALIFIED Medi-Cal recipient OR certain low-income persons. Let me try to understand this. If ObamaCare is deemed unConstitutional, why are states like California approving Bills that would enslave all California taxpayers with the responsibility of paying for services to certain low income persons and Medi-Cal recipients? Mind you, I am NOT rich by any means but you and I will be paying for this. If I were to lose my insurance coverage, just because I saved money and put money in a savings account and be responsible for myself and family, I would NEVER qualify for this benefit. I THINK that you would consider me the middle-class family that is disappearing. Why? Because it would benefit the liberals GREATLY if I became low income and dependent on the government so that I start voting for them so I continue getting handouts. Like most government agencies now, they would include wording in their social benefits bills like "certain low-income persons." This wording is to enable them to pick and choose WHO gets approved for such benefits. Just like they give waivers to some people or groups from being charged certain taxes and fees based on WHO they are and WHO they know. (more...)
AB1172
AB 1172 (Bonilla and Mendoza)
Charter schools: petition for establishment: decision to grant or deny.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, within 60 days of the receipt of a petition for the establishment of a charter school, to either grant or deny the charter, as specified. Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from denying a petition unless the governing board makes written factual findings in support of one or more specified findings.This bill would include the finding that the charter school would have a negative fiscal impact on the school district, as specified, among those findings upon which a school district may base denial of a petition for the establishment of a charter school.
Ayes - 48
Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bonnie Lowenthal, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Charles Calderon, Chesbro, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Hill, Hueso, Huffman, John A. Pérez, Lara, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, Portantino, Roger Hernández, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, V. Manuel Pérez, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
Susan Bonilla is a Democrat representing the 11th district, encompassing parts of Contra Costa County. Prior to being elected to the state assembly, she was a member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
Antonio "Tony" Mendoza (Democrat) representing the 56th District. Before serving in the Assembly, Mendoza was a fourth grade teacher in East Los Angeles and served as a mayor and city councilman in Artesia.
Patriots, the above members of the assembly voted to, once again as always, take away your rights to choose better schools for your children. So typical. Now, let's try to see what political party these goons belong to, shall we? Don't forget to exercise your right to VOTE THEM OUT!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
City Vehicle License Fee Revenue - SB89eliminated Vehicle License Fee (VLF) allocation to the cities effective July 1st 2011. Cities no longer can benefit from the VLF fees that vehicle owners pay annually. The tax has been paid by auto owners since 1935. Unless a change in law is made, the cities and counties can kiss this funding goodbye.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Dawn Wildman - California Tea Party:
CLASS ACT REPEALED NOW! ACTION ALERT!
Last night the 112 Congress passed HR 1173 which repealed the CLASS Act portion of the ObamaCare law!
Late last night the Congress voted to repeal the CLASS Act with a vote of 239-159 with even 28 Democrats voting to repeal!
On to the Senate, action alert to follow today!
Let’s make sure the Senate does it job by repealing this portion as well!
The bipartisan majority on the Democrat led Senate Appropriations Committee voted to defund part of the ObamCare law, the CLASS Act. The head of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, and other Administrative wonks finally realized that the unsustainable program would be an albatross around their necks if they didn’t shelve it now. However, it is not gone, just merely waiting in the background for some new infusion of taxpayer cash, to once again forge creative financing for the current Administration. This is where the “savings” in the ObamaCare bill came from and now it is finally out and for the whole nation to see the enormous failure of this program.
Polls are continuing to show that the law is going out of favor with most people as the following Reuters article highlighted:
Support waning for Obama healthcare law: poll
Oct 28,2011
(Reuters) - Americans' opinion of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform in October reached its lowest point since the law passed in March 2010, according to a monthly poll by the non-profit, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
The view of the law has been roughly evenly split since its passage, but in October 51 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, while 34 percent said their opinion was favorable, poll results released on Friday showed.
In September, the split was 43 percent to 41 percent. And October's gap is closest to the one the poll tracked in July 2010, when the division was 50 percent to 35 percent.
The gap widened largely because the law appeared to be falling out of favor with Democrats, whose support dropped to its lowest point of 52 percent from 65 percent in September.
Although Democrats were still much likelier to view the law favorably than Republicans or independents, the percentage of Democrats who said they and their families were better off under the healthcare law dropped significantly to 27 percent in October from 43 percent in September.
On the Senate floor Senators Barrasso (WY), Thune (SD) and Sessions (AL) were discussing the need to repeal this program altogether and they are right. Now is the time to get rid of another failed government program that would have only been yet another taxpayer subsidized program for years to come. Richard Foster the long time actuary for the government said this was a “recipe for disaster” and as such the Administration finally cried “uncle” and defunded it, so why would we keep it around in any form?
Let’s see government shrink by at least one failed program and find out who the real heroes are in Congress by asking all of our Senators to Repeal the CLASS ACT now!
Below are the sponsors of the Bill and author John Thune.
Call your Senator and ask them to support S720 to Repeal the CLASS Act.
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Telephone: (202) 224-6361
Fax: (202) 224-2126
Four-term incumbent Democrat Daniel Akaka was re-elected in 2006 with 62% of the vote. Akaka has decided not to run for re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
202) 224-5521
TTY: (202) 224-1792
Tollfree (from New Mexico only): 1-800-443-8658
9 am to 6 pm Eastern Time (two hours difference from New Mexico. If it's 8 am in New Mexico, it's 10 am in D.C.) Monday through Friday
Five-term incumbent Democrat Jeff Bingaman was re-elected in 2006 with 70.6% of the vote. Bingaman has decided to not run for re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Sherrod Brown, Ohio
p (202) 224-2315
f (202) 228-6321
One-term incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown was elected in 2006 with 56% of the vote. Brown will seek re-election in 2012 when he will be 60 years old.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Maria Cantwell, Washington
202-224-3441
202-228-0514 - FAX
202-224-8273 - TDD
Two-term incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell was re-elected in 2006 with 57% of the vote over Republican Mike McGavick. Cantwell will seek re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Benjamin Cardin, Maryland
(202) 224-4524 phone
(202) 224-1651 fax
First-term incumbent Democrat Ben Cardin was elected in 2006 with 54% of the vote against former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. He will be 69 years old in 2012 and will seek re-election.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Thomas Carper, Delaware
Phone:202-224-2441
Fax: 202-228-2190
Two-term incumbent Democrat Tom Carper was reelected with 70% of the vote in 2006. He will be 65 years old in 2012. Carper will seek re-election.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Robert Casey, Jr., PennsylvaniaPhone: (202) 224-6324
Toll Free: (866) 802-2833
Fax: (202) 228-0604
One-term incumbent Democrat Bob Casey, Jr., the son of popular former Governor Bob Casey, was elected in 2006 with 58.7% of the vote, defeating then-incumbent Rick Santorum. He was the first Democrat elected to a full term in the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania since 1962. Casey will seek re-election.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Kent Conrad, North Dakota
Four-term incumbent Democrat Kent Conrad was re-elected in 2006 with 69% of the vote. Conrad has decided to not run for re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Diane Feinstein, California
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
Four-term incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein was re-elected in 2006 with 59% of the vote. She will be 79 years old in 2012 and will run for re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Tel. (212) 688-6262
Fax (866) 824-6340
Two-term former Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the vote. She narrowly lost the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination to Barack Obama. She resigned on January 21, 2009 when the Senate confirmed her as Secretary of State. On January 23, Governor David Paterson appointed Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to the seat. Gillibrand won a special election in 2010 with 61.2% of the vote. Gillibrand will seek re-election.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Main Line: 202-224-3244
Main Fax: 202-228-2186
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
One-term incumbent Democrat Amy Klobuchar was elected in 2006 with 58% of the vote, she will seek re-election in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
Phone:202-224-5653
Fax: 202-224-9787
Four-term incumbent Democrat Herb Kohl, owner of the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks and member of the founding family of the Kohl's department store chain, announced he would not seek reelection in 2012. He was reelected in 2006 with 67% of the vote and will be 77 years old in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Joe Manchin, West VirginiaPhone: 202-224-3954
Fax: 202-228-0002
Nine-term former Democrat Robert Byrd, the longest serving U.S. Senator in history, was re-elected in 2006 with 64.4% of the vote. On June 28, 2010, Senator Byrd died at the age of 92, leaving this seat vacant. A special election to fill this seat was held in November 2010, which Democratic Governor Joe Manchin won with 53.5% of the vote. Manchin will be 65 years old in 2012.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Phone 202-224-6154
Fax 202-228-6326
One-term incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill was elected in 2006 with 49.6% of the vote, narrowly defeating then-incumbent Jim Talent. McCaskill will seek re-election in 2012, so far with no prominent Democrat challenging her.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Phone: 202.224.4744
One-term incumbent Democrat Bob Menendez became the first Hispanic Senator to represent New Jersey in January 2006 when Former Senator Jon Corzine appointed him to the office after having resigned to become Governor, following his election to said office in November 2005. Menendez comfortably defeated Republican state Senator Tom Kean, Jr., son of popular former Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean and was comfortably elected in November 2006 to a full term. He will be 58 years old in 2012.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Tel: 1-202-224-6551
Fax: 1-202-228-0012
Two-term incumbent and former Governor Democrat Ben Nelson was re-elected in 2006 with 64% of the vote. He will be 71 years old in 2012. Nelson has decided to seek a third term. Pundits and analysts have suggested Nelson will be one of the most vulnerable incumbents in 2012 after he secured deals to exempt Nebraska from new Medicaid payments, ease excise taxes on home state health insurance companies, and broker abortion deals in the Senate healthcare bill.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Bill Nelson, Florida
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183
Two-term incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson was reelected with 60% of the vote in 2006 against controversial former Secretary of State of Florida Katherine Harris. He will be 70 years old in 2012. Nelson will seek re-election.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Debbie Stabenow, MichiganPhone: (231) 929-1031
Two-term incumbent Democrat Debbie Stabenow was re-elected in 2006 with 57% of the vote to 41% for Oakland County Sheriff and former State Senate Majority Leader Michael Bouchard after narrowly defeating Republican incumbent Spencer Abraham in 2000. Republican Conservative Constitutionalist and Tea Party Activist Chad Dewey announced his intent to run in the 2012 election while attending the Tax Day Tea Party event in Washington D.C. on April 15, 2010. Also libertarian activist Scotty Boman is considering a run as a Republican. On May 11, it was reported that Congressman Thad McCotter was thinking of entering the race.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Jon Tester, Montana
Phone (202) 224-2644
Fax (202) 224-8594
One-term incumbent Democrat Jon Tester was elected in 2006 by a 49.2% to 48.3% margin, narrowly defeating incumbent Conrad Burns. Tester will seek re-election. Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg has announced his candidacy for the seat. A March 20, 2011 poll taken for Lee Newspapers shows Tester leading Rehberg by a statistically insignificant margin of 46% to 45%.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Jim Webb, Virginia
Phone: 202-224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363
Toll Free Number1-866-507-1570
One-term incumbent Democrat Jim Webb was elected in 2006 by a margin of 0.6%, narrowly defeating then-incumbent George Allen in the biggest upset of the 2006 elections. Announcing that he did not want spend his life in politics, Webb said he will not run for re-election. The Republican Party of Virginia decided that the Republican nominee for this senate seat would be determined through a primary, as opposed to a state convention which had been used in more recent years. On January 24, 2011, George Allen announced that he will seek the Republican nomination. Jamie Radtke, head of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots, has filed papers to run for the Republican nomination.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island202-224-2921 phone
202-228-6362 fax
One-term incumbent Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse was elected in 2006 with 53.5% of the vote, defeating then-incumbent Lincoln Chafee by 6 percentage points. Whitehouse will seek reelection.Potential Republican Candidates include Former Governor Donald Carcieri, 2010 Republican nominee for Governor John Robitaille, and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian.
Voted for ObamaCare.
Voted Against Cut, Cap, and Balance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stop SB 810 in CA Universal Health Care
This is a call to action.
URGE A NO VOTE AND STOP SB 810.
This is the first I've heard of SB 810 as I'm sure it may be you some, if not all of you. It was just approved by Senate committee 6-2. SB 810 needs to be stopped. Please make the necessary calls and/or write letters. Names and contact information is in the attached email below. If a legislator puts you off because you are not in "their district" remind then that their vote affects everyone everywhere in California!
80% of Americans are against Obamacare. That's why the 2008 Democrat super majority gave us all the Affordable National Health Care of America enema; because they could finally force legislation through unimpeded by ANY opposition. They didn't dare put it to a popular vote because it never would have passed; we would have read it and found out what was in it much to Nancy Pelosi's consternation.
SB 810 creates much the same health care monopoly as Obamacare but it's just a tad less ambitious. Again, the liberal, progressive, Democrat majority controlled State legislature is preparing to get their foot in the door. Once they do that there's no stopping them from expanding it to become a health care monstrosity forcing private plans out of business or usurp them in to becoming a "public/private partnership" (aka a B Corp - Benefit Corp.)
Timing is everything. The Democrats control the State legislature and the governor's office. It doesn't seem to matter to them that California is broke.
A program of this magnitude needs to be vetted and well debated in public by all - especially the taxpayers who will be footing the bill's bill. Every government program starts out so benevolent but then grows and morphs into something less benevolent, more controlling, and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE (like the high-speed rail project.) (See also, Romneycare.)
It's NOT so much about health care as it is about control. Is it just me or is our government putting the "pedal to the metal" lately to enact every kind of scheme to control and enslave us all? Have you noticed that their legislation only seems to apply to us and NEVER seems to apply to them?
The solution should be MORE free market competition. Allow every HMO to offer their own brand of healthcare plans across State borders and allow less expensive name brand and generic pharmaceuticals from Canada.
Keep up the good fight.
"Public opinion is a powerful weapon, but not as effective as Public Action." - John Spooner, Sr.
Reclaim the Republic.
Restore the Constitution.
Rodney Spooner
Riverside Tea Party Patriots ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HR4646 - 1% TRANSACTION TAX?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOVERNOR BROWN CONTINUES TO BEWILDER AND CONFOUND EVERYONE
By: David Siders of Sacramento Bee
He didn't earn the nickname "Moonbeam" for nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed and Vetoed Bills
Medical access for minors
AB 499 (Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Allow those 12 and older to seek medical care to prevent sexually transmitted infections without parental consent.
Analysis:
A coalition of parental rights advocates, vaccination opponents and conservative and religious groups is lobbying furiously against the bill, flooding Brown's office with phone calls and characterizing the measure as an affront to parents' rights. Supporters cast the bill as a logical, and potentially lifesaving, step to promote public health, pointing out that those as young as 12 have for decades been able to consent on their own to be diagnosed and treated for sexually transmitted diseases.
Needle exchange
AB 604 (Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Allow the state Department of Public Health to authorize a needle-exchange program in any city or county where it determines that conditions exist for rapid spread of HIV, viral hepatitis or other potentially deadly or disabling infections.
Analysis:
The lobbying battle pits supporters - AIDS activists, other health-care advocates and the nurses union - vs. cities and a smattering of law enforcement groups. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed similar efforts.
Open carry
AB 144 (Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada-Flintridge)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Criminalize openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public. The bill exempts peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting.
Analysis:
The measure, pushed by law enforcement and opposed by gun rights groups, targets the "open carry" movement, marked by gatherings of people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.
Sobriety checkpoints
AB 353SIGNEDand AB 1389- VETOED(Assemblymen Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles and Mike Allen, D-Santa Rosa)-
What they would do:
AB 353 restricts local police from impounding cars at sobriety checkpoints solely because a driver is unlicensed. AB 1389 defines how sobriety checkpoints are to be conducted in line with a California Supreme Court decision.
Analysis:
Both bills seek to stop what some see as a money-making scheme by some small cities, which use sobriety checkpoints to impound thousands of cars from unlicensed low-income drivers who can't afford to retrieve them. Law enforcement groups and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers oppose AB 1389.
Rifle sales records
AB 809 (Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Require the state to keep records of rifle sales, as they do now for handguns.
Analysis:
Police and gun control advocates say the measure, which would take effect in January 2014, would increase public safety by informing law enforcement of what guns they may face at a crime scene. Opponents say it would accomplish little because criminals do not comply with gun registration rules.
Cellphones in prisons
SB 26 (Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles) - SIGNED
What it would do:
Toughens restrictions on inmates having cellphones inside prisons and prescribes a six-month sentence and a fine up to $5,000 for smuggling a cell phone into a prison.
Analysis:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar version of this bill last year, saying it was too soft on inmates who have cellphones and prison guards and others who smuggle them.
Alcohol and self-checkout lanes
AB 183 (Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Prohibit grocery stores from selling beer, wine or liquor using electronic self-checkout lanes.
Analysis:
The bill was pushed by the grocery clerks' union and police chiefs, who argued that it would help stop underage drinking. Business groups and grocers opposed the measure, noting that clerks oversee alcohol sales at self-checkout lanes now. They said the bill was motivated by the clerks' union trying to stop Fresh & Easy, a nonunion chain that uses only staff-supervised self-checkout lanes.
Farmworkers
SB 126 (Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Give farmworkers greater protections in labor organizing disputes with growers by tightening the Agricultural Labor Relations Board timelines, toughening mandatory mediation and allowing the board to certify a labor organization if it finds gross employer misconduct that prevents a fair union election in the future.
Analysis:
Brown will sign it because it is a compromise he proposed after he vetoed a bill that would have let farmworkers organize by submitting signed petition cards instead of by secret ballot.
Budget reform
SB 14 (Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis)-VETOED
What it would do:
Require the state to begin "performance-based budgeting." Each state department would have to provide lawmakers its goals, performance measures, target outcomes and performance data from previous years.
Analysis:
This could be a no-brainer for Brown. It passed unanimously and was pushed by a long list of good government, labor and business groups.
Tax breaks
SB 508 (Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis)-VETOED
What it would do:
Require all corporate and individual tax breaks enacted after Jan. 1 to automatically end in 10 years. Each proposed tax break would have to include specific goals and performance criteria.
Analysis:
The automatic sunset would change a political dynamic that nags Democrats, at least for future tax breaks: they can pass on a majority vote, but require a two-thirds vote to repeal. Republicans and their business allies opposed the bill, arguing that the sunset provision should apply to spending proposals, too.
Fingerprint requirement
AB 6 (Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar)VETOED
What it would do:
Among other things, remove the requirement that food stamp recipients be fingerprinted.
Analysis:
Supporters note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has cited the fingerprinting requirement as one reason California has one of the worst participation rates in the federal food stamp program. Previous attempts either died in the Legislature or were vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Dream Act II- SIGNED ( Monday, Tim Donnelly filed a referendum against this Dream Act)
AB 131 (Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles)
What it would do:
Allow undocumented California State University and community college students who are eligible for in-state tuition to receive publicly funded student aid.
Analysis:
Brown sought and received changes in the bill to lower its costs by not allowing graduates of technical schools and adult schools to participate, and delaying implementation until January 2013. He signed a companion bill that allows students access to private financial aid.
Ballot measures
SB 202 (Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Require all initiatives be put before voters in November elections and moves a legislative-approved ballot measure on spending restrictions from the June 2012 ballot to November 2014.
Analysis:
The bill was pushed by unions, which want the anti-labor "paycheck protection" measure to appear on next November's ballot, when they believe the political conditions will be more favorable for them to defeat it.
Online voter registration
SB 397 (Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco)-SIGNED
What it would do:
Allow for creation of an online voter registration system - using signatures from the DMV to verify eligibility - in time for the 2012 election.
Analysis:
Supported by voters' groups, the bill was opposed by the DMV, which could signal a veto. The department believes developing the system in time for next year's election is unrealistic.
