In Closing, a Word From the Candidate

I am running for this seat to make sure the people of the 20th State Senate District have a choice instead of having our incumbent win by default. She may have delivered the pork for the district, but many of her votes were dreadful which led me to put my hat in the ring for the second time.

I do thank the voters during my first run for voting for me, and I hope more individuals jump on board in 2018.

There are many issues that I wish our incumbent voted for the opposite position such as the water rationing law of AB 1668. The problem is we are releasing so much water to the ocean where our farmers and residents could use the water instead. I don’t think elites such as my incumbent could run her household on 55 gallons of water per day per person either. The key should be WATER STORAGE, so we can have enough water to meet our growing population and agriculture industry.

SB 620 was another stinker that my opponent supported, this law basically does not force judges to give enhancements if you use a gun in a violent crime. Kill someone in cold blood with a gun, with our weakened judicial system you will likely get a sentence half as long.

AB 398 was a disappointing indirect tax on the people of our state. Commuters will likely face another 60 cents rise in their gasoline costs in 2021. With many people commuting to make ends meet, this will hurt our working families big time. Not all destinations have convenient public transportation routes as an alternative from the now costly gasoline.  Also, after working an 8-9-hour shit, many people are not that enthusiastic to take twice as long to get home after work. I know my opponent loves sustainability, but it is not fiscally sustainable for many working people of our district.

There are plenty more bills where they came from, but I do not want to bore people either.

My aspiration is to help generate a climate where more equipped candidates will run in future years in our community. We function better where a diversity of ideas is showcased.

Water Rationing Bills Passed Before Election

Gov. Brown signed Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 May 31, 2018, which are jointly designed to overhaul California’s approach to conserving water.
(Mike MORRELL and Jay OBERNOLTE voted AGAINST these bills…)  … This was quietly signed and after many voters already sent in their ballots not knowing
this scheme imposed by the Democratic legislature.
The measures impose a number of new or expanded requirements on state water agencies and local water suppliers, and provide for significantly greater state oversight of local water suppliers’ water use, even in non-drought years. They were adopted in response to Brown’s May 2016 executive order, which called to make water conservation a “way of life” in California.
Among other things, AB 1668 and SB 606 require the State Water Resources Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Water Resources, to establish long-term urban water use efficiency standards by June 30, 2022. Those standards will include components for indoor residential use, outdoor residential use, water losses and other uses.
Regarding indoor residential use, the new laws set a standard of 55 gallons per-person, per-day through Jan. 1, 2025. After that date, the amount will be incrementally reduced over time. For the development of outdoor residential use standards, the bills require DWR to conduct studies of landscaping and climate throughout the State by 2021. DWR will then provide the resulting data to SWRCB and local water suppliers for development of urban water use objectives.
In addition, the bills will require local water suppliers to calculate and comply with their water use objectives and report those objectives and actual use to DWR. New five-year drought risk assessments and water shortage contingency plans must also be incorporated into Urban Water Management Plans.
Starting in 2027, local water suppliers’ failure to comply with SWRCB’s adopted long-term standards could result in fines of $1,000 per day during non-drought years, and $10,000 per day during declared drought emergencies and certain dry years.
These are just some of the many changes ushered in by AB 1668 and SB 606. As the new laws are implemented by SWRCB and DWR over the next several years, they will dramatically change how local water suppliers plan for, report and achieve water use efficiency and drought management within their service areas.
– Best Best & Krieger
Usual laundry : 40 gallons
Single toilet flush: 1.8 to 3 gallons 
Shower ( 8 min ) : 17 gallons 
Drink (average adult) : 0.71 gallon
 
This does not include pets, cleaning tub, etc… 
 

Thank Our Incumbent For Regressive Taxes

                       Bill                Impact                    Her Vote
SB-1 Gas and Car Tax (2017) · Increased the Excise tax on gasoline to 12 cents a gallon and diesel even more.

· Increased vehicle registration fees $25-175

YES
Sb-231 Local government: fees and charges. · Allows property tax to be increased for storm water projects without voter approval. YES
SB-2 Transaction Tax · Added a $75 (max $225) tax for real estate transactions YES
Ab 398 Cap and trade · Could raise gas prices by an estimated 63 cents per gallon in 2021.

· Make our state even more expensive to do business in.

YES

Transportation Funding

Transportation funding is a very touchy subject in our state. We have factions with different sets of priorities and projects across our state that local agencies want to see funded. The main source of transportation funding is through gasoline taxes in California, but due to environmental regulations and punitive gasoline tax increases from the 2021 increase in AB 398 the sales of gasoline will eventually decline, and legislators are looking for new ways of funding.

The problem is the solution of the vehicle mileage tax which is gradually going to be implemented in our state with SB 1328. Although its designed to be a replacement for funding transportation services in our state it is also can be designed to limit our freedoms as a people in California.

I could understand that we want people using alternative fuels to also pay their share of the costs of using our roads in the state, but the environmental faction does not want the common people driving. California has been a state designed on the car since the invention of the mass market automobile nearly a century ago where state and regional leaders want to transform the culture in our state to public transportation instead of people relying on their cars even if they are electric or hydrogen.

If a VMT is proposed, we need to make sure there are consumer protections such as the government has no right to turnoff one’s right to drive if one drives too much. Government would be prohibited from charging people for the right to use their car on top of VMT such as having to pay for a 10-dollar day pass to use your car. There should be prohibitions on overuse pricing. You simply pay what you drive. I am also worried that VMT will be bad on the privacy angle as well where government will have an easier time to track you down.

If we were going to implement the VMT in California I would use the baseline of 40 miles per gallon to help calculate the cost of taxation. 1.5 cents a mile would be the cost in our state that would be the cost that would include federal and state taxes at the same time at current prices.

However, VMT should not be immediately implemented unless gasoline tax receipts decline more than 30% in a three-year period. Politicians usually like to implement solutions in search of a problem such as the misguided attempts in trying to regulate home schooling earlier in 2018. Continue reading Transportation Funding

The Trouble with Health Care in California

 

Yes, SB 562 the single payer bill supported by our incumbent state senator is still ready to advance through the legislature even though the speaker of the assembly decided to give it an impasse. The nurse’s union, Gavin Newsom and my incumbent are deluded to think that single payer will be the salvation for the people of our state and my district.

I agree that people in the 20th State Senate District want improved access to health care and services. Our district is one of the top fourth of those not doing that well economically and people are thirsty for a solution even if it wrecks the health care infrastructure.

It is a mistake that our incumbent voted for this bill when the provisions were not fully explained. Single payer may be the red meat for the supporters of the incumbent, but the principles of the legislation are not going to be sustainable. It will not be like a buffet lunch at a top Las Vegas casino with SB 562 which the proponents are trying to tell the state it will become where they state that you can get all the services you need with no co-payments, deductibles, or insurance premiums and they will not care about your residency status in the country either. However, you will be paying more taxes in exchange for an increased role of the state in health care.

With so many people wanting health care its highly likely that the infrastructure will be stressed. The budget will be rationed just as much as private sector health insurance programs. It will not be like cake and ice cream for all. We must come up with an estimated 400 billion dollars a year to fund this program yearly. To help come up with the funding the Democrats in our state who have been resisting the Republicans will have to convince them to surrender Medicare and Medicaid money to the state of California if they keep control of the presidency or either chamber of the legislature in the coming years. Senior citizens will be reluctant to sacrifice the federal maintained program in exchanged for the California managed program. How will we be funding this severely costly program that will cost more than four Jerry Brown rail systems each year was the most integral part that the authors Atkins and Lara failed to share to the public. Continue reading The Trouble with Health Care in California

Low Expectations In Education Must End

It all began with the elimination of the California High School Exit Examination where former Senator Carol Liu suspended the high school exit examination until the end of this current school year in 2015 in SB 172. How will we know how students are doing and did our students learn during their time as high school students was the big concern of many Californians. The 2018-2019 school year is approaching, and it seems there is no replacement for the CAHSEE for our students that are based on the new Common Core standards that California utilizes.

It is perceived that suspending the exit examination was simply just a way to mask low graduation rates in our schools. We should figure out why our students are not learning, we are spending a big chunk of our state budgets on K-12 education and we should make sure that our students are doing their reading, writing and mathematics up to a reasonable level. One of my policy suggestions is to pilot reading programs in the high schools so we can improve reading skills of our students as an elective or required class depending on one’s skill level. If students can comprehend the material that they are learning they should be successful.

Recently this year the California State University is joining the low expectations parade. The leader of the CSU Timothy White wants to eliminate placement exams and remedial classes to help students get to standards in the university. Placement exams have been used in the Community College system to help students take the right classes for their needs, so they do not take classes that are not too advanced or too basic which helps save students and taxpayers money. Timothy White may feel that waiving the requirements may accelerate graduation of our students where they may not linger in the system longer, but maybe we should give students better class registration if they comply with placement exams and make sure they go through advising each quarter or semester. The action against placement exams seems very irrational. Continue reading Low Expectations In Education Must End

FEBRUARY UPDATE

I have all my signatures and I am almost ready to go to the county office to be a declared candidate for State Senate for the 20th District again.

I will be your Republican candidate to offer you a choice from the former city councilman and the incumbent from the Democratic Party.

If you do not like Propositions 47, 57 and AB 109 which have made our neighborhoods dangerous.

If you do not like how our governor and legislators could care less that we do not build new water storage to help us keep the water we receive instead of us flushing it down to the ocean.

If you do not like how gasoline can rise another 70 cents plus in 2021 thanks to our incumbent assemblyman and state senator voting for AB 398.

There are plenty more issues to discuss in this campaign and I hope we have spirited discussions about them.

I also was interviewed by a Bay Area newspaper about my race as well.

Our Incumbent The Obstacle to Small Business

I recently learned that my incumbent state senator who I desire to challenge for a rematch has a very lousy 8% score with the National Federation for Independent Business.

Small business owners are the lifeblood of our economy. These are the people who help make our communities and our state successful. If our incumbent and the district wants stuff like single payer health care then platitudes are not going to cash the checks.

We can not afford for more businesses to fold or move to states such as Nevada and Texas. We need the jobs and tax revenue as a whole. With automation due to the unsustainable minimum wage increase we need more places where people can find opportunity. Not all of us could work for government or the tech industry to find the great wage of success.

Many of the bills that NFIB opposed led to increased liabilities financially and legally that were displayed on the 2017 scorecard which could be found from the link above.  She voted against the organization 11 times, abstained once and voted with them on one bill.  Some of the bills mentioned were to expand paid family leave which increases costs on businesses who may be running on tight margins, bills to ban counties from using private labor to do contracts and lastly cap and trade 2.0 which will make operating in California a more costly obligation.

I would like to see companies such as Toyota and Mazda to pick California instead of Alabama. I would like to see companies like Nestle and Toyota remain instead of having migrated out.

Where is the leadership from our feminist state senator?

The #metoo movement is going forwards where the men who have sexually harassed/abused women in politics and in Hollywood have taken consequences where they either lost gigs as actors or lost their seats as legislators as examples. However it seems even when it comes to sexual harassment and abuse if it affects their political party they could care less when it comes to Senator Tony Mendoza of Artesia.

Our incumbent has the union label stamped on her just as much as the leader Kevin De Leon and the new leader Toni Atkins where she is absolutely an insider with some pull in the chamber. They asked Tony to exit the chamber for a month while an investigation will be conducted, but the alleged offender is still in Sacramento conducting business when he was told to lay low where he was working on bills in Sacramento while on leave. Hopefully Kevin Le Leon will tell him to stay away until his suspension is over.

If you are not happy with the lack of leadership from the California State Senate Democratic Caucus, feel free to call Connie and or Kevin De Leon. Our incumbent says she was going to be a strong leader for women in her first few campaign mailers in 2014, but she needs to be consistent in what she is preaching. Those interns who work for politicians such as Tony Mendoza are approaching the age of her older daughter and she should want respect for all interns who work for the chamber no matter what political party the host legislator comes from.

Its not about protecting women it seems, it seems the incumbent and her friends want to protect the ability to raise taxes by not booting him for his transgressions.

Postscript: To be fair, she did vote for Melissa Melendez’s whistleblower bill AB 403 recently. However it seems on the Mendoza issue she is running the clock.