From Rep. Miller's Office
Senate Health Care Bill Will Increase Taxes and Hamper Consumer Choice
Washington, Oct 9 - According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Senate Finance Committee’s health care mark, like the House health care bill, would mandate health insurance. Specifically, beginning in July 2013, the proposal would establish a requirement for individuals to obtain insurance and would in many cases impose a financial penalty on people who did not do so. Moreover, the Senate mark would allow the government to decide what health care insurance policies are acceptable, thereby limiting consumer choices and increasing government intrusion in personal decisions. Although CBO estimates the modified Senate Finance Committee healthcare overhaul bill would cost $829 billion over 10 years and will decrease the deficit by $81 billion, this is accomplished by raising taxes by $500 billion on employers and those who already have insurance, as well as by cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits by over $400 billion. Furthermore, according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, at least 71 percent of the individual mandate tax penalties in the Senate Finance bill would be levied on Americans earning less than $250,000. Congressman Miller is deeply concerned about Congressional health care proposals that increase taxes and slash benefits for our nation’s seniors and will continue to fight for effective health care solutions.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Would Chris Norby's Brother be allowed as his Chief of Staff?
I don't want this blog to turn into a Norby-bashing blog, but I wonder if he can bring his brother up to Sacramento to be his COS there, too?
Latest NorbyWatch Email
From NorbyWatch,
It is a bad day for the Norby for Assembly campaign. Things are starting to crumble as people find out more about him.
First, Frank Mickadeit has a column in the Orange County Register today that includes a claim by former Fullerton City Councilwoman Linda LeQuire that Norby had sexual harassment issues on three occasions with City of Fullerton employees.
Here is the key passage in the Mickadeit piece --
The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then." Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died. Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment. The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers both. "His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where the council was apprised something had happened. S There were warnings to Chris not to do things S to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in nature."
Everyone knows about the problems he had as an Orange County Supervisor with a former employee....but now we can see this is a pattern of behavior. Then last night the California Republican Assembly has a debate. Some new guy that no one has ever heard of named Richard Faher goes after Norby for the sexual harassment on the county employee. What would Faher have done if he had known about the incidents in Fullerton?
Here is the passage from Martin Wiskol's coverage of the debate --
Political newcomer Richard Faher displayed a down-home, everyman delivery coupled with a solid knowledge of the issues facing the state and the workings of politics. He also was unafraid to bring up a past sexual harassment complaint - dismissed by an appellate court - against Norby. The complaint could become a factor in the race - particularly since the Nov. 17 election has been called to replace Mike Duvall, who resigned amid a sex scandal.
The candidates were asked about personal integrity and Faher didn’t hesitate with delicacies. “Chris Norby had a sexual harassment charge against him,” Faher said. “The judge was quite harsh. That’s the elephant in the room.” While the court dismissed the complaint, it called Norby’s behavior “rude, inappropriate and offensive.” Norby responded by pointing to the proliferation of nuisance lawsuits, and said this case fell in that category. “I had only three encounters with her, all in public, all when she approached me,” he said.
If the people of the 72nd Assembly District want someone in the Assembly that has this sort of a record with women -- let's bring Duvall back. He was actually not as bad as this Norby guy.
It is a bad day for the Norby for Assembly campaign. Things are starting to crumble as people find out more about him.
First, Frank Mickadeit has a column in the Orange County Register today that includes a claim by former Fullerton City Councilwoman Linda LeQuire that Norby had sexual harassment issues on three occasions with City of Fullerton employees.
Here is the key passage in the Mickadeit piece --
The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then." Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died. Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment. The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers both. "His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where the council was apprised something had happened. S There were warnings to Chris not to do things S to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in nature."
Everyone knows about the problems he had as an Orange County Supervisor with a former employee....but now we can see this is a pattern of behavior. Then last night the California Republican Assembly has a debate. Some new guy that no one has ever heard of named Richard Faher goes after Norby for the sexual harassment on the county employee. What would Faher have done if he had known about the incidents in Fullerton?
Here is the passage from Martin Wiskol's coverage of the debate --
Political newcomer Richard Faher displayed a down-home, everyman delivery coupled with a solid knowledge of the issues facing the state and the workings of politics. He also was unafraid to bring up a past sexual harassment complaint - dismissed by an appellate court - against Norby. The complaint could become a factor in the race - particularly since the Nov. 17 election has been called to replace Mike Duvall, who resigned amid a sex scandal.
The candidates were asked about personal integrity and Faher didn’t hesitate with delicacies. “Chris Norby had a sexual harassment charge against him,” Faher said. “The judge was quite harsh. That’s the elephant in the room.” While the court dismissed the complaint, it called Norby’s behavior “rude, inappropriate and offensive.” Norby responded by pointing to the proliferation of nuisance lawsuits, and said this case fell in that category. “I had only three encounters with her, all in public, all when she approached me,” he said.
If the people of the 72nd Assembly District want someone in the Assembly that has this sort of a record with women -- let's bring Duvall back. He was actually not as bad as this Norby guy.
72nd Republican Differences
The OC Register showed some political differences between the three republicans running for the 72nd.
Abortion
"Faher was the only Republican candidate not to oppose abortion rights - he said he would not take a public position on the issue."
Medical Marijuana
Ackerman was the, "only one opposed to medicinal marijuana."
Illegal Immigration
"Norby was the sole GOP candidate to oppose employer sanctions for undocumented workers."
I found Faher's abortion comment interesting. He is running for public office but refuses to take a public position on an important issue.
Abortion
"Faher was the only Republican candidate not to oppose abortion rights - he said he would not take a public position on the issue."
Medical Marijuana
Ackerman was the, "only one opposed to medicinal marijuana."
Illegal Immigration
"Norby was the sole GOP candidate to oppose employer sanctions for undocumented workers."
I found Faher's abortion comment interesting. He is running for public office but refuses to take a public position on an important issue.
Ackerman-Norby History
The Orange County Register has an interesting story on the history of the Ackerman-Norby feud. It contains a new allegation by Dick Ackerman of sexual harassment by Norby.
The most interesting part of the story.
The most interesting part of the story.
Ackerman says the two had a friendly beer at Elmer's after Norby won.
"I said, 'Hey, things are going to be good. We've got five conservatives.' But
the votes kept coming out 4-1," with Norby dissenting. While it didn't affect
the outcome, it did irk Ackerman, who believed Norby was pandering to the "vocal minority" that would come out to protest whatever issue happened to be on the
agenda on a given night."He'd just count the people in the audience and that's how he voted. He was the populist."The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then."
Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died.
Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment.
The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers
both."His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the
public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where
the council was apprised something had happened. … There were warnings to Chris not to do things … to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in
nature."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Rep. Gary Miller on TARP Anniversary
From Rep. Gary Miller
While last Saturday marks the one year anniversary of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) being signed into law, questions continue to linger regarding the future of this controversial program. As the current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is considering whether or not to extend TARP past its December 31, 2009 expiration, hundreds of billions of dollars in existing commitments will remain on the government’s books for the next several years.
Last year, our economy faced historic and unprecedented challenges that posed a clear threat to our country’s economic underpinnings. The housing markets experienced significant upheaval and increased delinquencies and defaults among borrowers contributed to turmoil in the mortgage finance sector. As a result, our entire economy was affected—banks stopped lending and everyday Americans were affected by this severe credit crunch. Following these sobering events, then Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush warned repeatedly that an economic crash would be imminent if Congress did not swiftly pass legislation to address the financial markets crisis. After the House failed to pass an economic rescue package the first time, not listening to their warnings proved to be dangerous, as evidenced by the subsequent $1 trillion loss in the stock markets in the days that followed. After meeting with Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush’s economic advisors, I heeded their warnings and voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), which established the TARP, in order to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our economy. This $700 billion economic rescue plan granted $250 billion in immediate authority to the Department of Treasury to purchase assets from financial institutions, with an additional $100 billion after the Secretary reported to Congress. Congress then had the authority to withhold the remaining $350 billion.
While some viewed this as a bailout for the fat cats on Wall Street, my sole reason in voting for this legislation was to ensure Americans with good credit could continue to access home, auto, and student loans and small businesses would be able to access the loans they need to keep their businesses open and their employees paid. While the legislation was being considered, it was my understanding that TARP funds were to be used to finance the purchase of troubled assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, including mortgage-backed securities and whole loans, in order to alleviate the credit crunch and stabilize the overall economy. However, mid-October, after this legislation was signed into law, the Department of Treasury changed the rules of the game for TARP and used funds to purchase shares in a broad array of financial institutions.
Since its enactment, I have repeatedly expressed frustration with the way TARP has been implemented and consequently voted against releasing the additional $350 billion in TARP funds. From the outset, the program has been implemented with far too little transparency and in a manner inconsistent with the way it was presented to Congress last fall. After reports of financial institutions using TARP funds for unwarranted bank acquisitions and other questionable purposes, I sent a letter to then Secretary Paulson urging Treasury to prohibit them from doing so. I continue to believe that these practices are an improper use of taxpayer dollars, anti-competitive and was not the intention of Congress during consideration of the EESA. To ensure that participating institutions are adhering to the program’s purposes, I encouraged Secretary Paulson to closely track the usage of TARP funds and to report the Department’s findings to Congress. I also sent a letter with several of my colleagues to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors requesting greater transparency of the lending facilities they have authorized to ensure accountability to the nation’s taxpayers. Further, last December the Department of Treasury again changed the rules of TARP by unilaterally deciding that it would make $13.4 billion in TARP funds available to certain domestic auto manufacturers. These troubling actions clearly were not the intent of TARP.
I am extremely disappointed with the way TARP has been managed and am working vigorously in Congress to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and most efficiently. Subsequently, I voted against the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which was passed earlier this year. Rather than enact policies that save, protect, and create jobs, this so-called stimulus package has been growing government while the private sector has continued to lose jobs. In fact, nearly three million jobs have been lost since the enactment of this bill. If another stimulus is brought up for a vote, you can rest assured that I will vote against any measure that wastes valuable taxpayer dollars on frivolous government programs.
As TARP recipients are beginning to repay these funds, I have requested that Treasury use these taxpayer dollars to pay down our enormous national debt. It is crucial that Congress put an end to a borrow-and-spend philosophy and get our nation’s fiscal house in order. All in all, we must reform the areas of our nation’s financial sector that led to this crisis and we must make sure our economy fully recovers and this never happens again.
While last Saturday marks the one year anniversary of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) being signed into law, questions continue to linger regarding the future of this controversial program. As the current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is considering whether or not to extend TARP past its December 31, 2009 expiration, hundreds of billions of dollars in existing commitments will remain on the government’s books for the next several years.
Last year, our economy faced historic and unprecedented challenges that posed a clear threat to our country’s economic underpinnings. The housing markets experienced significant upheaval and increased delinquencies and defaults among borrowers contributed to turmoil in the mortgage finance sector. As a result, our entire economy was affected—banks stopped lending and everyday Americans were affected by this severe credit crunch. Following these sobering events, then Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush warned repeatedly that an economic crash would be imminent if Congress did not swiftly pass legislation to address the financial markets crisis. After the House failed to pass an economic rescue package the first time, not listening to their warnings proved to be dangerous, as evidenced by the subsequent $1 trillion loss in the stock markets in the days that followed. After meeting with Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush’s economic advisors, I heeded their warnings and voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), which established the TARP, in order to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our economy. This $700 billion economic rescue plan granted $250 billion in immediate authority to the Department of Treasury to purchase assets from financial institutions, with an additional $100 billion after the Secretary reported to Congress. Congress then had the authority to withhold the remaining $350 billion.
While some viewed this as a bailout for the fat cats on Wall Street, my sole reason in voting for this legislation was to ensure Americans with good credit could continue to access home, auto, and student loans and small businesses would be able to access the loans they need to keep their businesses open and their employees paid. While the legislation was being considered, it was my understanding that TARP funds were to be used to finance the purchase of troubled assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, including mortgage-backed securities and whole loans, in order to alleviate the credit crunch and stabilize the overall economy. However, mid-October, after this legislation was signed into law, the Department of Treasury changed the rules of the game for TARP and used funds to purchase shares in a broad array of financial institutions.
Since its enactment, I have repeatedly expressed frustration with the way TARP has been implemented and consequently voted against releasing the additional $350 billion in TARP funds. From the outset, the program has been implemented with far too little transparency and in a manner inconsistent with the way it was presented to Congress last fall. After reports of financial institutions using TARP funds for unwarranted bank acquisitions and other questionable purposes, I sent a letter to then Secretary Paulson urging Treasury to prohibit them from doing so. I continue to believe that these practices are an improper use of taxpayer dollars, anti-competitive and was not the intention of Congress during consideration of the EESA. To ensure that participating institutions are adhering to the program’s purposes, I encouraged Secretary Paulson to closely track the usage of TARP funds and to report the Department’s findings to Congress. I also sent a letter with several of my colleagues to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors requesting greater transparency of the lending facilities they have authorized to ensure accountability to the nation’s taxpayers. Further, last December the Department of Treasury again changed the rules of TARP by unilaterally deciding that it would make $13.4 billion in TARP funds available to certain domestic auto manufacturers. These troubling actions clearly were not the intent of TARP.
I am extremely disappointed with the way TARP has been managed and am working vigorously in Congress to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and most efficiently. Subsequently, I voted against the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which was passed earlier this year. Rather than enact policies that save, protect, and create jobs, this so-called stimulus package has been growing government while the private sector has continued to lose jobs. In fact, nearly three million jobs have been lost since the enactment of this bill. If another stimulus is brought up for a vote, you can rest assured that I will vote against any measure that wastes valuable taxpayer dollars on frivolous government programs.
As TARP recipients are beginning to repay these funds, I have requested that Treasury use these taxpayer dollars to pay down our enormous national debt. It is crucial that Congress put an end to a borrow-and-spend philosophy and get our nation’s fiscal house in order. All in all, we must reform the areas of our nation’s financial sector that led to this crisis and we must make sure our economy fully recovers and this never happens again.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hagman Op-Ed on Water
From Assemblyman Hagman's website.
Democrats And Water Don't Mix Well
In the past year, our communities have been hit hard with the housing crisis, followed by the state budget crisis, and now another huge challenge looms ahead. The cascading water crisis is here now, so how can we protect the future of the Chino Valley?
Replenishing our dwindling water supplies in the Chino Valley must be a top priority for lawmakers in Sacramento. Our existence, our economy and the jobs of millions of Californians are now at stake. The crisis is so bad that a local water agency, Monte Vista Water District, has enforced mandatory conservation and has prohibited the watering of landscapes during daytime hours. Other agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have also allotted less water to customers to use at current rates, leading to higher bills for many families. Chino Hills and Chino have instituted a non-mandatory water conservation program and hopefully they will not have to move to a compulsory program.
The causes of the water crisis are straightforward. As California's population has grown by roughly half a million people each year, the demand for water becomes greater. However, supplies have been drastically reduced. Our state is experiencing a third straight year of drought. To compound the problem, a federal judge strictly limited the water we receive from the San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to protect a fish. This is significant because the Delta provides water to most of Southern California. Any more reductions will affect our quality-of-life by requiring mandatory conservation and rationing. This leads to more browned lawns, higher food prices, and a deeper recession. The water crisis is not just a Delta or Chino Valley problem; it/s California problem.
That's why the Legislature needs to pass a comprehensive water plan soon. Unfortunately, Sacramento Democrats put forward a plan that mandates more conservation and creates more government bureaucracy. Their plan requires cities to cut water use by 20% by 2020, a laudable but unrealistic goal for Southern Californians who have little left to conserve. Democrats also want to create an unaccountable "Delta Stewardship Council" that will decide our water future without a vote of the Legislature or the people. This will only make the crisis worse as they would have the authority to impose stricter regulations that would make it practically impossible to increase supplies. Making government bigger won't give anyone one extra drop of water.
Not surprisingly, the Legislature failed to reach an agreement before the end of last session. As talks continue, my Republican colleagues and I are fighting for a comprehensive solution that will boost water supply and reliability.
We want to create new groundwater storage to capture more rainfall and snowmelt. About 40% of Southern California's water supply is stored in groundwater basins. Building more of this type of storage is essential to a balanced solution. We also want to improve the delivery of water received from the Northern part of the state. By upgrading delivery, we can bypass the Delta and its restrictions, helping to ensure enough water for the future.
Californians deserve better from Sacramento than an unbalanced plan that only caters to extreme coastal environmentalists at the expense of working families. We need a plan that works for everyone, and I am committed to doing everything I can to pass a water solution that works now and in the future.
California State Assemblyman, Curt Hagman (R) represents the 60th District, including Anaheim, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, Industry, La Habra, La Mirada, Orange, Rowland Heights, San Dimas, Walnut, & more. He can be reached at (909) 627-7021.
Democrats And Water Don't Mix Well
In the past year, our communities have been hit hard with the housing crisis, followed by the state budget crisis, and now another huge challenge looms ahead. The cascading water crisis is here now, so how can we protect the future of the Chino Valley?
Replenishing our dwindling water supplies in the Chino Valley must be a top priority for lawmakers in Sacramento. Our existence, our economy and the jobs of millions of Californians are now at stake. The crisis is so bad that a local water agency, Monte Vista Water District, has enforced mandatory conservation and has prohibited the watering of landscapes during daytime hours. Other agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have also allotted less water to customers to use at current rates, leading to higher bills for many families. Chino Hills and Chino have instituted a non-mandatory water conservation program and hopefully they will not have to move to a compulsory program.
The causes of the water crisis are straightforward. As California's population has grown by roughly half a million people each year, the demand for water becomes greater. However, supplies have been drastically reduced. Our state is experiencing a third straight year of drought. To compound the problem, a federal judge strictly limited the water we receive from the San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to protect a fish. This is significant because the Delta provides water to most of Southern California. Any more reductions will affect our quality-of-life by requiring mandatory conservation and rationing. This leads to more browned lawns, higher food prices, and a deeper recession. The water crisis is not just a Delta or Chino Valley problem; it/s California problem.
That's why the Legislature needs to pass a comprehensive water plan soon. Unfortunately, Sacramento Democrats put forward a plan that mandates more conservation and creates more government bureaucracy. Their plan requires cities to cut water use by 20% by 2020, a laudable but unrealistic goal for Southern Californians who have little left to conserve. Democrats also want to create an unaccountable "Delta Stewardship Council" that will decide our water future without a vote of the Legislature or the people. This will only make the crisis worse as they would have the authority to impose stricter regulations that would make it practically impossible to increase supplies. Making government bigger won't give anyone one extra drop of water.
Not surprisingly, the Legislature failed to reach an agreement before the end of last session. As talks continue, my Republican colleagues and I are fighting for a comprehensive solution that will boost water supply and reliability.
We want to create new groundwater storage to capture more rainfall and snowmelt. About 40% of Southern California's water supply is stored in groundwater basins. Building more of this type of storage is essential to a balanced solution. We also want to improve the delivery of water received from the Northern part of the state. By upgrading delivery, we can bypass the Delta and its restrictions, helping to ensure enough water for the future.
Californians deserve better from Sacramento than an unbalanced plan that only caters to extreme coastal environmentalists at the expense of working families. We need a plan that works for everyone, and I am committed to doing everything I can to pass a water solution that works now and in the future.
California State Assemblyman, Curt Hagman (R) represents the 60th District, including Anaheim, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, Industry, La Habra, La Mirada, Orange, Rowland Heights, San Dimas, Walnut, & more. He can be reached at (909) 627-7021.
Monday, October 5, 2009
72nd Deadline Passes
As of 6pm the Orange County Registrar's Office shows that five candidates have filed to seek the former seat of Mike Duvall. The new additions since Friday are Democrat John MacMurray and Republican Richard Faher.
They join Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
Nine candidates pulled papers to run but only these five filed.
The Orange County Register has more.
They join Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
Nine candidates pulled papers to run but only these five filed.
The Orange County Register has more.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
FBI visits Ex-Assemblyman Duvall's Staff
According to the LA Times, two former staffers, including past Chief of Staff have been interviewed by the FBI. Duvall's boasting of sexual exploits with energy company lobbyists has brought about scrutiny from the State Assembly itself and now the Feds.One little question that is still being debated is who sent the committee recording of Duvall and Assemblyman Jeff Miller to various media outlets? Speculation has pointed to the possibility that one of Assemblyman Miller's own staffers did it as a sort of dirty trick / political payback against Duvall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)