Monday, August 01, 2005
We Have Been Upgraded!!
From now on, you can check out this blog at: http://northbaypolitics.com/
Hope you all remain interested. Thanks for reading.
From now on, you can check out this blog at: http://northbaypolitics.com/
Hope you all remain interested. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
I thought that I'd take a different angle with the blog today. Rather than being informative, I am hoping that this posting invites discussion and debate among the readers out there.
Below is an email that I received from one of you. There are some really good points made in the email, and hopefully people will want to respond. I look forward to the discussion that hopefully ensues.
*********Begin email********
I own a business in Santa Rosa. I have lived here since 1977. What I have found is the Democrats have made this state into a very unfriendly place to have a business. I also own a few guns and hunt. The demos don't like that either. As far as the price of housing goes I think it is artificially high. Made that way due to all the land being bought up for open space. That does not make sense at all. I am all for open space, but it should be made available to all of us. I believe in a few years that open space will have to be sold off at a loss so houses can be built. What is happening now in this area happened in the New England states 30 years ago. The price of homes got so high business could not afford to pay workers enough to live in the area. Some of those areas still have not recovered. Business left the area and moved to greener pastures out West. It's happening now. It may not be as bad for us as it was back East, but it will get worse than it is now. And something else I have noticed. Why don't adults allow children to play? When I was a kid I went hunting and fishing just a short bike ride away from home. That was in NY. Around here you are considered a murder if you hunt. The children's ball fields are very primitive compared to areas with less people and money. Children are not valued in this area.
Below is an email that I received from one of you. There are some really good points made in the email, and hopefully people will want to respond. I look forward to the discussion that hopefully ensues.
*********Begin email********
I own a business in Santa Rosa. I have lived here since 1977. What I have found is the Democrats have made this state into a very unfriendly place to have a business. I also own a few guns and hunt. The demos don't like that either. As far as the price of housing goes I think it is artificially high. Made that way due to all the land being bought up for open space. That does not make sense at all. I am all for open space, but it should be made available to all of us. I believe in a few years that open space will have to be sold off at a loss so houses can be built. What is happening now in this area happened in the New England states 30 years ago. The price of homes got so high business could not afford to pay workers enough to live in the area. Some of those areas still have not recovered. Business left the area and moved to greener pastures out West. It's happening now. It may not be as bad for us as it was back East, but it will get worse than it is now. And something else I have noticed. Why don't adults allow children to play? When I was a kid I went hunting and fishing just a short bike ride away from home. That was in NY. Around here you are considered a murder if you hunt. The children's ball fields are very primitive compared to areas with less people and money. Children are not valued in this area.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Well, Well, a Bigger Budget.
It has been reported that the County of Marin is looking at a much, much larger budget than expected – over $22 million larger than predicted. This increase – from the estimated $367.6 million to the $389.7 million actual budget – is largely because of “additional property tax revenue, savings from cost-cutting last year, penalties and a $33.9 million carryover of funds from last year,” reports the Marin IJ.
This additional $22 million will allow Marin County to fund much needed programs. For example, the budget for the maintenance of roads and bridges has been nearly doubled, up $2 million to a total of $4.8 million. Furthermore, this beefed up budget will enable the county to hire 10 more firefighters to create a very large firebreak, making the County safer during wildfire season.
The IJ does note, however, that not everybody is happy with this beefed up budget. Terrie Green and Charles McGlashan were among two of those people, speaking out about the suspect lack of funding for Marin City.
All I can say is that hopefully this money is spent well. We must remember that not every year will we see such a nice, cushy budget. It is wise to make these extra expenditures – as with the firefighters – to keep our community safe and functioning well. However, we must always keep in mind what happened to California during the tech bubble and subsequent burst bubble: The government brought in more revenue, and thus more money was spent (on non-controversial issues, like health care and education mainly). However, the bubble burst apart and now California has a huge debt. Marin, I agree with most of these additional expenditures…just be careful.
It has been reported that the County of Marin is looking at a much, much larger budget than expected – over $22 million larger than predicted. This increase – from the estimated $367.6 million to the $389.7 million actual budget – is largely because of “additional property tax revenue, savings from cost-cutting last year, penalties and a $33.9 million carryover of funds from last year,” reports the Marin IJ.
This additional $22 million will allow Marin County to fund much needed programs. For example, the budget for the maintenance of roads and bridges has been nearly doubled, up $2 million to a total of $4.8 million. Furthermore, this beefed up budget will enable the county to hire 10 more firefighters to create a very large firebreak, making the County safer during wildfire season.
The IJ does note, however, that not everybody is happy with this beefed up budget. Terrie Green and Charles McGlashan were among two of those people, speaking out about the suspect lack of funding for Marin City.
All I can say is that hopefully this money is spent well. We must remember that not every year will we see such a nice, cushy budget. It is wise to make these extra expenditures – as with the firefighters – to keep our community safe and functioning well. However, we must always keep in mind what happened to California during the tech bubble and subsequent burst bubble: The government brought in more revenue, and thus more money was spent (on non-controversial issues, like health care and education mainly). However, the bubble burst apart and now California has a huge debt. Marin, I agree with most of these additional expenditures…just be careful.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
PPIC Statewide Survey on the Environment:
So the new PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) Statewide Survey on the Environment is out. These are always VERY interesting to look through. From what I remember, one of the special surveys PPIC did in 2004 that also focused on the environment showed that an overwhelming majority of Californians were concerned about the environment, and were even willing to perhaps pay higher taxes (but only slightly, of course) to decrease air pollution and do our part to curb global warming.
(For a copy of this year's survey, go to ppic.org) This year's survey has similarly interesting results. "86 percent (of Californians) believe [global warming] will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Only 9 percent believe global warming will never happen," says the survey (p. 17). Not surprisingly, though, Democrats and Independents are much, MUCH more inclined to believe that global warming is happening/will be a problem, while Republicans are much less inclined to think so. "Only 3 percent of Democrats believe it will never happen, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents." That's actually kind of shocking - and scary. The science behind global warming is undeniably sound. I'm not sure if these people who do not believe in it are in denial, or are so set in their anti-environmental agenda that they refuse to accept its reality on principle.
In terms of more political news, although still environmentally related, some of the results are not all that surprising. For example, the Governor's approval rating is slip-slidin' away. "Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall approval rating is at a low point. In the current survey, 34 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job in office...In our most recent surveys, four in 10 Californians said they approved of his performance as governor (40% in April and 40% in May). A year ago, in our July 2004 survey, 57 percent of adults approved and 29 percent disapproved of the governor’s job performance." (p. 23) Looks like the Governor has some work to do. Also, "In the broader state context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 38 percent say it is headed in the right direction." Furthermore, 54% of Californians think that this upcoming special election is, well, just not a good idea.
Lastly, PPIC has a section on the 'Role of Government' in our society. There are some very interesting findings here. For example, "a majority of Californians (54%) also express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming." (p. 25) The most interesting thing about this point is that 59% of Democrats share this belief, and only 49% of Republicans agree with this. I always thought that Republicans wanted less federal government interference -- "keep the government out of our life". Go figure. Also, only about 1/3 of Californians trust either the state or the federal governnment to "do the right thing" when it comes to protecting the environment.
It seems like this Statewide Survey is showing a lack of trust in our government. This is a very good survey this year -- I really suggest you all check it out (ppic.org).
So the new PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) Statewide Survey on the Environment is out. These are always VERY interesting to look through. From what I remember, one of the special surveys PPIC did in 2004 that also focused on the environment showed that an overwhelming majority of Californians were concerned about the environment, and were even willing to perhaps pay higher taxes (but only slightly, of course) to decrease air pollution and do our part to curb global warming.
(For a copy of this year's survey, go to ppic.org) This year's survey has similarly interesting results. "86 percent (of Californians) believe [global warming] will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Only 9 percent believe global warming will never happen," says the survey (p. 17). Not surprisingly, though, Democrats and Independents are much, MUCH more inclined to believe that global warming is happening/will be a problem, while Republicans are much less inclined to think so. "Only 3 percent of Democrats believe it will never happen, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents." That's actually kind of shocking - and scary. The science behind global warming is undeniably sound. I'm not sure if these people who do not believe in it are in denial, or are so set in their anti-environmental agenda that they refuse to accept its reality on principle.
In terms of more political news, although still environmentally related, some of the results are not all that surprising. For example, the Governor's approval rating is slip-slidin' away. "Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall approval rating is at a low point. In the current survey, 34 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job in office...In our most recent surveys, four in 10 Californians said they approved of his performance as governor (40% in April and 40% in May). A year ago, in our July 2004 survey, 57 percent of adults approved and 29 percent disapproved of the governor’s job performance." (p. 23) Looks like the Governor has some work to do. Also, "In the broader state context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 38 percent say it is headed in the right direction." Furthermore, 54% of Californians think that this upcoming special election is, well, just not a good idea.
Lastly, PPIC has a section on the 'Role of Government' in our society. There are some very interesting findings here. For example, "a majority of Californians (54%) also express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming." (p. 25) The most interesting thing about this point is that 59% of Democrats share this belief, and only 49% of Republicans agree with this. I always thought that Republicans wanted less federal government interference -- "keep the government out of our life". Go figure. Also, only about 1/3 of Californians trust either the state or the federal governnment to "do the right thing" when it comes to protecting the environment.
It seems like this Statewide Survey is showing a lack of trust in our government. This is a very good survey this year -- I really suggest you all check it out (ppic.org).
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Marin/Sonoma Assembly Race:
I just learned of another candidate running for the State Assembly seat in our area. John Alden is the Chair of the Marin Democratic Central Committee. He seems to be a fiery Howard Dean supporter who is progressive but fiscally conservative. Sounds like a lot of us who were on the Dean bandwagon. In the recent past, he was a supporter of Measure B, which was a pretty popular measure. Measure B (passed with 61% yes vote) banned genetically modified food grown in Marin.
In terms of his fiscal policy, he’s right on when he says that the Republicans’ desire to cut taxes but then spend like crazy is a bad, bad idea for our country. Socially liberal, Alden would stand up for marriage equality and the protection of our civil liberties (it’s not too hard to hate the Patriot Act these days!). In the past, Alden has supported Carole Migden’s efforts to eliminate discrimination against same-sex partners in property taxation as well as supported efforts by Mark Leno and others to achieve marriage equality in California.
It seems like this race for assembly is going to shape up to be a long one between a ton of candidates. Should be interesting to watch this one develop.
I just learned of another candidate running for the State Assembly seat in our area. John Alden is the Chair of the Marin Democratic Central Committee. He seems to be a fiery Howard Dean supporter who is progressive but fiscally conservative. Sounds like a lot of us who were on the Dean bandwagon. In the recent past, he was a supporter of Measure B, which was a pretty popular measure. Measure B (passed with 61% yes vote) banned genetically modified food grown in Marin.
In terms of his fiscal policy, he’s right on when he says that the Republicans’ desire to cut taxes but then spend like crazy is a bad, bad idea for our country. Socially liberal, Alden would stand up for marriage equality and the protection of our civil liberties (it’s not too hard to hate the Patriot Act these days!). In the past, Alden has supported Carole Migden’s efforts to eliminate discrimination against same-sex partners in property taxation as well as supported efforts by Mark Leno and others to achieve marriage equality in California.
It seems like this race for assembly is going to shape up to be a long one between a ton of candidates. Should be interesting to watch this one develop.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
No More Trash, Please.
Back in 2004, Waste Management Inc., the company who operates the Redwood Landfill near Petaluma, decided that they want to expand the landfill. From what I understand, the landfill expansion will increase the size of this *stinky* part of town by nearly 50%. Not, I repeat, not a good idea.
Do we, as North Bay residents, really want to be the repository for so much of California, for longer than we had originally thought? The Redwood Landfill was slated to be filled in the next decade or so (does that seem like a long time to anybody else?), but with this proposed expansion, we are looking at another 12 years until this putrid pit is full! That seems like one heck of a large expansion to me.
Furthermore, there are about 3 or 4 endangered species in this area, as the landfill is right next to San Antonio Creek and the Petaluma Marsh. If we simply pile up 50% more trash in this area for an additional 12 years, we are going to wreak havoc on this delicate ecosystem.
I would like to see, as a condition of allowing this expansion to occur (if, that is, it actually does pass), the Board of Supervisors include a rider on the bill requiring that any city that uses the landfill must recycle at least 50% of its waste. This is not a difficult feat, as Marin County is able to boast its 71% waste diversion level – the 3rd best in the state! If our land is going to be used for trash, we should be able to hold those who use this land responsible in some manner. Otherwise, no more trash, please.
Back in 2004, Waste Management Inc., the company who operates the Redwood Landfill near Petaluma, decided that they want to expand the landfill. From what I understand, the landfill expansion will increase the size of this *stinky* part of town by nearly 50%. Not, I repeat, not a good idea.
Do we, as North Bay residents, really want to be the repository for so much of California, for longer than we had originally thought? The Redwood Landfill was slated to be filled in the next decade or so (does that seem like a long time to anybody else?), but with this proposed expansion, we are looking at another 12 years until this putrid pit is full! That seems like one heck of a large expansion to me.
Furthermore, there are about 3 or 4 endangered species in this area, as the landfill is right next to San Antonio Creek and the Petaluma Marsh. If we simply pile up 50% more trash in this area for an additional 12 years, we are going to wreak havoc on this delicate ecosystem.
I would like to see, as a condition of allowing this expansion to occur (if, that is, it actually does pass), the Board of Supervisors include a rider on the bill requiring that any city that uses the landfill must recycle at least 50% of its waste. This is not a difficult feat, as Marin County is able to boast its 71% waste diversion level – the 3rd best in the state! If our land is going to be used for trash, we should be able to hold those who use this land responsible in some manner. Otherwise, no more trash, please.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Term Limits?
Is it just me, or are term limits just a bad idea? The power that lobbyists have been given now that there are term limits in Sacramento is staggering. It's just not a good idea - in my opinion - to create an environment where the law makers (Assemblymembers and Senators) cannot stay around long enough to understand how the system works. I think this analysis spills over to the local level also.
It has come to my attention that, in Fairfax, the Town Council has recently rejected a propsal for term limits. What's even worse than the fact that term limits were proposed is the fact that Councilman Mike Ghiringhelli propsed the term limits in a not-so-sly attempt to get Frank Egger booted off the Council. Quite a sleazy move, if you ask me.
Frank Egger - although I don't always agree with what he does and says - is a good public servant in Fairfax. He has been on the Council since 1969: If the town wanted Egger off the council, they could have voted him off! What the heck possessed Ghiringhelli to propose term limits? Does he simply despise Egger? Frankly, I hope Ghiringhelli took the hint from the "no"-vote of the Council. I would be interested to know if Egger did something recently that sparked this issue or if Ghiringhelli really just wanted Egger off the Council.
Is it just me, or are term limits just a bad idea? The power that lobbyists have been given now that there are term limits in Sacramento is staggering. It's just not a good idea - in my opinion - to create an environment where the law makers (Assemblymembers and Senators) cannot stay around long enough to understand how the system works. I think this analysis spills over to the local level also.
It has come to my attention that, in Fairfax, the Town Council has recently rejected a propsal for term limits. What's even worse than the fact that term limits were proposed is the fact that Councilman Mike Ghiringhelli propsed the term limits in a not-so-sly attempt to get Frank Egger booted off the Council. Quite a sleazy move, if you ask me.
Frank Egger - although I don't always agree with what he does and says - is a good public servant in Fairfax. He has been on the Council since 1969: If the town wanted Egger off the council, they could have voted him off! What the heck possessed Ghiringhelli to propose term limits? Does he simply despise Egger? Frankly, I hope Ghiringhelli took the hint from the "no"-vote of the Council. I would be interested to know if Egger did something recently that sparked this issue or if Ghiringhelli really just wanted Egger off the Council.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Casinos in the North Bay?
The Marin IJ (Tuesday the 12th), reported: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will approve new Indian casinos only on the following condition: that they are in non-urban areas, local governments approve the proposed casinos, and general local support is demonstrated through an advisory vote. His move is long over due.
“Now, North Bay residents need to ask the candidates for the soon-to-be open Marin-Sonoma Sixth District Assembly seat if they will make the same pledge. It will be instructive to see which of the candidates for the Democratic Assembly nomination will be the first to accept tribal casino donations.”
I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on this race, and this issue for sure! I’m torn on the issue of Indian casinos. But, I do know that I do NOT want one in my backyard. I know, NIMBY. But still! I’ve got to applaud the Governor for this one, but man it took him long enough!
On the topic of the Governor, I read today that Governor Schwarzenegger is in a bit of a bind. According to the SF Chronicle (today, the 14th), last year the Governor “vetoed a bill seeking to crack down on the use of performance-enhancing substances in high school sports.” Apparently the Governor is getting tons of money from magazines that sell these performance-enhancing substances. Oops!! Slight conflict of interest, I think?!
The Marin IJ (Tuesday the 12th), reported: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will approve new Indian casinos only on the following condition: that they are in non-urban areas, local governments approve the proposed casinos, and general local support is demonstrated through an advisory vote. His move is long over due.
“Now, North Bay residents need to ask the candidates for the soon-to-be open Marin-Sonoma Sixth District Assembly seat if they will make the same pledge. It will be instructive to see which of the candidates for the Democratic Assembly nomination will be the first to accept tribal casino donations.”
I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on this race, and this issue for sure! I’m torn on the issue of Indian casinos. But, I do know that I do NOT want one in my backyard. I know, NIMBY. But still! I’ve got to applaud the Governor for this one, but man it took him long enough!
On the topic of the Governor, I read today that Governor Schwarzenegger is in a bit of a bind. According to the SF Chronicle (today, the 14th), last year the Governor “vetoed a bill seeking to crack down on the use of performance-enhancing substances in high school sports.” Apparently the Governor is getting tons of money from magazines that sell these performance-enhancing substances. Oops!! Slight conflict of interest, I think?!
No Toll?
So on Tuesday (the 13th), the Senate's Transportation and Housing Committee voted in favor (8 to 4) of a bill that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the Golden Gate Bridge for free. Let me take sides on this one. We are in a time of financial problems. I wonder if anybody remembers this fact. The state should be looking for any and every way to raise revenues without necessarily taxing the citizens. San Francisco got the memo about this: my friends who live on the panhandle of Golden Gate Park woke up to a nice surprise the other day – a $50 parking ticket rather than the typical, do-able, just low enough to be tolerable $37. That’s quite a leap. But tell you what; don’t leave your car out when there is a street cleaning. Apparently the Senate’s Transportation and Housing Committee didn’t get this memo, though. Either that, or they were bullied around and lobbied to death by the Marin Bicycle Coalition.
I would even agree to charge bicyclists and pedestrians less than what cars are paying ($5 is kind of ridiculous, if you ask me – but hey, it’s a great bridge!). I mean, do you really think that a couple of bucks per person is going to deter some tourists who have come half way around the world to see the Golden Gate Bridge?! No. People will still come, and in a short time, nobody will care about this.
But, if there is no toll on the bridge for walkers and bikers, that is up to $1.5 million every year that the bridge will lose!!! Furthermore, it shouldn’t be up to the legislature to decide ANYTHING about the GG Bridge. The GG isn’t run by the state – so why should the state have a say in the toll debate?
Oh, and lastly, our good friend Joe Nation is sponsoring this bill. Hm, could this be a strike for Nation? Hope he’s a Giants fan and is used to strikes, cuz it looks like a strike to me.
So on Tuesday (the 13th), the Senate's Transportation and Housing Committee voted in favor (8 to 4) of a bill that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the Golden Gate Bridge for free. Let me take sides on this one. We are in a time of financial problems. I wonder if anybody remembers this fact. The state should be looking for any and every way to raise revenues without necessarily taxing the citizens. San Francisco got the memo about this: my friends who live on the panhandle of Golden Gate Park woke up to a nice surprise the other day – a $50 parking ticket rather than the typical, do-able, just low enough to be tolerable $37. That’s quite a leap. But tell you what; don’t leave your car out when there is a street cleaning. Apparently the Senate’s Transportation and Housing Committee didn’t get this memo, though. Either that, or they were bullied around and lobbied to death by the Marin Bicycle Coalition.
I would even agree to charge bicyclists and pedestrians less than what cars are paying ($5 is kind of ridiculous, if you ask me – but hey, it’s a great bridge!). I mean, do you really think that a couple of bucks per person is going to deter some tourists who have come half way around the world to see the Golden Gate Bridge?! No. People will still come, and in a short time, nobody will care about this.
But, if there is no toll on the bridge for walkers and bikers, that is up to $1.5 million every year that the bridge will lose!!! Furthermore, it shouldn’t be up to the legislature to decide ANYTHING about the GG Bridge. The GG isn’t run by the state – so why should the state have a say in the toll debate?
Oh, and lastly, our good friend Joe Nation is sponsoring this bill. Hm, could this be a strike for Nation? Hope he’s a Giants fan and is used to strikes, cuz it looks like a strike to me.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Nation and Woolsey Debate - will it happen?
Yesterday, July 12th, 2005, there was an article in the Marin Independent Journal (marinij.com) about the possible debate between Joe Nation and Lynn Woolsey. I stressed concern in some of my last postings that a campaign that starts this early could be bad for us as constituents: If our representatives are campaigning, when do they have time to represent us? In the Marin IJ article, Susannah Cernojevich - one of Woolsey's aides - said, "The people of Marin and Sonoma counties elected Congresswoman Woolsey to work for them and be their voice in Congress, not campaigning this early." I say, good point.
But, if we look at it from Nation's point of view, he worries "that Woolsey will be too busy to debate later." A valid concern. Further, if we think about it, Nation has been focusing on local and state-wide issues during his tenure in the Assembly (I believe this point comes from a comment on my first post). So he needs this debate, one could infer, in order to get his issues out there (apparently he wants to talk about "education, the Iraq war, health care, Social Security, Medicare and the environment." These issues are definitely a departure (not so much education and the environment) from his normal set of issues.
So, the question is, should they debate during the Congressional recess, in order for their issues and their differences to be presented to the voters? Should Woolsey refuse to debate, as it would do nothing but hurt her as Nation would have the chance to spell out his new platform? Do we even want them to debate -- shouldn't they be busy legislating? This is a tough call.
Yesterday, July 12th, 2005, there was an article in the Marin Independent Journal (marinij.com) about the possible debate between Joe Nation and Lynn Woolsey. I stressed concern in some of my last postings that a campaign that starts this early could be bad for us as constituents: If our representatives are campaigning, when do they have time to represent us? In the Marin IJ article, Susannah Cernojevich - one of Woolsey's aides - said, "The people of Marin and Sonoma counties elected Congresswoman Woolsey to work for them and be their voice in Congress, not campaigning this early." I say, good point.
But, if we look at it from Nation's point of view, he worries "that Woolsey will be too busy to debate later." A valid concern. Further, if we think about it, Nation has been focusing on local and state-wide issues during his tenure in the Assembly (I believe this point comes from a comment on my first post). So he needs this debate, one could infer, in order to get his issues out there (apparently he wants to talk about "education, the Iraq war, health care, Social Security, Medicare and the environment." These issues are definitely a departure (not so much education and the environment) from his normal set of issues.
So, the question is, should they debate during the Congressional recess, in order for their issues and their differences to be presented to the voters? Should Woolsey refuse to debate, as it would do nothing but hurt her as Nation would have the chance to spell out his new platform? Do we even want them to debate -- shouldn't they be busy legislating? This is a tough call.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Oh, and also...
I forgot to mention that in this morning's "Capitol Morning Report", Joe Nation "invited" Lynn Woolsey to debate, "at a time and place of her choosing during the August Congressional recess." This could be a good one to watch for us political junkies. Any bets on who might win? Let me just say, following up on my last post, that I'm glad these two will be doing some of their fighting when it's recess time rather than when the Assembly and the House are in session!
I forgot to mention that in this morning's "Capitol Morning Report", Joe Nation "invited" Lynn Woolsey to debate, "at a time and place of her choosing during the August Congressional recess." This could be a good one to watch for us political junkies. Any bets on who might win? Let me just say, following up on my last post, that I'm glad these two will be doing some of their fighting when it's recess time rather than when the Assembly and the House are in session!
Some North Bay Politics News From This Weekend:
From what I have heard, Lynn Woolsey has been endorsed by Democracy for America. This Dean-turned-Democratic website (www.democracyforamerica.com) endorses candidates throughout the country for a variety of offices. How much this endorsement helps is uncertain, but help it does. This race is a long way out at the moment, and it is interesting to see these developments come about at this time. It worries me a tad that this race is already so developed -- what will happen to our representation in the Assembly and the House while Woolsey and Nation battle it out?
In other news from the North Bay, I read in the Marin Independent Journal (marinij.com) that the race for Nation's Assembly seat is heating up. There are about 8 (8!!!) Democratic candidates vying for the Marin / Sonoma seat, with the Democratic Primary still a year away. In Dick Spotswood’s column from Sunday, July 10th, there was a blurb about one of the candidates named Damon Connolly. The text reads: "DAMON CONNOLLY, Dixie School Board Trustee and candidate for the 2006 Democratic Assembly nomination, is the first of the flock of candidates to disclose his current finances. Connolly already has raised an impressive $114,000 in his bid to succeed termed-out Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael. Expect the rest of the Assembly hopefuls to dribble out new (sic) of their fundraising process as the July 30 campaign finance disclosure deadline approaches." Pretty impressive if you ask me. $114,000 is quite a lot of money. It should be interesting to see what comes out of this guy's candidacy.
Another candidate in the race for Nation's seat in the Assembly - Cynthia Murray - made the news recently when she resigned from the Marin County Retirement Board. Apparently Murry is involved with over 30 different boards and it finally became too much for her. Anybody think that she ended her 11-year tenure on the retirement board 9 years early for any particular reason? Perhpas because public pension reform (one of the issues the retirement board deals with) has recently become a very big, controversial issue. Then again, Murray does sit on a lot of boards -- maybe it was just a time conflict.
Other than those notable events, it looks like our weekend political news was overshadowed by the attacks in London as well as well as the imminent release of the Harry Potter book. So, I guess that's all for now folks - comments are always welcome.
From what I have heard, Lynn Woolsey has been endorsed by Democracy for America. This Dean-turned-Democratic website (www.democracyforamerica.com) endorses candidates throughout the country for a variety of offices. How much this endorsement helps is uncertain, but help it does. This race is a long way out at the moment, and it is interesting to see these developments come about at this time. It worries me a tad that this race is already so developed -- what will happen to our representation in the Assembly and the House while Woolsey and Nation battle it out?
In other news from the North Bay, I read in the Marin Independent Journal (marinij.com) that the race for Nation's Assembly seat is heating up. There are about 8 (8!!!) Democratic candidates vying for the Marin / Sonoma seat, with the Democratic Primary still a year away. In Dick Spotswood’s column from Sunday, July 10th, there was a blurb about one of the candidates named Damon Connolly. The text reads: "DAMON CONNOLLY, Dixie School Board Trustee and candidate for the 2006 Democratic Assembly nomination, is the first of the flock of candidates to disclose his current finances. Connolly already has raised an impressive $114,000 in his bid to succeed termed-out Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael. Expect the rest of the Assembly hopefuls to dribble out new (sic) of their fundraising process as the July 30 campaign finance disclosure deadline approaches." Pretty impressive if you ask me. $114,000 is quite a lot of money. It should be interesting to see what comes out of this guy's candidacy.
Another candidate in the race for Nation's seat in the Assembly - Cynthia Murray - made the news recently when she resigned from the Marin County Retirement Board. Apparently Murry is involved with over 30 different boards and it finally became too much for her. Anybody think that she ended her 11-year tenure on the retirement board 9 years early for any particular reason? Perhpas because public pension reform (one of the issues the retirement board deals with) has recently become a very big, controversial issue. Then again, Murray does sit on a lot of boards -- maybe it was just a time conflict.
Other than those notable events, it looks like our weekend political news was overshadowed by the attacks in London as well as well as the imminent release of the Harry Potter book. So, I guess that's all for now folks - comments are always welcome.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
I've always been a good voter up here in the North Bay. Recently, though, I've found it more and more difficult to keep track of our representatives. Today I decided that I'd start this blog and dedicate my online time and effort to North Bay politics.
Joe Nation has been our (district 6) Assemblymember for the past 3 terms. He is terming out, and has since decided to run against Lynn Woolsey. As far as I know, Woolsey has been in the US House for the past 13 years and has only faced 2 Democratic challengers (with Nation it will be 3) in the primaries.
So, Nation has held 3 terms (the max) in the Assembly. Woolsey is going on her 8th term in the House. They both seem to be (until now) pretty comfortable in their seats. If that is so, they must have done a lot for us to placate us voters; they must have beefed up our local economy; they must have maintained - if not improved - our transportation infrastructure; they must have provided district 6 with the proper funding and support to better our education; they must have done quite a bit for us to be sitting so pretty. But have they?
Lynn Woolsey, on her "woolseyforcongress.com" website, tells us voters that she stands up for education, that she is the Ranking Member of the House Education CommitteeÂs Subcommittee on Education Reform. But, a quick look at her legislative history (sponsoring education bills -- thomas.loc.gov) shows that Woolsey voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a seemingly good idea at the time but now it is nothing but complicated regulations that our schools must jump through in order to get funding. Further, a quick look through all legislation that was passed from the time Woolsey was elected to the House, I don't see anything she has sponsored that has become a law. I'm not saying that passing legislation is the ONLY way we can tell if our reps are doing something for us, but it's a start.
Not to be one-sided, allow me to ask what Joe Nation has done for our education system lately... It looks like Nation has two education-related bills, one on the floor of the Assembly and another recently passed. The one of the floor (AB 384) will reduce class sizes. The the other (AB 882) deals with building contracts for schools. Neither seem to deal with the problems we face in the North Bay. Reducing class sizes sounds great, but how are we going to pay for this? California pays its teachers more, on average, than any other state, but at the same time we rank 25th in the nation when it comes to expenditures per pupil. We can't afford to limit class sizes to 23 students per teacher. We should first commit to fully funding our schools -- and NCLB isn't helping.
Not to harp just on education (more is coming, I promise), but what have these two done for us lately? The North Bay is one of the gems of California, and we deserve great representation. I am by no means a political junkie, but I want to become one. Nation, Woolsey -- I want to know what you have done for us.
Joe Nation has been our (district 6) Assemblymember for the past 3 terms. He is terming out, and has since decided to run against Lynn Woolsey. As far as I know, Woolsey has been in the US House for the past 13 years and has only faced 2 Democratic challengers (with Nation it will be 3) in the primaries.
So, Nation has held 3 terms (the max) in the Assembly. Woolsey is going on her 8th term in the House. They both seem to be (until now) pretty comfortable in their seats. If that is so, they must have done a lot for us to placate us voters; they must have beefed up our local economy; they must have maintained - if not improved - our transportation infrastructure; they must have provided district 6 with the proper funding and support to better our education; they must have done quite a bit for us to be sitting so pretty. But have they?
Lynn Woolsey, on her "woolseyforcongress.com" website, tells us voters that she stands up for education, that she is the Ranking Member of the House Education CommitteeÂs Subcommittee on Education Reform. But, a quick look at her legislative history (sponsoring education bills -- thomas.loc.gov) shows that Woolsey voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a seemingly good idea at the time but now it is nothing but complicated regulations that our schools must jump through in order to get funding. Further, a quick look through all legislation that was passed from the time Woolsey was elected to the House, I don't see anything she has sponsored that has become a law. I'm not saying that passing legislation is the ONLY way we can tell if our reps are doing something for us, but it's a start.
Not to be one-sided, allow me to ask what Joe Nation has done for our education system lately... It looks like Nation has two education-related bills, one on the floor of the Assembly and another recently passed. The one of the floor (AB 384) will reduce class sizes. The the other (AB 882) deals with building contracts for schools. Neither seem to deal with the problems we face in the North Bay. Reducing class sizes sounds great, but how are we going to pay for this? California pays its teachers more, on average, than any other state, but at the same time we rank 25th in the nation when it comes to expenditures per pupil. We can't afford to limit class sizes to 23 students per teacher. We should first commit to fully funding our schools -- and NCLB isn't helping.
Not to harp just on education (more is coming, I promise), but what have these two done for us lately? The North Bay is one of the gems of California, and we deserve great representation. I am by no means a political junkie, but I want to become one. Nation, Woolsey -- I want to know what you have done for us.
