It’s All About Subsidies

The question is should our government be giving subsidies to anyone or any group? This is a problem at all levels of government. It exists at the smallest local level up to the Federal government. Some examples are listed below.

My neighborhood beautification group (West Park Neighborhood) asked the neighborhood council for $300.00 to subsidize our block party. It was granted and we had 150 to 200 people in attendance. We did not earn enough money to repay the council. The council did not ask us to repay them.

The state of California was contemplating a subsidy to build a new football stadium in the Los Angeles area but this idea was blocked by county supervisors. The city of Industry had asked for power to divert $829 million in county property tax revenue from basic government services < http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-indust17apr17,0,867083,full.story >. This was a wise action by the supervisors considering that the county lacks sufficient funds for those basic services.

The Federal government subsidies for ethanol amounted to $7.0 billion in 2006. There was and $18.0 billion subsidy for oil companies that that was created in 1986 and eliminated in 2008 (H.R. 5351: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008). $16 billion in subsidies were given to farmers every year between 2002 and 2005. Wind turbine investments are subsidized through the use of shortened depreciation schedules.

Think about it! No more subsidies from government for anything. Perhaps such policies would enable government to balance its budgets.

Lobbyists Are Everywhere

ABC’s 20/20 on its May 9, 2008 edition had a piece on the lack of information about auto tire aging। The gist of the piece was that tires over six years old should be discarded। Car manufacturers recommend this procedure but tires manufacturers were represnted by a spokesman who insisted that there is no evidence to support that idea. Even when confronted with the fact that the British tire manufacturers have established that standard he stood by his position.

Brian Ross, the ABC reporter, informed viewers that American tire manufacturers have prevented aging information from becoming public or passing laws to protect the public through the use of lobbyists. Consumer Reports web site advises that Strategic Safety LLC, a safety research firm, submitted comments to NHTSA in September 2003, saying it has identified 20 cases in which tires six or more years old failed, resulting in nine deaths. NHTSA says it is still working on a proposal but why? Are the lobbyists preventing new regulations? Apparently Brian Ross would say yes.

In most cases, a visual inspection or check of tread depth will not reveal the problem, the experts say.

The Ford Motor Company has urged the federal government to adopt a six-year expiration date, citing "comprehensive research" and "defendable data driven by analysis."

Ford, BMW, Chrysler, Toyota and VW/Audi now carry warnings about aged tires in manuals given to car owners. Even some tire companies have begun to issue warnings. Bridgestone/Firestone, Michelin and Continental now recommend that tires older than 10 years should not be used, even if they appear safe by visual inspection.
I will be checking my new Toyota tires in the morning. The 2001 Nissan has its original tires. I will be replacing all four tires.

No on California Propositions 98 and 99

Propositions 98 and 99 on the June 3, 2008 ballot will harm all Californians. The titles of these two proposals are totally misleading.

First both of these propositions will essentially end community redevelopment and will allow slums could go on existing indefinitely. These laws will allow slum owners to perpetuate the unacceptable living conditions for the poor. The CRA in Los Angeles has removed slums and replaced them with decent housing. These laws will effectively put the CRA out of business.

Proposition 98 is even worse because it would eliminate rent control for all California renters. Over one million Californians depend on rent control to survive, so abolishing it will have a tremendous impact. As scary as those numbers are, Prop. 98 would also jeopardize numerous laws that protect all 14 million California renters, including the fair return of rental deposits and laws protecting tenants from unfair and unjust evictions.

It’s no surprise then that more than 85% of funding to put Prop. 98 on the ballot came from wealthy landlords and organizations representing them. They only care about abolishing rent control and renter protections so they can make more money at the expense of seniors, veterans, single moms, students and working families.

Voters should vote a resounding ‘NO’ on Election Day on both Propositions 98 and 99.

Paying the Ultimate Price – Your Death

Lawyers who represent those found guilty of murder always plea for mercy. They ask the court to set the penalty to a life sentence rather than a death sentence. Clearly if you are sentenced to life in prison, that is a better penalty than death. No one wants to die!

Killers never consider that when they commit their crimes। Families and loved ones are devastated by the loss of their husband, wife, son, daughter, etc. Those who oppose the death penalty are more concerned with the life of a killer than the life a killer has taken.

California Death Row has more than 600 inmates. We, the citizens of this state, must pay for keeping these killers alive and well. Here is an example of just one killer described in the Los Angeles Times on March 28, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-azusa26mar26,1,7568812.story

A jury Tuesday voted for the death penalty for an Azusa gang member who took part in a crime wave that rocked the tranquil San Gabriel Valley city in the early part of the decade।Ralph "Swifty" Flores, 26, sat stoically as a clerk read the verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court.Flores -- who had grown a mustache over the gang tattoo "Azusa 13" inked below his nose -- was convicted last year of killing four people.For Azusa, the case marks the end to a violent chapter in which a handful of gang members called the "trigger clique" terrorized the town with a series of shootings, killings, robberies and hate crimes targeting blacks.Their rampage lasted from 1999 to 2004.Besides Flores, seven other Azusa 13 gang members were convicted of the crimes and sentenced to lengthy prison terms -- five of them in one 2004 trial."It was a violent time for the city," said Sgt. Mike Bertelsen, Azusa's gang expert. "We were having a murder a month at the end of 2002."

Despite the unrelenting random killing of innocent people there are are those who continue to oppose the death sentence. Recent examples are Jamiel Shaw Jr., 17, a black youth, was shot in the head and back at 2150 Fifth Ave. in Arlington Heights at about 8:40 p.m. on Sunday, March 2, 2008 and prosecutors have charged a 30-year-old woman with the murder of an LAX baggage handler, Samantha Padilla, who was shot and killed on freeway off ramp in South Los Angeles.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that lethal injections are not cruel and unusual punishment when carrying out the death penalty। The state of California should proceed immediately in putting those killers to death। If not, the death penalty should be removed as a form of penalty for murder। I favor the death penalty if it is carried out within a year or two of the sentence. It is a mockery of the law to leave people on death row for deacades.

A New kind of Billboards

Here in the San Fernando Valley we have seen a new kind of advertising that is worse than the usual billboards. At least the usual boards are above my line of sight as I look down a boulevard. The new kind is on trailers parked along all of our main streets. Just call Mobile Advertising at 818-723-0497 and you to can advertise your business at a really low cost. There are laws limiting the parking of any vehicle for more than 72 hours in one place on our streets. Apparently they are not being enforced. When I called Councilman Dennis Zine’s office in December I was told they are working on a law to limit this form of advertising.

How long does it take to write and implement a law in Los Angeles?

Help for the Rich

Isn’t it nice to be a big financial firm? Bear Stearns Cos., one of Wall Street's oldest banking firms, has received a bailout from the federal government and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, made its fortune dealing in opaque mortgage-backed securities - a strategy that might be its undoing amid the worst housing slump in a quarter century. The bank has racked up $2.75 billion in write-downs since last year, and faced a possible collapse without some kind of lifeline. This was reported today in a lead AP story http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080314/D8VD9NG80.html.

Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times reported today that the Region has seen a 19% decline in housing prices from the peak in less than a year. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-homes14mar14,1,7243732.story. In my own neighborhood homes are selling so poorly that asking prices have already dropped more than 25%. There is little help to bail out homeowners who bought their homes in the past few years by taking advantage of adjustable rate mortgages.

When you consider the paltry help to private individuals compared to aid the big corporations receive is it any wonder that the public yearns for new government leadership? It’s what we all knew in our hearts. The government protects the rich and to hell with the rest of you.

A California Attack on the Poor

California’s Proposition 98 (California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act) and Proposition 99 (Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act) have misleading titles. Both are about preventing government from redeveloping blighted areas where the property will be returned to private ownership. In other words community redevelopment agencies would be eliminated because no redevelopment would be permitted. Slums could go on existing indefinitely.

Proposition 98 goes one step further by eliminating rent controls on apartments and mobile home parks. Apartment owners associations and mobile home park associations couldn’t be happier. The consequence of that will be the dislocation of the poorest in our society.

The ongoing issue of affordable housing in Los Angeles has been well documented. Proposition 98 would allow legalized unreasonable rent hikes on those least able to pay. That includes the poor and the elderly. Mobile home parks are commonly occupied by the elderly as a form of low cost housing. Most of those living in those parks are on social security and have little in the way of additional forms of income.

Who is supporting Proposition 98? The primary contributors are mobile home park owners and apartment associations. The information is listed on the California Secretary of State’s web site.

Who is supporting Proposition 99? The California League Of Conservation Voters http://www.ecovote.org/. This organization says its mission is “to protect the environmental quality of the state by increasing public awareness of the environmental performance of all elected officials, working to elect environmentally responsible candidates, and holding them accountable to the environmental agenda once elected.” What’s the connection between this conservation group and Proposition 99? They do not say on their web site. When I telephones them to ask about their support for this imitative I told someone will be calling me back later in the week. They are the only group that has donating money to support this issue. The state says they have donated $300,000.00.

This website, http://rentersrights.blogspot.com/, is a good place to start in fighting these two laws.