Jon Fleischman of Flashreport.org just posted a very interesting article "Breaking News:  GOP AG Candidate Eastman Files As 'Assistant Attorney General'"

Mr. Eastman states that he was appointed by the South Dakota Attorney General on February 23, 2010 to represent and argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court Reisch v. Sisney, No. 09-953.

Furthermore, Mr. Eastman is now an "Assistant Attorney General" not for California, but for South Dakota.

It is quite amusing to read that Mr. Eastman says relative to the case he is working for the State of South Dakota:

Pursuant to the terms of my retainer agreement, I will be paid $20,000 for researching and writing the Petition for Certiorari and representing the state in submitting a reply to opposing briefs.

Then, Mr. Eastman can't live with the retainer amount when he wraps up the case:

I anticipate I would bill the state at least an additional $100,000 for such additional work.

There are two problems:  1) Ballot Designation and 2) Controllable Expenses on such a case.

If Mr. Eastman is going to bill the taxpayers of South Dakota 5 times what was the initial cost in the retainer agreement, then it makes many wonder if he will do the same as California's Attorney General.

I wish Mr. Eastman was forthcoming on this issue over the weekend with the delegates at the California Republican Party Spring Convention in Santa Clara and not after the fact.

We expect candidates to come clean with the voters and not play games, because we are getting tired of those "legal eagles" who think they can out smart the voters!

During the past couple of days, the TheLiberalOC.com has put up some interesting posts about Hugh Nguyen, who is challenging OC Clerk-Recorder Hugh Nguyen for re-election.

For starters, Chris Prevatt notes that Daly may challenge Hugh Nguyen's ballot title, which is “Assistant Orange County Clerk”. That’s not surprising: ballot titles are especially important in low-profile, down-ballot races in which voter don’t necessarily have a lot of information about the candidates. In Hugh Nguyen’s case, the success of his campaign is heavily reliant on a good ballot title, and Daly has no reason to permit him an unchallenged leg-up.

Then there’s the inconvenient truth that Hugh Nguyen is not the Assistant County County Clerk: for one, that isn’t his job title or description, nor does the position actually exist. I don’t know what it says on Nguyen’s business card, but in the county directory Nguyen is listed as “office manager.”

I don’t really blame Hugh Nguyen for concocting an exaggerated ballot title. It’s part and parcel of politics, and largely self-regulating.

However, Dan Chmielewski's post highlights a shiftiness, for lack of a better word, in Nguyen. You can read a fuller explanation of the illustrative situation here, but in a nutshell: some months ago, Art Pedroza put up one of his cheesy in-kind donation ads for his adopted Clerk-Recorder candidate, Hugh Nguyen. In February, Prevatt and Dan Chmielewski ran into Nguyen at a Lou Correa event and asked about the ad. Nguyen said it was unsolicited and that his campaign manager had repeatedly asked Pedroza to remove it.

During an round-robin e-mail exchange a few days ago, Pedroza said that wasn’t true -- Nguyen never asked for the ad to be removed.
In two separate conversations since then, Nguyen admitted that, contrary to his earlier claim, neither he nor his campaign ever asked for the ad to be removed.

Prevatt writes:

When I asked him why told told me something completely different to my face last month, Nguyen said he “didn’t want to get in the middle of it between two blogs.”

That’s fine. I understand that. My question is: why didn’t Nguyen just say that in the first place? Why the deceptive shuck-and-jive? Why the “white lie”? And if he can't stand the heat of a feud between to blogs...?

Last fall, after Chris Norby dropped out of the Clerk-Recorder race to run for the Assembly, my wife Laura explored a run for Clerk-Recorder. She talked to a number of elected officials, and garnered quite a few endorsements, before ultimately deciding against running. Whenever she called someone to ask for an endorsement, she always let them know who all the actual and potential candidates were so the person could make a fully informed decision. Several times, she got a hold of a VIP or elected official shortly after Nguyen had spoken to them and was told, “I wish I had known you were running. I just talked to Hugh Nguyen, and when I asked him who else was running, he didn’t mention your name.”

Now, Nguyen was perfectly aware my wife was seriously exploring a run, and candidates owe honest answers to questions from individuals whose endorsement they are seeking. This is another example of needless, petty deception, a general shiftiness. Frankly, it matters less to whether the occupant of a largely ministerial office is a Republican or Democrat, than whether I can trust them.

The state's Department of General Services has rejected all bids on the OC Fairgorunds, reports the OC Register:

The decision was announced in a letter sent Wednesday by Acting Director of the state Department of General Services Ronald Diedrich to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Diedrich wrote that pursuant to the law authorizing the sale,

"I am authorized to reject or accept the bids that were submitted. Please be advised that after careful consideration, today I have decided to reject all of the bids. The offers contained in those bids are not in the best interest of the citizens of California because they do not obtain the highest and most certain return for the state. I continue to fully share your commitment to selling the fairgrounds and the department will go forward to explore alternative means to promptly achieve that goal."

Assemblyman Van Tran, who has been at the forefront of the anti-sale campaign, sent out this statement in response:

“I want to applaud the Department of General Services on making a wise decision and rejecting all bids submitted to purchase the Orange County Fairgrounds,” said Tran. “Although the fairgrounds can certainly be used more efficiently, this sale was fraught with problems and not in the best interests of our community.”

In January, Assemblyman Tran joined with 10 other legislators in submitting a letter calling for an end to the sale of the fairgrounds. The letter was co-signed by Assemblymembers Solorio, Harkey, Jones, Miller, Nava, Silva along with Senators Correa, Huff, and Wyland.

Assemblyman Tran took legislative action by introducing AB 1790 with Assemblyman Solario and 6 other co-authors to stop the sale of the fairgrounds, following the stalled AB 1590 by Assemblyman Solario and Tran. AB 1790 is pending hearing in committee.

The sale was initially intended to benefit the state in financial gain, but at the same time, it was clear that the property would be offered for sale to local entities, allowing the property to continue to operate as a fair in a more efficient and profitable manner.

As the RFP and bidding process was completed in January, the top bid for the OC Fairgrounds was $56.5 million. Previous estimates value this property at $96 to $180 million.

Stay tuned, because the sale saga isn't over.

So I received my official goverment census form in the mail the other day from the Commerce Dept.  Every ten years the government is required by the Constitution to count the heads of everyone residing in the United States.  The purpose for this count is to be able to apportion the House of Representatives according to population.  In recent years unfortunately, the census has become a tool for social engineering.  They are requesting all kinds of information that is private.  We are only required to fill out how many people live in the house and that's it.  I would urge everyone to just answer that first question and send the form back. 

If you choose, you may attach this letter like I did.

 March 15, 2010 
 
 U.S. Census Bureau

4417 West Buckeye Road

Phoenix, AZ 85097-1111 
 
 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Enclosed please find my 2010 Census Form.  There are two people residing at this residence as reported in Item #1.  

Pursuant to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the number of people residing in the house.  I have provided this information.  The additional information requested on the census form has nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the the number of representatives in the House of Representatives; therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article 1, Section 2, Clause3.   

I cannot be subject to a fine for adhering to the Constitution as that document trumps laws passed by Congress.  If you require further clarification, please refer to Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894).  Note that this United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned. 
 

Sincerely, 

U.S. Resident
 

UPDATE:
ON MARCH 24TH, THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY GOES TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE TO REQUEST THIRTY MORE STAFF MEMBERS BE PAID AND ASSIGNED TO THEIR OFFICE. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey is taking a very brave stand on High Speed Rail, one I would like to applaud her for. In the face of the power structure that continues to push the greatest boondoggle in California history, Harkey is pointing out that the emperor is indeed naked. Her bill, AB 2121 is just now getting noticed by the press, although sadly the OC Register continues to ignore the HSR disaster. http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/4571

AB 2121 points out that there is no funding for this ill advised project, and just plain pulls the plug. I support this bill, wholeheartedly, and I am incredibly grateful to Harkey for doing the right thing. High Speed Rail is one of those sexy projects that look good during a newscast, but few in Orange County have bothered to look closer to see who the emperor’s tailor is. In the face of California’s financial collapse, as we release prisoners into our neighborhoods and lay off teachers, HSR is getting hundreds of millions of dollars for contractors and consultants to create “studies”. That is hundreds of millions of our dollars without ever laying a single rail! That is before we set about building something estimated to cost over $40 billion dolllars!  Where are these dollars going? The biggest recipient of California’s generosity has been Parsons Brinkerhoff. If their name sounds familiar, they are the folks responsible for Boston’s Big Dig, the project that is scandalously over budget (surprise!) and facing charges of corruption. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pblie.htm

 The High Speed Rail project is being pushed as a jobs project, but let’s looks at who really gets those stimulus dollars. We’ve already met the folks at Parsons Brinkerhoff, they are a British company. The folks smacking their lips over the government contracts to build the rail cars and rails themselves are foreign companies who already have the factories and technology to build these projects overseas, in Europe and Asia. They are very well known to the High Speed Rail Authority and their contractors, these would be the same people Medhi Morshed referred to when he mentioned them during a HSRA Board meeting:

Mehdi Morshed: I said let’s hope not because the contractors are receiving gifts all over the place.

Spanos: the gift limitations ‐‐

Pringle: ‐‐ We don't ‐‐ don't say that, we don't know that ‐‐

Morshed: well, I know, they’re getting trips and, you know, all kinds of – well, anyway.

See the complete story at http://www.redcounty.com/hsr-contractors-have-some-splainin-do/36578

Of course the HSR folk are doing their best spin to reverse public opinion on AB 2121. Quentin Kopp borrowed from Obama’s playbook, trying to convince the press that California’s taxpayers are against the project because we don’t understand the law. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14681348?nclick_check=1 In fact, it may well be CHSRA that is up against the law, as they were required to produce a viable Business Plan in advance of the Bond vote in November of 2008, and to date they still do not have an “investment grade” Business Plan for us to work with! As taxpayers begin to understand that this system will never do what it was promoted to do, will cost far more than expected, and cannot be run without subsidy, despite Prop 1A’s insistence that a subsidy will not be permitted, we can appreciate the work Diane Harkey is putting into this bill. If the Rail Authority ever decides to design a system that is engineered for speed rather than a gerrymandered path to allow for press releases in the districts of those in charge of the project, perhaps we can come back to the table for discussion. But for now, Harkey has the right idea, and I would encourage everyone to keep one hand on your wallets while dialing her office and showing support for AB 2121.

This legislation would reduce the amount of general obligation debt authorized pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21^st Century to the amount contracted as of January 1, 2011.

In November of 2008 the legislature placed on the ballot and the voters approved by a mere 52.7 % a $10 billion in debt for high speed rail. However the total cost of the project is expected to reach between $40-$60 B. 

The rationale for the HSR is to develop a more diverse transportation system and job creation. Claims are also made that we could see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and congestion relief on our highways.

However, the cost to the people of California has not yet been determined. While some environmental consulting and engineering jobs are presently being filled, it is questionable at what point significant local job creation would occur. The Legislature approved $139 million to fund continued preliminary planning of the rail system during 2009–10, including project–level design and environmental review for all ten segments of the rail line, program management services, financial planning, and development of a new ridership model, in addition to work to be completed through 2013. However, project level tracking appears to be lacking in detail.

In addition, while initial federal stimulus dollars of $2.5B have been awarded, further federal funding is not assured. Federal funding will need to be match funded with state bonds. Ridership and transit fare box subsidy have also yet to be determined, as projections have been fluctuating.  

THE ISSUE

While there may be some benefits to high speed rail it should not come at the expense of our schools, local transportation, public safety, and health and human services. It should be noted that $9-10 billion represents only startup costs for this project. The High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) estimates the costs for this project in excess of $40-60 billion. The Legislature should demand complete projections and tracking mechanisms prior to funding any project with public funds.  

In these times of chronic budget deficits, the Legislature has opted to issue bonds to fund high priority projects. 

Every dollar that is borrowed to pay for high speed rail will cost the state approximately $1.60 for debt service and repayment. In addition, since 2004, voters have approved roughly $50B of competing bonds to fund schools, housing, transportation, hospitals, public safety and other needs.

While high speed rail may benefit certain areas of the state, the lack of specifics as to cost, subsidies, financing, and ridership, added to the state of the state’s finances, should cause the Legislature to reconsider its overall value to the people of the state of California. Public resources might be better spent on a steady supply of water, roads, prisons and schools. For example, our prison system is in Federal receivership as we have yet to issue the bonds anticipated in AB 900 to build much needed facilities

While some private investment may be possible toward the end of the project if successful, it is highly likely that, as with any other public transportation project, HSR will need to be substantially subsidized by our heavily indebted state.

Article XVI of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the people, to reduce the amount of indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less that the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted.

Introduced

None on file

None on file

Sharon Gonsalves  (916) 319-2073

sharon.gonsalves @asm.ca.gov

Today's top stories from behind the Orange Curtain:

Supervisors Revoke Treasurer Street's Investment Powers (OCR)
County supervisors this morning unanimously voted to revoke Orange County’s Treasurer-Tax Collector Chriss Street’s authority to invest county funds.

Editorial: OC Treasurer Made A Dead-End Street (OCR)
County's top money manager loses investment powers in wake of legal setback.

Price-Gouging Fees For Building Permits Reduced (OCR)
Good news for residents remodeling their homes in unincorporated Orange County: The county’s construction permit fees are (mostly) being reduced.It only took eight months.

Health Calls Jam House Lines; OC Reps Speak Out (OCR)
Will Loretta sign the longest political suicide note in history?

San Juan Balks At Caltrans' Freeway Designs (OCR)
Caltrans plans for about 20 to 30 trees to be cut down, retaining walls up to 30 feet tall will be erected and more giant images of swallows and similar drawings will be etched into the Ortega Highway/5 Freeway intersection.

Study To Estimate maximum Quake At San Onofre (OCR)
Studies of the seismic vulnerability of California's San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants are under way.

Capistrano Unified Mediator Offers Compromise In Teacher Pay Dispute (OCR)
Proposes 10 percent pay cuts has recommended that teachers take a series of temporary pay concessions totaling 6.32 percent.

OC Districts Turn To Furloughs, Shorter School Year (OCR)
Orange County students are likely to lose up to a week of instruction next year while classes grow ever more crowded, teachers are let go and course options shrink.

John Campbell gets A Little Payback (OCR)
Rep. John Campbell got a little bit of payback for the UC Irvine 2009 championship men’s volleyball team, which was snubbed by the House last year.

All OC Jails To Start Checking Immigration Status Of Inmates (OCR and )
Yesterday, all inmates booked into Orange County jails started having their immigration status checked.

Los Alamitos Faces $600,000 Budget Shortfall (OCR)
City officials are working to cover a nearly $600,000 budget shortfall and some council members said the money issues will be worse next year.

City Leaders Ax Cell Tower At HB Church (OCR)
NIMBYism triumphs. Maybe, one day, someone will invent an invisible cell tower.

Deadline Looms In Dana Point Beach Access Case (OCR)
The California Coastal Commission's enforcement staff has given the city until April 2 to remove gates controlling access to Strand Beach.

Costa Mesa Chided Over Pot Raid (OCR)
Advocates of medicinal marijuana are displeased with Police Department’s latest search of Costa Mesa dispensary.