About Me

Name: The CL Project
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

CA Speaker of the Assembly Equates Free Speech to Terrorism

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:06:47 PM
California’s Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass is at it again.

The same Speaker who issued pay hikes in the midst of a crumbling economy...
The same Speaker who said you voted against $16 BILLION in tax hikes because you didn't know any better...
Yes that leader of the Assembly is now showing the brilliance of her leadership by equating your free right to speech to terrorism.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Bass responded to a question about conservative talk radio by calling show hosts terrorists, and openly wondering why we allow people to call politicians and give their opinions (via The Corner):

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.Funny, how dominant political parties tend to tar their marginalized opponents as "traitors" and "terrorists." Actually, it's not funny at all.
As Chris Reed notes, Bass would prefer a state full of sheep who just dutifully accept tax hikes and union payoffs. Earth to Karen: This is a democracy. If you want an obedient public, move to Pyongyang.

Usually, politicians are smart enough to at least pay lip service to getting feedback from their constituents. Instead, Bass calls them “terrorists” for … what? Calling their representatives and telling them not to raise taxes even higher, in the state with the sixth-highest per capita tax burden in the nation? Expressing their opinions? Telling politicians they won’t get their support if they vote for a tax hike? That’s democracy, not terrorism.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else.
Exit Thought: The irony does not escape us that from Bass' perspective, when Republican members listen to their constituents it's terrorism, but when Democrats listen to their union budget bullying buddies, it's free speech. Then again if I spent my Sunday evenings listen to eloquent speeches challenging my "budget priorities", I might get grumpy too.
Hat tip: Hotair.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

[Video] Assemblywoman Strickland on Priorities and CA's Budget

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:00:49 PM
Sunday night Assembly Democrats passed a $23.4 billion package of cuts, tax and fee increases, and accounting tricks designed to close a gaping hole in the budget for the fiscal year that starts Wednesday.

While the Democratic majority vote solution is comprised of some cuts in state spending, the measures also raises taxes and fees to the tune of $2 BILLION. The majority plan hikes taxes on on cigarettes; creates a new tax on oil production and raises or imposes new fees on property insurance policies, vehicle registration and drivers licenses.

During Sunday nights debate, Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) presented this speech in which she challenged the Democrats' on their stance that their most important constituents are the poor, sick and aged.

 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made it clear this morning he won’t sign the package of taxes and cuts approved by Assembly Democrats Sunday night as a way of balancing the state budget.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CA Senate Bill 399: Giving Killers a Second Chance

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:55:46 PM
California faces a $24.3 billion deficit and a looming cash crisis that jeopardizes its ability to pay its day-to-day bills. However after the Governor presided over a relatively unusual joint session of the Legislature to discuss the budget crisis, the budget isn't necessarily the topic de jure.

After taking time to discuss the mandatory sterilization of pets and the issue of "milk pooling" the California Legislature will discuss a democratic proposal to open the possibility of parole to inmates convicted of special circumstance murder.

Under California law, an offender as young as 16 convicted of special circumstance murder can be sentenced to life without parole. Currently more than 250 California inmates are locked up without possibility of parole for crimes they committed before the age of 18.

Senator Leeland Yee (D-San Francisco) wants to change all of that. Today the California Senate will hear Senator Yee's SB 399 a bill which would open the possibility of parole to inmates who were sentenced to life before age 18.

The penalty of life without the possibility of parole for these juvenile offenders was put into law by Prop. 115, which was approved by the voters in 1990.

Let us be very clear: The sentence, life without the possibility of parole (LWPOP), is reserved for individuals who have committed the most egregious crimes. The individuals in question are 16 or 17 year-olds who were involved in a heinous murder and were found unanimously by a jury and judge to be a major participant in the crime that acted with reckless indifference to human life and were deserving of the more serious of the available sentence options. A judge must then agree that the crime was so severe that the individual should not have the right to parole at any point.

At best, SB 399 creates defacto lifer hearings for LWOP juveniles that is costly and unnecessary.
As worst, SB 399 is another attempt to move toward the "watering-down" and eventual elimination of the voter approved penalty of life without the possibility of parole in special circumstance murder.

This is a comprehensive system that already provides ample opportunity for review and appeal. We do not need to have a judge consider new factors, completely unrelated to the crime itself, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years later for the purpose of reducing a convicted individuals sentence.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California: The Failed Liberal Utopia

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:54:52 PM
Let's be honest. California's current budget debacle is obscene. The state is standing at the edge of a $24.3 BILLION budget shortfall and still, Democrat lawmakers attempt to push legislation forward that spends more and more. It is beyond comprehension.

For the 2004-05 budget year, state spending was at $79.8 billion. A mere two years later, spending had jumped to more than $101.4 billion. That is a 21 percent increase. In two years.

State Lawmakers spend happy attitude is one of the primary reasons California ranks 47th in the State Freedom Rankings. It is also the reason that Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed draconian cuts in an attempt to dial back California's spending to levels not seen since 1999.

I often hear those on the left criticize the economic policies of Reagan as "voodoo economics" and a failure. Never mind that this ill-informed declaration ignores the fact that America's net worth climbed in real terms from $25 TRILLION in 1980 to $57 TRILLION in 2007. Never mind the fact that it was the "failures" of trickle down economics that created more wealth in the last 25 years (at every income level) than in the last 200 years combined. Yet those same individuals have put into power the very party that has spent the past two decades bankrupting the Golden State.

The reality is this...
Years of a liberal California legislature pursuing a version of liberal utopia have failed.
The “model” of an ever growing government with a thirst for taxpayer dollars has failed. Spending more than the state brings in on an annual basis has failed.
The continual tax and fee hikes of years gone by, have failed.

Californians have been told that the State can only survive by adding more government tentacles and do-gooders and regulations and programs that help save people and businesses from their own bad decisions. Now the voters of California have spoken. And as the American Thinker noted, they have rejected the May 19th ballot propositions because they saw them for what they were - a band aid to cover the twin cancers of structural tax deficiencies and partisan politics masquerading as thoughtful dialog.

Now is the time for reform - true reform.

Before we leave our children with the financial burden of our failures. Before we force California off of that cliff. Throughout this week we will post several common-sense reforms that should be adopted to address the state's budget problem. These reforms will not rely on tax hikes, nor severe budgetary cuts - simply a common sense approach to budgeting and living within our means.

We need to start the conversation because apparently the Legislature is not.
 
Follow us at our homepage HERE as we begin the discussion of true budgetary reform in Sacramento.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BOOM: 16,000 Jobs Lost Each Day Since Spendulus Passed

Posted by The CL Project on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:54:27 PM
When Team Obama and the Democrats rammed through the $789 Billion Porkulus Act, they did so with the promise that those taxpayer dollars would create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.
 
NEWSFLASH: The US has lost 16,000 jobs each day since Democrats passed their MASSIVE $787 Billion Generational Theft Act. 16,000 Jobs Lost Each Day Since ‘Stimulus’ Became Law After 100 days of ‘stimulus’ we have to ask: Mr. President, are you looking at the same numbers we are?
Via House Republican Conference

Reminder: Republicans had a plan that created twice the jobs at half the cost.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Vetting of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Posted by The CL Project on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:53:29 PM
In 2006 regarding a question of Supreme Court nominees, Senator Obama said, "I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record."

We agree with the Senator Obama of 2006 and hope that President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court receives a detailed examination of her judicial philosophy and record. Any nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court deserves careful review by the Senate.

Nominations should be judged by a common standard: will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning, or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench. This standard is particularly important for Judge Sotomayor, who has made disturbing statements about the role of judges as policymakers:
 
As Mitt Romney aptly stated, "Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place "where policy is made," as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy."

Any individual who's name has risen to the level of SCOTUS nominee deserves to be congratulated - as such we recognize Judge Sotomayer for her accomplishments and service on the bench. However, that does not, nor will it, preclude them from the careful vetting process that lays ahead.

Update: Regarding the media's hype over Sotomayors "compelling life story" the Anchoress has the perfect take as posted HERE.

Uh-Oh Update: PatriotRoom points out that Jeffrey Rosen at the liberal New Republic while researching Sotomayor noted that colleagues had, "questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative..."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHOOPS! Internal EPA Memo Admits Cap & Trade Will Hurt Economy

Posted by The CL Project on Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:00:43 PM
Jake Tapper reports on the discovery of an internal EPA memo that admits what everyone knows about cap-and-trade systems and regulation of CO2. The memo advises the White House that any attempt to regulate output of CO2 in energy production will likely have “serious economic consequences,” an admission that will boost criticism of the EPA’s proposed regulation of the industry:

Advice in an Obama administration interagency review memo to the Environmental Protection Agency warns that government regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA) will hurt the economy, and questions whether such a “precautionary” move would too expansively open up the door for government regulation.

“Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,” says one comment in the memo, which was officially sent by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.” …

On April 17, Obama’s EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, issued a proposed “endangerment finding,” which would likely mean the EPA would regulate greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, treated as a group as an air pollutant — through the Clean Air Act.

The White House may not have officially decided to go ahead with the finding yet, but they’ve sent every possible hint that they will. When asked, the White House responds that they want Congress to act via legislation as their first choice, but that hardly closes the door on EPA action by fiat. If the treatment of Chrysler senior creditors proves anything, it’s that this administration will not hesitate to use any power, legitimate or not, to pursue its policy options and desire for directed outcomes.

This memo destroys the argument made by Obama often over the last two years that cap-and-trade would wind up being an economic boon. But then again, we knew that even before Congressman Dingell admitted that Cap & Trade is nothing more than A Great Big Tax.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please visit our homepage for your daily conservative news fix at www.chlorinatedliberty.com
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Video: Dems Cheered Blocking Social Security Reform in 2006 - Now It's Nearly Insolvent

Posted by The CL Project on Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:58:25 AM
Congressional Dems wildly cheered their obstruction of Social Security reform at President Bush's State of the Union Address in 2006:

Now a new study shows that Social Security and Medicare are less than a decade from becoming insolvent. Social Security will start running in the red by 2016.

That's right people, the jig is up.

The Washington Post reported that Social Security is insolvent:
The financial health of the Social Security system has eroded more sharply in the past year than at any time since the mid-1990s, according to a government forecast that ratchets up pressure on the Obama administration and Congress to stabilize the retirement system that keeps many older Americans out of poverty.

The report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the government's two main forms of help for the elderly, shows that Medicare has become more fragile as well and is at greater risk than Social Security of imminent fiscal collapse. Starting eight years from now, the report says, the health insurance program will be unable to pay all its hospital bills. The findings put a stark new face on the toll the recession has taken on the two enormous entitlement programs. They also intensify a political debate, gathering strength among Democrats and Republicans, over how quickly President Obama should tackle Social Security when health-care reform is his administration's most urgent domestic priority...

Specifically, the trustees' report predicts that the trust fund from which Social Security payments are made will be unable to pay retirees full benefits by 2037, four years earlier than forecast a year ago. In particular, the trustees single out the financial weakness of the part of the program that subsidizes disabled Americans, saying that fund will run out of money in 2020. Senator Judd Gregg, Obama's former pick for Commerce Secretary, urged Congress to take meaningful action on this trillion-dollar crisis.
 
We’re at the point where any rational observer ought to recognize that when it comes to the federal deficit, we need to quit digging. As Heritage notes, our entitlement crisis existed long before the current recession, and it will haunt us for decades to come unless something is done soon. Spending on Social Security and Medicare already totals more than $1 trillion annually and accounts for more than one-third of the federal budget. Recession or no recession, entitlement spending is on track to double by 2050 and tax rates for all Americans would have to double if the programs are not fundamentally reformed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Friedman: In Defense of Capitalism & Greed

Posted by The CL Project on Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:28:18 PM
From our vault of classics, comes the "patron saint of Capitalism” - Milton Friedman in the following short clip from his 1979 interview with Phil Donahue on “The Phil Donahue Show". It's an interview that remains especially salient now, in an inaugural year of a presidency whose signal achievements include the forced acceptance of federal loans by private financial institutions and the writing of rules by bureaucrats limiting the incentives and awards available for individual enterprise. Friedman is beautifully persuasive in his simplicity and eloquence... "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

Reason has a tremendous article regarding the Friedman clip and standing up for capitalism here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paying the Price for the Politics of Distraction

Posted by The CL Project on Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:17:20 PM
Previously we discussed Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.

Now as the NYT points out, the tumultuous economy that Obama and the Democratic Congress helped shape remains the fulcrum for the legislative battle only now starting in earnest.

Team Obama casts his initiatives on health care, energy, education and the auto and financial industries as responses to the economic crisis. Meanwhile the GOP continue to call the recession merely an excuse for big-government ambitions that liberals have failed to achieve for decades.

But the tides are turning. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in February showed that 51 percent of Americans wanted government to do more to solve problems. Last week, the same survey showed that a 52 percent majority said Mr. Obama had taken on “too many other issues” besides the economy.

But the politics of distraction are already taking a massive toll on the American economy, and we are paying the price.

The New York Times reports today: As the Obama administration racks up an unprecedented spending bill for bank bailouts, Detroit rescues, health care overhauls and stimulus plans, the bond market is starting to push up the cost of trillions of dollars in borrowing for the government.

Already, in the first six months of this fiscal year, the federal deficit is running at $956.8 billion, or nearly one seventh of gross domestic product — levels not seen since World War II … Debt held by the public is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to rise from 41 percent of gross domestic product in 2008 to 51 percent in 2009 and to a peak of around 54 percent in 2011.

As the DC Examiner laid out, the Obama strategy has consistently been to use the current economic crisis as justification for his radical agenda. And when bureaucrats and politicians take advantage of a crisis, the result is always less personal and economic liberty.

The bottom line is this: By promoting an "economic crisis" to advance his policies, Obama's prediction of long-term economic crisis will be self-fulfilling.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Backdoor Fairness Doctrine

Posted by The CL Project on Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:16:46 PM
Shutting Down Conservative Talk Radio: No Fairness Doctrine Necessary.

As we know under the Obama administration, the "fairness doctrine" will be one of the largest looming ideological battles for conservatives in years ahead.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead "Fairness Doctrine". And indeed, legal and policy experts from across the ideological spectrum agree that the constitutionally suspect, ineffectual Fairness Doctrine is likely gone for good.

Instead, the Democrats attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu. "Alinsky jujitsu" as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

As such today's WSJ notes, the real threat to talk radio comes from regulators and activists who favor government control of broadcast content by other means. Most notable of these is the proposed "localism" policy now wending its way through the FCC rule-making process.
Under the guise of "localism" radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

In other words the "localism" tool is a backdoor Fairness Doctrine.

Randall Bloomquist from the WSJ writes:

The most troubling localism proposal would require stations to create "permanent advisory boards," including members of "underserved community segments" to inform management about local concerns. While this sounds innocuous enough, Mr. Jennings [author of "Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio"] sees a Trojan horse.

Once the panels were established, the FCC could dramatically boost their influence by giving them a role in the license-renewal process. According to Mr. Jennings, even if the advisory boards didn't have that kind of power, they would still be problematic. Radio stations succeed by identifying a segment of the audience and super-serving it around the clock. Are they supposed to alter programming to serve other segments of the community? How would that affect their business? What if a Christian station's advisory board decides that its programming should be more "inclusive"?

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

There is only one reason conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves: the marketplace – the listeners – have supported it. Conservative talk radio is a product. What has occurred here is a classic example of supply and demand.

AM and FM radio stations are unique businesses. They are owned by the American people collectively yet licensed by the government to private individuals who operate them, usually for a profit. This puts stations into the marketplace with a few caveats, none of which stand in the way of a station operator running a station like a standard business.

That’s why any attempt to bring back The Fairness Doctrine, or anything which mirrors its regulatory ghost, is nothing more than an attack on free market capitalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Goracle's Net Worth Jumps from $2 M to $100 M

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:14:03 PM
The Goracle's net worth has jumped from $2 Million in 2000 to $100 Million in 2008. Apparently the politics of fear pay rather well these days.

While Al Gore is scaring the daylights out of young children he is making millions from his green investments - and stands to benefit even more if the dems Cap-and-Trade program is enacted. Pro Patria has this to say:

So what has Al Gore gained from his Big Green escapades?

According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.

So while Mr. Global Warming himself, was the star witness Friday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Democrats’ cap-and-tax global warming bill, at least one member was asking the right questions.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged Al Gore's motives for supporting climate change legislation including his links to a firm that will make millions from cap and trade. Perhaps before Al Gore is invited to testify before Congress in the future, he should step up and answer these questions about his financial interests in the outcome of Cap & Trade legislation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California Politics: In Light of Budget Deficit Self Interest Reign Supreme

Posted by The CL Project on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:12:03 PM
Standing behind the bully pulpit and preaching political courage, is one thing. Yet truly taking a stand and pushing for reform even when it is against one's self interest is quite another.

Yesterday the Majority party proved yet again it isn't interested or willing to vote against self-interest, even when it would mean helping save the State from fiscal collapse. The California legislature has voted to retain it's pension plan, otherwise known as the Integrated Waste Management Board.

"Faced with a choice of saving between $2 million and $3 million a year, or preserving a potential and lucrative post-legislative retirement haven, Democratic lawmakers in both houses rejected bills today that would have abolished the state's Integrated Waste Management Board ," reports Steve Wiegand in the Bee.

"Senate Bill 44, by Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, was torpedoed by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, while Assembly Bill 1150, by Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, was scuttled by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Neither bill received any votes from Democrats."Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had sponsored the bills. They would have shifted the board's duties to other state agencies – and wiped out $132,178-a-year jobs for three former legislators who were appointed to the board by the governor and Legislature."

As Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced) noted, "In the midst of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, if the Legislature can't even make this – the easiest of cuts – it's going to be a long summer."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit our home page at www.chlorinatedlibery.com
The daily stop for your Conservative Cyber Eyes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California's Big Problem: That Evil Free Parking

Posted by The CL Project on Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:43:56 AM

Weeks after the California Legislature managed to scrap together a budget fix to the $42 BILLION shortfall, one might think Legislators would be hard at work trying to solve the remaining $8 BILLION out year deficit.

Instead, the Legislature spent Tuesday afternoon discussing SB 518. The measure, authored by Senator Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), would impose state parking regulations that forbid local communities from using state funds, either directly or indirectly, to subsidize parking.

In other words, the bill enacts a state mandate attempting to eliminate “free parking” for the stated purposes of fighting global warming and enacting “social equity.”

The measure stems from a February informational hearing entitled "Reducing Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Parking Policy.” So what's so bad about free parking? The informational hearing showed the public how free parking is truly the root of all evils. You see, free parking is responsible for:

-Incentivizing car ownership and driving which adds to traffic;
-Contributing to rapid urban sprawl & "extravagant" energy use;
-Making housing more expensive;
-Free parking is a leading contributor to global warming & climate change; and of course
-Failing to provide an additional revenue stream to state & local governments.

No... this is not a joke.

The reality is that parking is an inherently local matter. Through their zoning ordinances, cities and counties mandate how many parking spaces each new development must provide. In most cases, these minimum parking requirements are set to ensure free parking to all users of the development at the maximum level of demand. Instead SB 518 allows the state to decide how a local government decides where you can park, or how much it will cost.

The great irony of course is that by eliminating free parking the Democrats will hurt those they claim to care for the most - the working poor. Supporters of these legislative measures have noted that eliminating free parking 'may create financial difficulties' for the economically disadvantaged. Unfortunately there is no "may" about it.

The Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, noted:

In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car. Prosperity in America has always been strongly related to mobility and poor people work hard for access to opportunities. For both the rural and inner-city poor, access means being able to reach the prosperous suburbs of our metropolitan economies, and mobility means having the private automobile necessary for the trip.

People who use transit because they do not have a car face limited mobility and diminished job prospects.

Before enacting anther social engineering policy for political purposes Legislators should consider an amendment suggested by Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) in Committee. Sen. Ashburn proposed amending the bill into a Legislature specific pilot program thereby eliminating the taxpayer subsidized parking for Senators and Assemblymembers.

After all, shouldn’t those who are so willing to implement their political will on the State be forced to live by the same rules as you and I? If after two years of riding public transit Legislators still believe eliminating free parking is the cure for all societies’ ills, then by all means, have at it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California's Big Problem: That Evil Free Parking

Posted by The CL Project on Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:43:09 AM

Weeks after the California Legislature managed to scrap together a budget fix to the $42 BILLION shortfall, one might think Legislators would be hard at work trying to solve the remaining $8 BILLION out year deficit.

Instead, the Legislature spent Tuesday afternoon discussing SB 518. The measure, authored by Senator Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), would impose state parking regulations that forbid local communities from using state funds, either directly or indirectly, to subsidize parking.

In other words, the bill enacts a state mandate attempting to eliminate “free parking” for the stated purposes of fighting global warming and enacting “social equity.”

The measure stems from a February informational hearing entitled "Reducing Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Parking Policy.” So what's so bad about free parking? The informational hearing showed the public how free parking is truly the root of all evils. You see, free parking is responsible for:

-Incentivizing car ownership and driving which adds to traffic;
-Contributing to rapid urban sprawl & "extravagant" energy use;
-Making housing more expensive;
-Free parking is a leading contributor to global warming & climate change; and of course
-Failing to provide an additional revenue stream to state & local governments.

No... this is not a joke.

The reality is that parking is an inherently local matter. Through their zoning ordinances, cities and counties mandate how many parking spaces each new development must provide. In most cases, these minimum parking requirements are set to ensure free parking to all users of the development at the maximum level of demand. Instead SB 518 allows the state to decide how a local government decides where you can park, or how much it will cost.

The great irony of course is that by eliminating free parking the Democrats will hurt those they claim to care for the most - the working poor. Supporters of these legislative measures have noted that eliminating free parking 'may create financial difficulties' for the economically disadvantaged. Unfortunately there is no "may" about it.

The Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, noted:

In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car. Prosperity in America has always been strongly related to mobility and poor people work hard for access to opportunities. For both the rural and inner-city poor, access means being able to reach the prosperous suburbs of our metropolitan economies, and mobility means having the private automobile necessary for the trip.

People who use transit because they do not have a car face limited mobility and diminished job prospects.

Before enacting anther social engineering policy for political purposes Legislators should consider an amendment suggested by Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) in Committee. Sen. Ashburn proposed amending the bill into a Legislature specific pilot program thereby eliminating the taxpayer subsidized parking for Senators and Assemblymembers.

After all, shouldn’t those who are so willing to implement their political will on the State be forced to live by the same rules as you and I? If after two years of riding public transit Legislators still believe eliminating free parking is the cure for all societies’ ills, then by all means, have at it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »