Heartless.

I thought it would require California to change our laws if we accepted the money.

In a way which would have no fiscal impact according to the analysis and the people I talked to about it. Plus, it sunsets Dec. 31.

What about the increase in the national deficit that this would add to?

No, Audra bravely voted "not present." What a trooper.

I'm no legislative expert and I try to read between lines, but the republicans could be having an issue with this:

"Because the bill would provide for the payment or additional amounts from the Unemployment Fund, a continuously appropriated special fund, it would make an appropriation."
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx3_23_bill_20090316_amended_asm_v96.html

Again, it's double speak to me and I'm confused about the word 'it' when the language speaks of making an appropriation.

Other than that I didn't see where the State would be required to do much of anything except re-distribute federal dollars.

Clearly Audra and her 16 Republican comrades voted in a spineless Party line.

Is this what she ran for to be a people's representative for? To be a "no-show"?

How gutless!

I don't agree with the votes of the nine Repub's who voted this down, but I will concede to them they stand to the courage of their convictions.

Clearly Audra lacks convictions and places more value on being re-electable.

John Doe,

Before I wrote the post, I talked to somebody who is very knowledgeable about this particular bill and in the final version that was voted on there were no costs to Californians associated with this.

The fact that so many of them hung out and failed to vote proves they were feeling guilty or did not want anything on their records.

I talked to one of the guys who helped organize and he said he could've gotten 200 guys out yesterday if he'd had a bit more time. They wanted to do this before another vote came up. I hope it passes next time.

I could've written a lot more. The Valenzuelas really got a frosty runaround in Audra's office. Our "Woman of the Year" and this is how they treat her.

Ms. Strickland passed no legislation in all of last year. I am unsurprised at "no-show" behavior.

Besides the national deficit, which no one commented on.

At least she has a job. Unlike 1 of 10 people in this state. You guys are just really bitter that you guys don't run a plurality government, rather than 2/3's vote when our taxes are raised. What do you want to do raise taxes again in a year when the state and federal government needs more revenue to make up for the federal pork for those too lazy to work for less than they are used to, or harder than they are used to.

No Cost to the State? Where do Federal tax dollars come from? Hmmm? The pockets of those who work. 10% unemployment sucks and the answer from state and federal is, sorry, higher taxes. When the federal money is used up the state will still be required to pay out for the extended unemployment aid.

One word: Recall!

Audra Strickland doesn't vote to bring already set aside federal dollars into Ventura County to help families out of work and you say she is doing her job? Well if that is the case, then Republican's like her need to be recalled. Aren't Audra and her husband Tony the ones who refused to meet and talk to school officials about the horrible cuts to education? Answer: Yes. Add 'shame' to her resume. We hope she doesn't think she can run for any other public office and get away without answering to voters who understand her record of 'shame'.

This bill was only designed to take advantage of one-time federal money. It sunsets.

I'm not big believer in govt. handouts but I have to say I don't get why anyone would vote against federal money already coming here anyway. Aren't they taking other monies? So what's the big deal? I was laid off two mos. ago but am hopeful of something else right now. Al these teachers getting laid off too. Where will it end? So sad.

Let me get this straight. 1st Audra Strickland voted to lay off even more teachers then got pink slips last week. Not she voted against giving them some of their federal tax dollars back until laid off teachers find new work?

How much does she get paid a year? How much does she pay her staff? She is powerless not because of her party but because she isn't interested in governing.

She didn't vote against it, she voted present, just like your messiah hussein obama did numerous times in the Senate, and now you're outraged? Federal hand outs come from tax dollars, where do you think we'll make up the difference, in higher taxes?

Way to go Marie, presenting a one-sided view of the issue. According to the LA Times republicans voted no because they wanted more time to analyze the measure to make sure that it would not cost California taxpayers any money. Why do you have a problem giving them time to review the legislation? It appears that democrats are trying to rush the legislation through as an emergency measure. I for one would prefer our elected leaders to at least take a little time to know what they are voting on. You automatically assume the worst.

The California Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have also expressed some concerns whether increased eligibility could raise costs for employers by eventually forcing a hike in payroll taxes. Shouldn't we at least listen to our business leaders who create jobs? A little due diligence seems in order. I really don't think anybody wants to deny unemployment benefits to people if there is no cost to California taxpayers or to businesses. But it makes sense to know for sure if this bill is "free" as advertised.

Bubba Kidd,

Then why not vote NO?

HaHa,

Stop race baiting. President Barack Obama deserves our support and respect. When we disagree we should be clear but respectful.

Because a no vote would be twisted to imply that republicans are against helping people who are unemployed and need assistance. Kind of like what is already happening on this thread.

My sources tell me that the Chamber's objections were removed from the bill before the final vote. Also, if there was anything untoward, it could've been cleaned up when it got to the Senate. So any Republican objections at that point are just excuses.

Your sources? So you have some sort of inside information on legislative negotiations taking place behind closed doors in Sacramento? Please share.

BTW Marie, any reason why you failed to mention the chamber's objections in your original post? The way you wrote this thread seemed to imply that there was no other side to this "no-brainer" issue, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to inadvertently mislead your readers by leaving out relevant details.

#7,
Ummm... I support the president. He is my president. How did I disrespect anyone?

No one minded when we called President Bush "Dubya", based on his middle name. Who is the real Race "baiter"?

I asked my source about that before I wrote it. I had also read the L.A. Times. I have excellent sources and I stand by them.

I must really be getting to you lately, judging by your full-on attack mode on the other thread. Good. That means I'm doing my job.

Sleep well Bubba.

Ha!

Did you really miss the race baiting done by the opponents of Barack Obama based on his family heritage? Dubya was used as an affectionate nickname. You are the first to try to claim you are supporting our president by refusing to use the name he goes by, that his family and friends call him, and that he calls himself.

I know you don't really believe there is nothing to it.

Marie, that was kind of mean.

Also where's Katie?

#8,
I know there were some crazy conspiracy theories out there about our president's name. But I was just using his name, and the point was more of what he had done, or "didn't do", and not what his name was. And that was quite obvious in my post.

I could just call him Barry like everyone he is personal with did when he was growing up.

I would give you no grief for calling him Barry. When you use just hid middle and last name you remind everyone of those conspiracy theories again. I know people with Arabic names and they really felt weird seeing a guy that isn't even Arab get attacked because of his name. The Palin wing of her party got a thrill out of saying his name and making it sound sinister. How do you think that made patriotic Arab Americans feel about their place in America?

Consider this more proof the Republican Party thinks you are a loser and wants you and your family to starve to death if you were unfortunate enough to get hosed by one or more of their moneyed patrons.

#10,
But seriously that is his name, as he swore in, he used his middle name. That is his title. I didn't mean it in a prejudicial way, I was just saying his name, and as far was Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world. I know I would be.

The point was Barry voted present numerous times in the Senate, arguably a much more important platform than California state assembly. And there was no outrage until it came from the other side of the aisle. That is a double standard, and not fair. Marie conveniently left out the fact that they tried to push this through as an "emergency" bill, and with that didn't allow everyone to read the bill entirely before a vote was cast. Also, my sources in the Chamber of commerce are still concerned about the consequences of taking federal money on top of the tax increases in this state, considering the debt already established by both entities.

There is no one in the Republican party that wants people to starve to death, that is propaganda at best, and slander at second best. Look at Los Angeles county. It is run by the democratic party, and they had a decrease in students this year of 4% while total funding increased 1%. Their drop out rate continues to climb. There are many things to consider before rushing into federal financing, and God only knows what provisions the feds added to the bill to get their money back, because it has to come from somewhere.

Marie, if your so-called "sources" are so unimpeachable then perhaps you can share with the rest of us who they are. If you stand by them then perhaps, at the very least, you can identify where you are getting your insider information. What's the big secret?

I also find it interesting that you now admit that you knew from the beginning about objections from the Chamber of Commerce but neglected to mention that information when you created this thread. If it is such a "no-brainer" issue then why are there business groups that seem concerned? It doesn't sound like you're being entirely honest with your readers.

And don't worry about me, I sleep quite well thank you.

HEHE,

You proved the point in your own words. He isn't Muslim or Arab-American. Did you somehow miss that during the last few years?

He did use his Middle name, but he also used the name we all know him by, which you purposefully left out.

You have proved that using his name confuses people to his background. It even confused you! What does it matter that Muslim Americans are a small minority? Does that mean it is okay to make them seem foreign and the other?

Arab Americans are rightfully concerned that a faction of America used a political tactic to question their loyalty and their virtue as Americans.

But if all of this is just an accident and you didn't mean anything at all by it then I expect you to only call other politicians by their middle and last names. Anytime you deviate I am going to call you on it until you admit you were wrong. How come you don't call McCain or Palin by their middle names? Is it because they don't sound foreign to you?

He didn't vote present in the US senate, he voted present in the state senate of Illinois. Is that more important than the California State Assembly? I guess you just got that fact wrong too. Let me guess, you like Fox News. Seriously, what source confused you on his record?

Guffaw,

Do you think "Alois" Schwarzenegger will sign the bill if it passes the legislature? He has been talking more and more of being bipartisan like "Sidney" McCain has for years. I assume both of them were sworn in by their full names.

I read the bill and its analysis in under 5 minutes. It's rather short. No excuses. The part the Chamber objected to was taken out and put in a separate slower track bill. My sources are good here. They were trying to hurry it up so people who are losing their benefits soon would get help, that's all.

Like I said earlier, if there was anything at all untoward, it would be cleaned up by the time it got to the Senate.

I have heard lame excuse after lame excuse now.

Maybe she was too busy scheduling a meeting with education leaders in Ventura County to attend.

True, she did say she would meet with all those superintendents only in her Sacramento office, one on one, instead of a group meeting in her own district. So we're looking forward to flying all those folks up for the meeting at taxpayer expense. Maybe Audra can share some of her per diem to help pay for this.

While I do get the point that a no vote by Republicans would lead to potentially unfair insinuations, it's pretty clear that either way they got tarred for causing the legislation to fail. They could have done as one commented by voting no, with public debate denouncing the bill, then fix it later if that was needed.

Another thing...all this fuss about using "Hussein" misses two points.

First "haha" likes to phrase it as "messiah hussein"...which is just as much a dig as "Dubya" although Bush's supporters used that appelation as well.

Second, this fuss come (on both sides) from posters apparently afraid to use their own real names, choosing instead to hide behind an alias.

So much for courage of conviction...much like Audra and her Repub colleagues.

Marie, do you really think that republicans actually sit around and conspire against people in need? Do you really believe that they would vote against extending unemployment benefits if there were absolutely no cost to the state government or to businesses? What is their motive? Do you think they just get off on being cruel to people who are unemployed?

Seems to me that this isn't such a "no-brainer" issue if, as you have now acknowledged, language had to be removed that would have hurt businesses. In this economic environment it seems prudent to make sure that we aren't adding additional burdens on employers that would inhibit their ability to hire workers, don't you think?

Audra did not vote present, she did not vote at all.

I have no idea why they would vote against something when the offending language was removed. I don't know if it was ever proven that it would hurt businesses, either. They just took it out to try to get the bill passed. The important thing to remember is that most of the GOP didn't vote at all. So I think they were worried about how it would come across on their record. But it still effectively killed the legislation.

Tony Strickland voted against a bill authored by the agricultural industry and Hannah-Beth Jackson to help keep kids from being poisoned at their own schools by pesticide spraying near their campuses. He has yet to articulate to the press or anyone else why he didn't vote for it. Rigid ideologues don't need a reason sometimes, I guess.

Marie, a little sensitive and personal there? Maybe?

#s,
I don't care what he is. His name is Barry Hussein Obama. Now he is President Hussein Obama. Whichever background he comes from shouldn't determine his policies or how we judge him. The fact that you attack me for using his name, just shows how petty of an argument it is. Call him whatever you want. He is still our president, and we have a few more years (at least) of that. I call him "messiah" due to the great faith put into him by much of our country. I think it is a fitting title in a time where we could all use some saving. About the rest of it, it is trivial. The guy is half white. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a democratic president. In his actions like Carter, and his words like Clinton. Very charming. You can spin your wheels all you want. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

Brian,

You know that in Sacramento your key is either in to vote or it's not. There is no other way to vote "present". It is either a yes vote or a no vote, unlike the senate. And you, who seem to be a bright feller should know that her "not voting" was the same as Barry voting "present". But you are right, she didn't vote.

Tom,
No one has ever asked me my name.

HaHa

It may be true that there is no present vote. The fact is she it is not the same thing as voting present as you tried to make the comparison to Obama. She just didn't vote so a no vote could not be used against her. It shows she is a coward and a true her and her staff are waste of tax payers money.

HaHa,

I have asked you to post under your own name several times. That is asking for your name.

Yes, my young daughter was one of the children who was sickened in an incident that prompted the legislation Tony Strickland voted against. I thought he was a lousy legislator in 2000 and nine years later he is still a lousy legislator.

His wife continues the lousy tradition. She fails to vote on the bill I referenced in this post here and accomplished nothing in the entire legislative session last year. On top of that they employ thugs as aides who run amok in crowds and hurt people. Joel Angeles' trial starts April 24 yet he's still up in Sacramento hassling constituents.

I'm represented in the Assembly by Nava, thank God. And we know we can count on local Senators Fran Pavley and Julia Brownley when we need them here.

Marie, can we stick to one topic at a time? You complain about me bringing up the pension issue for the past few months, yet you have been going on about that pesticide story for the past nine years. Give it a rest.

You keep ignoring my point, which is why you didn't initially disclose to your readers that there have been concerns raised by the business community about the impact of this legislation, and that republicans also want to confirm that there will be no impact on the state budget. Why should legislators be forced to vote on bills before they have had a chance to fully understand the impact? You keep pretending that this is a "no-brainer", but I'd rather have legislators take the time to make sure they are passing a good law instead of voting on things they don't understand that are being rammed down their throats. You keep saying you want to elect "bi-partisan" legislators, yet you continually oppose allowing republicans any input into the legislative process.

The Chamber objection was taken out of the bill, that's why. I'm not the LA Times with 1,000 words at my disposal to talk about every previous incarnation of a bill. I write a blog and I've been told I write too long as it is.

So your GOP colleagues aren't capable of understanding bills after two months of study, huh? It was introduced Jan. 15. Well, that explains a LOT!

If your child had been sickened, you wouldn't forget, either. I used it as an example of voting against something because of pure ideology and it's a stellar example of that.

For the record, your thread introduction was 510 words. I find it remarkable that in all of that you couldn't mention that there was actually another side to this "no-brainer" issue.

I'm also amazed that you keep lecturing others about being "obsessed" with certain topics but clearly don't follow your own advise. Take that into consideration next time you get on your high horse.

I think I also need to remind you that bills are often heavily revised and have to wind through various committees before they can even be reviewed by legislators and considered for a vote. You are misleading your readers by implying that republicans have been delaying this legislation for months when that is in fact not the case. The attached article shows that the bill was still in committee as recently as a few weeks ago. Please stop trying to spread misinformation and stick with the facts. Maybe you should go back and watch your old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons to educate yourself on the legislative process.

Here is a link to a document for AB23 X3 that shows that the bill was still going through analysis and committee hearings in early March. Again, this clearly shows that Marie's claim that GOP legislators have been stalling this bill for months is patently false. Note that, based on the amendment recommendations, significant changes were still being made to the bill at that time in order to fix errors and to get it to conform with federal law and existing state laws.

Also take a look at page 4 under the section titled "Fiscal Effect". As of March 4 the fiscal impact was "Undetermined". Sounds to me like this was still very much a work in progress. Once again I will say that I prefer having our legislators take the time to pass a good law rather than rushing something through that is flawed or not clearly understood. That's what our elected representatives are suppose to do.

I'm quite aware of the legislative process, thanks. But it was indeed introduced on January 15, voted out of committee in early March and put to a vote on March 16. It had full analysis and was ready to go. It got lots and lots of press. I never once said the GOP was stalling for two months.

Federal stimulus dollars coming to our state to help folks out are a big deal. This was an important bill. It's not one of Tony's "Let's rename a highway after my hero" resolutions that could be easily overlooked.

And as I have said THREE TIMES, if there was any last-minute fixing to be done, it could be done in the Senate.

Quit making excuses for these guys. The fact that so many abstained meant they knew it would look bad for them.

P.S. You have nothing better to do with your time than to sit and count the words in my blog entry? Get thyself a life, Bubba!

Marie, how can you put up with this idiot? Is it time for gopher alerts?

NEWS ALERT

According to the Vector Division of the Ventura County Dept. of Public Work, a gopher alert was issued today at 3:30 P.M. my C. A. Tchgofrs, Vector Analyst.

According to the alert, unseasonally warm weather has resulted in a gopher invasion of the press. Gophers should be poisoned, trapped and hit on the head with shovels at all times when they are above ground. Gophers can be identified by strange noises, making no sense, darting out from under rocks, and hiding from the daylight.

This is an official gopher alert.

This afternoon I too read the Gopher Alert from the County. I already ran out and purchased three new traps, one box of poison and a package of six gopher gas bombs. I want to be prepared. Stricklands don't support Ventura County and our citizens most in need of help. But the Stricklands sure do take care of themselves at the public trough.

I'm setting my gopher traps. I read that the County will pay $0.50 for every gopher brought in. As often as Gopher Bubba is showing its face, I should be able to make a few bucks during these hard economic times.

And Marie, as I've said multiple times, legislators should not be pressured to pass bad laws. It is ridiculous for you to suggest that they should vote yes on a law that is incomplete or may have a negative impact on businesses, and assume that it will get "last-minute fixing" in the Senate. The legislature should keep working to fix the law and pass something that they can agree on. As you've already admitted, this bill didn't even come up for a vote until four days ago, why should lawmakers who have concerns be bullied into passing something that has an "undetermined" fiscal impact? Again, how is it that you claim to want to elect "bi-partisan" legislators, yet you continually oppose allowing republicans any input into the legislative process? It seems to me that they are just trying to do the job we elected them to do. There is nothing wrong with having a diligent, patient, thoughtful legislative process, as opposed to ramming through politically-correct, flawed legislation.

Marie is correct, the objectionable language was removed and inserted into a separate bill. There were no valid issues of concern in the final Assembly bill as presented. Her contention that additional tweaking could be done in the Senate IF later analysis concluded a problem is also correct. The objective is to get the legislation moved through both houses as quickly as possible to get federal dollars to our families and back out into the state economy.

GOP to 74,000 destined to lose benefits in a month: DROP DEAD.

"May" have an impact on business is not reason enough to turn down $3 BILLION for a million desperate families, Bub. Once again the Republicans prove they only kowtow to special interest donors.

HeHe,

You didn't even know President Barack Obama isn't a Muslim or Arab but you think leaving out his name, which is intentionally done to make him seem like he is a Muslim or an Arab, isn't important?

How come you don't call other politicians by only their middle and last names? Every single time I see you on any blog not using the middle and last names of other politicians I will point out you didn't know Barack Obama isn't a Muslim or an Arab and I will point out your obvious hypocrisy.

I have a blog for you:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/propaganda/

The title says it all.

Show some respect or start referring to other people like Walker Bush and Jefferson Clinton.

Just for you HA!

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/rush_limbaugh_returns

HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN...

omg did I hurt your feelings? You're they prejudicial hypocrite. You attack me instead of talking about real issues. HUSSEIN!

HaHa

How is Obama's middle name a real issue?

Brian,

The issue isn't his middle name. The issue is that hehe only wants to use his middle name and not the middle name of other politicians.

The right wing thought it would hurt Barack Obama if their followers and others thought he is a Muslim and/or Arab.

It is such a powerful rumor that hehe even thought Barack Obama was an Arab Muslim. How funny is it that he thinks it is no big deal to attempt to lie when he fell for the lie?

Real issues? Why discuss real issues with a race baiter that is so ignorant they think Barack Obama is an Arab and/or Muslim? It is a waste of time to discuss real issues with someone that is so oblivious that during the last campaign they didn't know the religion and/or ethnicity of the winner of the election?

I have no problem with his middle name, if they aren't race baiting.

But the real issue should be how Alois Schwarzenegger is going to fix the state budget.

Brian,

Ever wonder why right wing race baiters claim they don't mean anything by using Barack Obama's middle name but they don't use the middle name of most politicians?

It's like when they say "Democrat Party". It shows they have no interest in discussing actual issues and want to shut down debate by making us point out they are race baiting.

Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger

Let's get back on topic:

IOWA & SOUTH DAKOTA THE FIRST STATES TO APPROVE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STIMULUS FUNDS

Bi-Partisan Support for Improving the Nation’s Unemployment System Grows: Texas Governor Rick Perry’s Refusal to Update State’s Program Is Out of Step With Republican and Democratic Governors in At Least 13 States

(March 13, 2009) Washington, DC – Advocates at the National Employment Law Project lauded yesterday’s action by the state of Iowa to become the first in the nation to pass legislation allowing it to take full advantage of its share of $7 billion in federal recovery funds designed to boost the economy and grant jobless benefits to hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers currently not covered by the system. In addition to Iowa, South Dakota passed a measure qualifying the state for one-third of its federal funding, and Georgia’s House of Representatives, in a move backed by the governor, unanimously approved legislation that will tap the state’s full federal unemployment insurance stimulus allotment, once the state senate has acted.

Coming just days after the announcement that unemployment rose to 8.1% and another 651,000 jobs were eliminated in February, these states’ actions signaled the growing momentum across the country to expand unemployment benefits to part-time and low-wage workers and update the unemployment system for the workforce of the 21st Century. “The facts on the ground—rising unemployment and growing strains on states’ unemployment insurance funds—are convincing governors and legislators across party lines and across the country that there is tremendous opportunity in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to boost local economies and help hundreds of thousands of jobless workers currently falling through the cracks. States should follow Iowa’s lead while time remains in their legislative sessions to approve the reforms needed to tap these funds and put this effective stimulus to use,� said Christine Owens, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project.

Iowa has modernized its unemployment program by extending benefits to more low-wage and part-time workers who were previously shut out under outdated eligibility rules. The reforms will also provide extra benefits to the long-term unemployed to help them access retraining. The major infusion of federal funds in Iowa – $71 million in trust fund grants and $5 million for administrative support – will cover the costs of the new benefits for more than seven years, while also helping to bring down unemployment taxes when the state and its employers and workers need the help most. State officials anticipate that the money will avert a likely tax hike for employers there in 2010.

In addition to Iowa, South Dakota, and Georgia, Republican and Democratic Governors in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah have expressed support for modernizing their states’ unemployment systems.

These bi-partisan vows of support contrast sharply with remarks yesterday by Texas Governor Rick Perry, who objects to accepting $555 million in federal stimulus funds that would expand unemployment coverage in a state where only one in five jobless workers currently collects an unemployment check. The funding would also boost the state’s insolvent unemployment insurance trust fund, reducing employers’ tax liability next year by roughly $500 million. Immediately after the governor’s announcement, a bi-partisan committee of the State Assembly voted out a resolution calling on the legislature to overrule the governor and move ahead with the reforms needed to qualify for the federal funds.

“The growing, bi-partisan support for these stimulus provisions is leaving states like Governor Perry’s in the minority. If this chorus of national support isn’t enough, perhaps the voices of jobless workers and strained employers in their own states will convince the skeptics to get on board,� concluded Owens.

For more state-by-state information on how unemployment modernization provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would help workers and stimulate the economy, visit: http://www.nelp.org/index.php/site/issues/category/modernizing_unemployment_insurance

Reader

I am with you. I was wondering why Haha, JaJa, HeHe or whatever thought it was more important to go that route rather than talk about real issues. We will be talking about Republican Racism next week on the radio show.

One Rightie on Chris Matthews tried to call it the Democrat Party and Matthews laid into him for his disrespectful and stupid behavior.

We give money to banks who have made really bad choices. We bail out people who buy houses that some knew they couldn't afford. AIG sends bonus checks to people who ran that company in the ground. We give tax refunds to people who never paid taxes in this stimulus bill, but when it comes to folks who have been laid off and are competing with millions of other people for a very few jobs, the Republicans balk. Whether or not they have a good reason or not, doesn't really matter. It looks heartless and cold. Republicans are sticking to principle and cutting their own throats. This is a fight they will regret.

It was a free speech thing, and someone wanting to censor me for something I had no intention of doing, that he only can make claims that I "intended". I know The president is not an arab Muslim. He's half white, and his dad is from Kenya. The real point here is no one has discussed the impact of handing out all this federal pork on the national deficit which was a big talking point when it came to attacking Dubya. The war costs "too much". Remember that? The President Barry Hussein Obama, or BHO, as I can call him now I guess, is tripling the national deficit that Bush left, which was already "too much". Think critically for ten seconds before you make any more claims, if you are capable.

Thought about it.

Billions for death and destruction or
Billions for people and jobs

There is no free speech issue and nobody is trying to censor you. Did you see a suggestion that a law should be applied against your race baiting?

You said:

"...and as far was Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world. I know I would be."

Go ahead and explain how you thought he was "one of their own" but you think he is black and Christian?

Your own words proof you wrong.

You also never addressed why you don't call our governor:

Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger Alois Schwarzenegger

Steven,

The stimulus included the largest middle class tax break ever by some estimations. The tax refunds are on payroll taxes which all workers pay. I don't see any evidence that there is any tax refunds to people that don't pay payroll taxes.

Marie,

Why would it take a 2/3rds vote if it doesn't raise taxes?

I think because it contains an urgency clause. That requires a 2/3 vote.

Why does the the bill say that the fiscal impact is "undetermined"?

Being called a "race baiter", which is a dumb insult anyway, is a way of telling me that I "shouldn't" use that phrasing. That is in an effort to Silence my words, and we all know the slippery slope there.

I call Arnold by his first name, and sometimes the Governator. I didn't know his middle name, and I don't remember him saying it during his inauguration. Why should I call him anything else? It's my mind, my words, I chose them.

Some people call the Stricklands "Phony Tony, and Fraudra". While I use their full title, "The honorable state senator, and assemblywoman Strickland." I don't tell them they are "lie baiting", and accuse them of racism, or some grand conspiracy to confuse the public. Talk about an over reaction.

When I said: "as far was Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world. I know I would be" If I were Muslim, I would like to believe the propaganda of BHO's Islamic beliefs, especially since his Christian reverend would yell vile things about our Great nation. I would be happy to look up to him as my role model. I don't see why you wouldn't want to either?

To Duh,
Yeah, It really sucks doesn't it? But the second won't make up for the first one. It's the old, "two wrongs don't make a right." 3x The national deficit won't help anyone in this country, just the Chinese who are giving out loans to pay for interest on the loans we took before. If you are going to buy something like AIG, you should start running it more efficiently than it was being run, because we had to give them money since they were so inefficient. Instead, it is business as usual, and we're paying "BONUSES" from tax dollars in the millions of dollars, for purposes of "retention". Also great incentive to get people to work, add to the 59 weeks of unemployment you can get in California. That's a fantastic idea. No wonder it didn't float through the assembly. Thank you evil republican hold outs. Even bonds are being devalued by our own government. And unemployment still rising.

By the way, Brian, telling me I should post in my own name, and then backing it up with a bunch of petty arguments is not "asking me what my name is". Statements aren't questions, sir.

Oh, 1 More thing.

"Your own words proof you wrong."

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

I was told the part the Chamber objected to was placed into this bill:

SB 3 X3 (DeSaulnier)

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?file=sbx3_3_cfa_20090316_201725_asm_floor.html

Note the commentary on the bottom.

Until I hear differently, I stand by my original source. AB 23 X3 sunsets once the federally funded weeks are used up.

There will be another vote on Monday.

Thanks for the update, Marie.

Chortle,

You got me. I said prove instead of proof. Meanwhile your defense for falling for the propaganda is that Arab Americans or Muslim Americans were likely to fall for it. You have any Arab or Muslim friends? Ask them if they think he is either. My friends aren't dumb. They knew the truth because it was a major feature of the campaign.

Then you connect it to his Pastor because his pastor said God will get revenge on America. You know Sidney McCain's campaign supporters said the same thing over and over again. Somehow you ignore that just like you ignore Sidney McCain's middle name.

Why would Muslim Americans or Arab Americans be excited over "vile" comments ( the types of which when they come from the right you ignore), is it because you think they are ignorant of reality (like you) and hate America?

I don't care that you use race baiting tactics. The "prove" is that you don't even know the middle names of the other candidates. They did use those names being sworn in. But you don't call him Jefferson Clinton.

Are you illiterate? You just said, "I said prove instead of proof". You said proof instead of prove.

My "defense for falling for the propaganda is that Arab Americans or Muslim Americans were likely to fall for it"? I didn't fall for anything, I used his middle name, and you started calling me a racist. If you are able to read my post you will see that I said, "if I were" a Muslim Arab I would want to look up to him as a leader. Now you're saying that is a bad thing? What do you have against Obama? The "Truth" of the campaign is that you had the Disabled Old Man vs the Charismatic Young Man. The rest was pretty clear in terms of Right or Left. If you had a clue, you would know that I am very well versed in political strategy, and that You are the one falling for the con. They want you to believe that conservatives, and Republicans especially are racist, naive, idiots, who would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh, instead of researching the facts. The truth is, that is propaganda. You are reinforcing it here, and it is distasteful at best. You are the one who is prejudiced. You are the one making the claims. I don't Ignore Senator McCain's middle name, I just don't really care to use it, and in this country that is my right. You want to believe I am something, then go right ahead, and you'll be wrong, and one day you may realize it or you won't. I will still be right.

You said, "Why would Muslim Americans or Arab Americans be excited over "vile" comments ( the types of which when they come from the right you ignore), is it because you think they are ignorant of reality (like you) and hate America?". So you think Muslim Americans are ignorant? And that they HATE America? That is pretty bad. I don't ignore anything, but you certainly are fixated on one issue only, and ignoring everything else.

Maybe you're just over excited because you think I'm some bigot who was trying to "Race bait", whatever that means.

You don't know me, One of my best friends is from Palestine, not Jordan, or Israel, but Palestine. I never called your friends dumb, so I don't know what you're talking about. You're just frustrated because I used BHO's middle name. I like calling Clinton, Slick Willie. Again, my mind, my words, my post. Just stop it, will you? Before him there was JFK LBJ FDR, and I did know William Jefferson Clinton, aswell as George Herbert Walker Bush, and Dubya's middle names. I just didn't want or need to use any of them. You tell me What was William Henry Harrison's middle name? Oh wait, it is right there, and I knew that too. Lincoln had no middle name. You are such a prejudiced fool. Have you ever just said Lee Oswald, or John Booth? Another double standard?

BHO's pastor said a lot more than just speaking of the lord taking revenge on America. (Revenge for saving the Jews and Europe from the World Wars and the holocaust, or sending billions in international humanitarian aid around the world, or disposing tyrannical Despots in third world military dictatorships, and ending genocides in other parts of Europe and Asia? I have no idea what God would need to avenge for.) And we really don't need to get into that, it's on the record, and you will believe whatever you want.

You want to keep up this debate, go ahead, for me it died after the second Tuesday, after the first Monday of November last year.

I want to know how much the deficit will go up when we all have to pay for this federal money that is supposed to be coming to the state, but we haven't passed it yet. I want to know the long term affects, and risk analysis of adding more benefits and money to the Unemployment program when our schools are failing. I want fiscal responsibility in Sacramento and Washington, and accountability from the staffer, to the wall street executive, all the way to the president. "Nothing in life is certain, save Death and Taxes."

I don't favor a law stopping you from race baiting, but I do favor pointing out your changing story and race baiting tactics. This is an exact quote from you:

"...Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world."

How is President Barack Obama one of their own? First you said it was because they might have been mislead by the attacks on his faith and now you altered your words to say they should look up to him as a leader.

I don't care to defend Rev. Wright and his comments. But your focus on him and your double standard to the comments made after 9/11 by Falwell and Robertson plus the comments made by religious figures working with the McCain campaign show you don't really care for the truth.

I don't care that you use his middle name. That wasn't the issue. The issue is you didn't use his first name and then you said Arab American and Muslim Americans should be proud one of their own was elected president.

I never said Muslim Americans were ignorant. The Muslims I know all knew Barack Obama was a mixed race ( black and white) Christian. Your friend likely knew that too.

When you use tired attacks I don't care to listen to the rest of your comments. You won't expand the base of the Republican Party by name calling and tired attacks. I never once called you a racist. I said that you were race baiting. There is a difference. I don't know you and I don't know what's in your heart. But I do know you destroyed this thread by your comments not related to the issues.
[Comment from Marie: I agree these off-topic rants destroy threads, but isn't that their intention?]

You don't use Sidney McCain's middle name because it doesn't fit your agenda. The same with our governor.

Seriously, you don't think there was anything to it when people used his middle name while attacking him?

Los Angeles Times editorial today:

Help for California's jobless
Extra federal funds for California's unemployed are just an Assembly bill away. It should be passed quickly.

March 23, 2009

Imagine the federal government offering California more than $2.5 billion to help its unemployed workers. You'd think that lawmakers would leap at the money, especially with the unemployment rate climbing to 10.5% in February. And yet when the Assembly took up a bill last week to make the state eligible for the aid, resistance from Republicans left the measure one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed for speedy passage. Proponents plan to bring a new version of ABX3 23 to the Assembly today, and lawmakers shouldn't hesitate to pass it.

The federal stimulus package that Congress approved in February included about $40 billion for increases in unemployment benefits. The lion's share -- $27 billion -- would fund emergency aid to those who exhaust their current benefits (up to 53 weeks' worth in this state, more than half of it financed by federal taxpayers). To enable its workers to receive an extra 20 weeks of federally funded aid, though, California would have to change the way it measures its unemployment rate. Under state law, the extended benefits would flow only when the rate for workers eligible for benefits -- a category that excludes the self-employed, among other groups -- tops 5%. The state hasn't met that threshold since 1983. By contrast, it would be eligible for the aid today if it considered the overall unemployment rate for three consecutive months, as allowed by federal law. That threshold is 6.5%, which California has exceeded since April 2008.

Providing more money for unemployment benefits is widely viewed as an effective way to stimulate the economy, because the dollars are much more likely to be spent than banked. The National Employment Law Project estimates that every $1 in benefits yields $2.15 worth of economic growth. That's one reason Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Chamber of Commerce and labor lobbyists all say they want the state to take advantage of the federal offer for extended aid. And it's important to act quickly, because an estimated 168,000 unemployed Californians are due to exhaust their benefits in the next few weeks.

The main sticking point over ABX3 23 was the possibility that the state -- or rather, employers located here -- might be left holding the bag for $900 million in extended unemployment benefits after the federal aid runs out in June 2010. Backers of the bill disagreed, but its sponsor, Assemblyman Joe Coto (D-San Jose), has been working with state officials to eliminate any potential ambiguity. With the state's unemployment insurance fund on the edge of insolvency, the concern about the cutoff date makes sense. But that's no excuse to stall this crucial bill, not when so many people need the help.

That was never my intent or my point, Marie. Look at my first, second, and last post on this thread, I asked about the federal deficit long before I started getting attacked personally. Who really went off topic first?

And Reader, we agree on a lot of things, and one of them is that a lot of people fell for right wing propaganda. I think a lot fell for the stuff coming from the left too. I never meant it in a racial way at all, it was just never such a big deal to myself and my educated friends and colleagues, which is how I have been using it since he began his run against Hillary. I have been using it ever since then. It was even a running jokes in a few of my offices, but when you quote me saying:

"Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world." You leave out the context about me rather wanting to fall for the propaganda, If I were... And when you quote someone out of context it can sound really bad like:

"Why would Muslim Americans or Arab Americans be excited over "vile" comments ( the types of which when they come from the right you ignore), is it because you think they are ignorant of reality (like you) and hate America?"

A direct quote from you. It sure sounds like you're saying that Muslim and Arab Americans, and I are ignorant, and HATE America.

...Whatever it was a misunderstanding at worst.

Back to the real thread,

How much is it going to cost CA to pay back this stimulus money from the feds? The answer can't be ZERO, because it has to come from somewhere. Unless you think Texas is going to start paying for our unemployment insurance, this could be a huge number.

This is a direct quote from you:

"...Muslim Arab Americans which is about 1% of the US population, then I would hope that they are proud that one of their own has become the leader of the free world."

How can that be read except to say they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim Arab or that Muslim Arabs thought he was a Muslim Arab?

Either you think he is to quote you "one of their own" or you think they fell for the stupid email forwards that send he was a Muslim.

When you keep trying to reference rumors going around and try to discuss in a rational way policy one of the two isn't going to work.

But I am done with it if you are now that we have you on record saying Muslims either think Barack Obama is one of their own or that he is one of their own.

Don't even dare me for destroying a thread for calling you on your comments.

Do you want Alois Schwarzenegger should refuse the money? If he doesn't accept it then another state could take the money. Either way we will be paying it back. Since using middle names isn't a big deal I expect you will call him Alois Schwarzenegger in your future posts.

Let it die, just like our country is.

You can expect whatever you want because obviously you have no grasp of reality, and lack the grammatical skills to convey your version of it. I will post what I want to post, and you're the topic killer. So we should add to what we have to pay back by accepting money for unemployment, but not demand it be spent on education? You are one twisted "reader". You're on record saying that Muslims Hate America. I think my record is a little better, especially given the context. Shut up already, and do some math. We take money, we have to give it back. How much is it?

When you have an answer, you should post, until then you're just trash floating on the top of the sewer, more wasted space and bad ideas. How dare you dare me to dare you. You are a relentless creep. Leave me alone.

You are the one that keeps bringing it up. Let it die? Then stop posting on the same subject. You could admit you were wrong and you did say that Barack Obama was "one of them." But the more you keep insisting you didn't say what we can all say and then getting mad that people keep insisting you did the more this thread goes down the drain.

There is no quote that says Muslims hate America.

There is a quote from you that Barack Obama is "one of them".

You brought up Muslim views on America when you said "If I were Muslim, I would like to believe the propaganda of BHO's Islamic beliefs, especially since his Christian reverend would yell vile things about our Great nation. I would be happy to look up to him as my role model."

That means you are the one that thought Muslims would be into hating America, because of the comments of Rev. Wright.

There is context that will explain away that you said Barack Obama is "one of them".

Now that you are cornered and your quotes show exactly what you said you want to start calling names. That isn't much of a surprise.

Demand all you want for where you want the money spent. But the legislation has already been passed. Meanwhile it wasn't debated much here because you were too busy distracting everyone with your defense of leaving out Barack Obama's first name and calling him "one of them" as if he was an Arab Muslim.

So how much are we in the hole now?

I guess the unanimous change of mind in Sacramento means that Federal dollars don't cost the taxpayer anything. It couldn't be because of the negative fall-out our lawmakers received.

HaHA

Once again you demonstrate your lack of maturity by calling people school yard names. In the quote below you call Reader "Trash Floating on top of the sewer" and a "relentless creep". Don't you ever claim you don't call people names, you have called me "Garbage". Not only are you wrong on issues your a liar. Your childish behavior is why the voters don't want your kind running this country anymore.

"When you have an answer, you should post, until then you're just trash floating on the top of the sewer, more wasted space and bad ideas. How dare you dare me to dare you. You are a relentless creep. Leave me alone."

Thanks for keeping us on track, Katie. I gave up!

I need to add that Audra voted for the bill this time!

As I've said from the beginning, there was disagreement over potential fiscal impacts of ABX3 23. Our legislators have a responsibility to make sure that taxpayers and businesses aren't hurt, rather than caving into every politically correct feel-good piece of legislation that comes across their desk. It would have been irresponsible for our legislature to pass this bill without first making sure that the state and businesses weren't "left holding the bag for $900 million in extended unemployment benefits after the federal aid runs out in June 2010." It also made sense to require that the bill's sponsor eliminate ambiguous language from the bill. Republicans had no problem supporting the legislation so long as it was crystal clear that there would be no cost to the state or negative impact on businesses. Once that was done then the bill passed. That's how the process is suppose to work. Kudos to Audra Strickland for holding out to make sure that we passed responsible legislation instead of an ambiguous law with an "undetermined" fiscal impact.

Bub, There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two versions. The "fiscal impact: unknown" on the link you provided earlier was from a March 4 committee hearing analysis.

The "fiscal impact" is the same on the March 23 version as it is on the March 16 version, which Audra voted against...

FISCAL EFFECT : The Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis states the following:
Increased federal funding in the range of $2.5 billion to $3
billion for 20 weeks of additional emergency UI benefits during
2009. Potential, likely minor, General Fund costs to state and
educational agencies (schools and colleges) related to emergency
benefit increases. Unknown impacts to local public agencies to
the extent increased federally funded benefits require an
increased employer contribution.

Quit trying to play rabid hypartisan amateur legislative analyst.

Hey, you guys got what you wanted. Seems to me that the real purpose of this thread is to launch into yet another ridiculous series of tired attacks against the Stricklands and republicans in general. If you guys really wanted to debate the merits of this bill it could have been done without the partisan slant. But it's obvious that there is another agenda here.

Bubba Kidd, you aren't the only Republican on this thread but you are one of the only Strickland supporters. People are tired of the Stricklands being jammed down their throats and having their action or lack thereof being defended by abusive extremists.

Who said I was a Strickland supporter? All I said was that Audra and other republicans had a responsibility to carefully review this legislation to insure that there is no cost to the state and it doesn't negatively impact businesses. And that makes me an "abusive extremist"?

Bubba,

There isn't a single person that stands up for the Stricklands more often than you on the Star blogs. You offer way more defense of them then you are critical by a wide margin. The elections over, you don't have to be their shill anymore.

I think you are being too hard on BK - Mike Gibson and his innumerable fake names also defend the Stricklands. So that's at least two Republicans that act as shills.

Why is it so difficult for Bubba to accept that legislators vote against things because of pure ideology?

Maldonado told reporters that during the budget vote he had other GOP colleagues saying to him "‘Abel - let it go into bankruptcy, let it go off a cliff, we need to prove a point, that it’s the majority’s fault,’�

When they get in that groove, a little outside pressure is a good thing.

If you look at my history of posts you won't find me saying anything derogatory about Obama or even Hannah Beth Jackson. When I cast my ballot I vote for both democrats and republicans. I don't blindly support the republican party, nor do I always agree with the Sticklands. At the same time, I don't always disagree with them either. Contrast that with the constant Strickland bashing and one-sided political arguments that continually takes place on these blogs and it's clear that some people around here are more interested in silencing dissenting opinion than engaging in a substantive debate of the issues. If agreeing with the Sticklands makes a person an "extremist" then you are calling more than 50% of the population of Ventura County extremists. That type of thinking warrants a hard look into the mirror.

Silencing? Are you kidding? Now just pointing out your the biggest defenders of the Stricklands makes me attempting to silence you?

Here let me give you an easy question. Do you agree with Tony Strickland's move not to meet in public with the Superintendents of education from across Ventura County?

I am the biggest defender of the Stricklands here why do you think everyone feels the need to personally attack me, when they can't even read or write because our education system has failed us so much. I think that at a time when the budget was going through debate in both the assembly and senate it was a bad time to meet with superintendents who are only administrators, to discuss anything. They knew they wanted more money, why waste the time listening to them say it again. Now if it were an indepent teacher's coalition that wanted to sit down with either of them. They might have considered it. You guys are so hypocritical. Do you think HBJ would have sat down with a bunch of oil execs who want to drill off of Ventura and SB?

Brian,
I like you, you don't give up. But the fact is no one knows what this is going to cost. It looks like about a billion dollars to California after inflation and interest. Luckily it won't effect us for about 3 years.

Yes, Hannah-Beth would've met with them. She wouldn't have done their bidding, no. But she would have taken a meeting, I am positive of that.

Haha, those 19 superintendents represent thousands of families. No excuses. Our superintendent here in Ventura has great ideas for reforms. The Stricklands should listen to her.

The education leaders could have explained exactly what would be cut under each proposal.

If it was a bad time then, why not do it now? They continue to refuse and only meet with people that already support their agenda. That's not representation or leadership. Audra's bills frequently help private schools. Maybe that's because she refuses to work with local leaders.

Marie,
You may be positive, you may still be wrong, and we may never get to find out (hopefully).

As far as the cost to CA for this federal funding. From what some of my Economic professor resources tell me that in 3 years when the bush tax cuts are up, and are not renewed it will cost California tax payers about a billion dollars. That is including inflation, and interest.

haha

It is Tony and Audra's job to meet with the administrators of our school system. That is one of the things they were elected to do. They needed to do it during the budget process so they would know what their refusal to face reality will cost our counties children in order to make wise decisions on how they vote, something they hate to do. Not attending the meeting and sitting in the rain at a card table in Goleta is a dereliction of his duties.

If Tony and Audra meet with them here, as a group, the cost would be two plane tickets and would have been an efficient use of time. Meeting with them separately in Sacramento means more time away from their jobs of trying to save public education, cost more than a dozen plane tickets, hotel rooms and other expenses. I thought you were against government waste of taxpayer dollars. Lets start by cutting Tony and Audra’s salaries and those of their useless staff.

It is their job to meet with them, but timing and location is everything. We were going to have to cut back on the increase in school funding, and everyone knew that.

I am against wasting government money. I think administrators should cut their salaries in 1/4 and The Stricklands should take at least a gestural 10% cut. On the other hand don't take away from my pay check I work my butt off for the people in SD19.

Why is it you want Tony and Audra Strickland to take less of a pay cut than the people they refuse to meet with?

The superintendents didn't say budgets couldn't be cut at all, they were discussing the programs and staff that would be cut by various proposals.

Tony and Audra Strickland continue to refuse to meet with education leaders to find out the damages the different budgets are causing.

And somehow you defend their refusal to meet with people? This sounds like a let them eat cake moment to me.

They continue to reap the benefits of elected office but they refuse to meet their constituents. Maybe if they stopped focusing on being career politicians for a few moments and focused on their current job they could pencil in a meeting.

What benefits? They are being harassed by everyone on this blog, and mostly everyone who calls tells them they are doing a great job. They aren't refusing to meet anyone now. They just didn't attend that meeting that no one ever RSVP-ed to. They meet with constituents daily and as often as possible, try calling their office, and setting up an appointment, instead of attacking them online.

I think administrators at school have the easiest and most overpaid job in the state. Legislators, especially conservative ones have a very hard job here. They deserve the very minor pay they receive, and that most administrators make more isn't fair to me.

Haha,

I expect my elected leaders to meet with other public leaders. I don't mind if they can't make a meeting but are you really defending the fact that they have refused to reschedule the meeting?

The people who didn't vote for them won't call them because why would they bother? It's like having a pair of worthless mannequins as representatives. They won't take meetings or Audra sends her attack dog Angeles out to harass.

M,
No one has "refused" anything. They offered to meet in Sacramento because they have jobs to do there.

"Learned",
If they didn't vote for them, then they should call and tell them what they want. That is part of being a constituent. Having different political beliefs is no excuse for not trying to contact your representative. They take plenty of meetings. And your "attack dog" remark is from one isolated event, and you don't know him personally. If there is one thing that Joel Angeles isn't, it is an "attack" anything. He is a very nice guy who was in a very difficult situation, and allegedly wasn't very cool at the time. Though, if anyone was hurt during that event, I hope it was not serious, and they made a full recovery. I'm sure Joel never wanted anything like that event to happen, but you guys keep bringing it up like it was the Titanic sinking.

Joel has a long and sordid history of being a hatchet man - it has been well documented by the LA Times. I have met with him myself (when it was supposed to be Audra talking). He is not a "nice" guy.

I have sent numerous requests to Audra when she was orginally running for her position on school vouchers, abortion, etc - no response.

re: I sent written requests to both Stricklands re: Support the Troop efforts at the start of the Iraq war - no response.

I'm a voting, registered Republican.

Oh, and the non-response was waaaaaay before I was an enlighted local Republican.

I and people I trust have observed your buddy Angeles in action in numerous places and I have been on record in numerous places as saying he is NOT a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination.

He should've been fired long ago. I would never keep on an employee with such issues.

I'd take it, if you can convince Audra. I'd be happy to set up meetings for you guys.

haha,

Since he didn't mean to hurt anyone has he apologized or is he continuing to blame the victims?

Are you really claiming the Stricklands aren't in the district enough to meet local education leaders? These "fiscal conservatives" want to have local schools pay to send staff to Sacramento so they can be lectured to cut waste like needless travel?

How is it that the Democrats, who actually run the state, have time to meet with local groups, but the Republicans do not?

Give it up. Obviously they didn't want to attend the meeting and they don't care to reschedule it. Call Tony Strickland and ask if he is highly interested in meeting.

Oh, I do see his basketball schedule has him playing often at CLU, but I guess he doesn't have time to do his job.

I said, "He is a very nice guy who was in a very difficult situation, and allegedly wasn't very cool at the time."

Joel has told me that no one was hurt (Please hold your assaults for now). I wasn't there so I will have to wait for the justice system to declare the outcome of the facts, if a judge or jury ever determines the "truth".

Then I said, "Though, if anyone was hurt during that event, I hope it was not serious, and they made a full recovery." Which is myself sending my best wishes if there was anything gone wrong.

I am claiming that there was a lot of budget debate, and I happen to know The Honorable State Senator Tony Strickland was the only republican to take the floor during the budget debate. Audra also was fighting against raising taxes, and that meeting was strategically timed to coincide with the start of the legislative session, and the budget debate going on in Sacramento. Neither of them said they could attend the meeting. I am certain The Senator would like to meet with the administrators of the school districts. They should call his office. Now you're attacking him for playing basketball? Running a little thin are we?

haha,

You said, "They offered to meet in Sacramento because they have jobs to do there." They could easily meet here as they live here and Mr. Strickland is here quite often. I didn't attack him for playing basketball, I attacked you for falling for the idea he isn't here often enough to meet with local leaders.

Do you really think meeting in Sacramento is a better idea? Why is it that Democrats meet local leader here in the district and in public?

Your excuse for them doesn't line up with reality or their past excuses. Why not just stick to the official party line? Ask Marie for details but they both were in the district that day to my knowledge. The Democrats were there, so there goes that excuse.

It is a matter of public record that someone was injured. But it hasn't been proven in court that your friend was at fault for it.

You won't have long to wait. Audra's doberman goes on trial April 24.

Tony doesn't want to meet. Ask the school supes yourself.

I didn't say they shouldn't meet them here in the district. I said they weren't going to go at that time, and they were busy that day. You asks the sups to ask for a meeting, and watch him call and ask. Hold them accountable too.

It isn't a matter of public record until the 24th as this previous post points out. Then you can get mad again at me, for something I didn't do.

Any clue how much Joel A. actions have cost the taxpayer?

He's one of the reasons why the state budget is out of control.

Save money! Fire Joel!

You need to get your facts right if you are going to defend the Strickland’s. Audra did RSVP but canceled that day for a family emergency. Tony sent out his Press Release about his card table in the rain meeting with constituents in Goleta the day before, I got it. Your claims about them being busy are just plain wrong. They called and asked him to reschedule which is when they began this dance of bringing the mountain to Mohamed.

I was behind Jack Phillip’s a 71 year old Episcopalian Minister and Vietnam vet, when Joel Angeles pushed him to the ground tearing his rotator cuff requiring surgery. I called the police.

You are defending three of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money in Government,

And I'm sure you are omniscient, and a great resource for facts. Brian, you sound like a violent fellow. Why didn't you catch him, if he did fall? Just so you could blame the Stricklands?

I happen to know now that Tony was doing community outreach in Goleta in very unfriendly territory, which was a commitment he made during his campaign. Audra had a genuine family emergency or she would have been there.

And by the way, Back in the day you free loving hippies would have had the tar beat our of you by the police. I'd rather have little 5 foot tall Joel after me, any day, than a rubber bullet or tear gas, or cops on horseback with batons.

Why wasn't George Runner there? And why didn't any of them send a representative or chief of staff? No, the fact of the matter is that they had no intention of going and the bad PR from their stupid idea has really backfired.

And your Joel defense is laughable. I suppose rape or assault victims or spousal abuse victims are lucky that they weren't murdered?

Are you just parroting what you are told?

HaHa

The community outreach he needed to do was attending the meeting where he would have heard the communities needs from a variety of people not sit in the rain at a card table in Goleta for PR stunt. To prop the Goleta event as something even remotely as important is just plain bogus.

Now to the second paragraph. You say people who oppose the Strickland's should be happy that they were attacked by a private thug as opposed to the police with rubber bullets, tear gas and cops on horse back with clubs. Five foot Joel is also five feet wide and a 71 year old man is going to do some damage and he has not tight to do it, end of story. You think using violence against those who have a different opinion than you is justified. How incriedably un-American. HaHa

The community outreach he needed to do was attending the meeting where he would have heard the communities needs from a variety of people not sit in the rain at a card table in Goleta for PR stunt. To prop the Goleta event as something even remotely as important is just plain bogus.

Now to the second paragraph. You say people who oppose the Strickland's should be happy that they were attacked by a private thug as opposed to the police with rubber bullets, tear gas and cops on horse back with clubs. Five foot Joel is also five feet wide and a 71 year old man is going to do some damage and he has not tight to do it, end of story. You think using violence against those who have a different opinion than you is justified. How incredibly un-American.

Haha is just baiting everyone. It was a peaceful protest until Audra's doberman went off.

Haha,

Your excuse that the police used to beat people for peacefully assembling and waving signs is a poor excuse for saying it is cool that a paid government employee tried to stop people from using their 1st amendment rights of assembly and speech.

You seem to know the man very well. Were you in the event?

If the crowd was so rowdy why were the only police inside the event?

Haha,

Seriously if you think it is a coincidence that all of the almost all of the elected Democrats that represent Ventura County showed up and ALL of the elected Republicans weren't able to make it but wanted to be there then I have no other option but to conclude you are either a gullible partisan or your just spinning for your faction.

The odds are against you. Are you spinning or do you believe it yourself?

The media thing is mostly just spin. Tony did have a community outreach plan in place from when he promised the people of goleta that he wouldn't forget about them when it came to representation. Audra did have an emergency, and would have missed the meeting, but I think she also had a standby excuse before that. Of course none of the republicans were going to go show up where the democrats could have a platform to sit there and rail against the republican ideology of cuts instead of higher taxes. "we need it for the children" they would say, and then say "it is THESE evil people", and then they would point at the republicans and the cameras would have taken that picture and the headline would read "Republicans want to end public school funding".

On Joel, I wasn't there as I have stated many times. I don't believe he did anything. If he did the court will find him guilty and then you guys can make fun of me, on that one, I may be gullible, but from what I know of the man, he never assaulted anyone, and I will wait until there is a legitimate outcome in the court rather than believe first hand testimony from someone who obviously would like to see this man imprisoned just for helping the Stricklands to get elected.

I have had friends overseas who have been battered by police for assembling during a state holiday. They didn't get a chance to run as horses surrounded them striking right and left. The people were allowed to filter out the 4th side of square the other 3 sides of police had made with their horses. The whole time being pelted with tear gas. And all of this because they went to a soccer game, and happened to be there during a fight when they were walking back to their hotel.

I have other friends who were shot with rubber bullets in Los Angeles at the System of a Down concert fiasco. Some of them were reporters others were just fans, but they all had bruises, and they just wanted to listen to music.

I have family in Greece that lives in Athens and Thesselonika Where the "anarchist" party has been rioting for 4 months straight.

And about Joel being 5 feet wide. Since a death in his family he has lost a lot of weight. So you owe him an apology on that one.
All of those things are worse then little Joel Talking big.

If you guys really think they are overpaid and should have it cut, you should contact Abel Maldonado and ask him to support an initiative or referendum to lower the pay mandated in the california constitution, and not whine on a blog online.