Jobs are headed overseas
2011-02-10 / Letters
Mr. Clark (“Tired GOP mantra won’t fix economy” letters, Acorn, Feb. 3) implied that Tony Strickland was wrong to say that businesses are moving out of California because of high taxes and regulations, adding that it is foolish to think they are moving to Nevada as Nevada is no better off than California.
No informed person would think that businesses are moving to Nevada. If you can read the labels on what you purchase, most will say made in China or Mexico.
I know personally of two companies that together employed about 200 people who folded because they could not compete with China. Also, Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain throughout the U.S., will not come to California because it is not business-friendly.
Supporting regulations to clean up the Santa Barbara oil spill is good, but what about the regulation not to drill, causing oil to bubble up and be wasted in Santa Barbara along with damage to animal life?
Supporting regulations against the spread of E. coli is good, but how about supporting regulations that stop companies from hiring illegals who work in agriculture and are used to urinating wherever they please, causing E. coli in our food source?
Also hiring illegals in the food industry and importing food from countries that have no sanitary regulations?
According to a city nurse, many illegals that come into our schools have TB, among other diseases, and that is one reason we have the immigration laws, so diseases are not brought into this nation. Joyce Clark Thousand Oaks
ltr star 02122011 The people of Egypt have begun the long march past fundamentalism, strongmen and failed ideologies to pursue liberty, an end to endemic corruption, a demand for basic dignity and a more representative government. They did it peacefully in the face of water hoses, tear gas and regime-paid thugs on horseback.
ReplyDeleteAs a 30-something American of Arab ancestry, who also happened to serve in Iraq with the U.S. Army, I am especially proud of the young Egyptians (and, for that matter, Tunisians) who stood up for themselves without any real help from the outside world.
It's one thing for a citizen in Bell to call out a corrupt mayor, or a Ventura County resident to file a complaint against a government official; but to do so in Egypt, where you risk being beaten by the cops and being told the screams in the room next to you are those of your family members being assaulted — well, that takes courage.
It takes real courage to stand up when you risk being told that as retribution your family members will lose their jobs or be expelled from university. It takes courage to stand up when you've been beaten down for so long.
While the youth of Egypt fought off the extremists and the regime-paid thugs, remaining peaceful in spite of such crushing abuse, this battle is far from over. Until every political prisoner is released, every blogger blindfolded for weeks is let into the light, and every lawyer jailed on trumped-up charges is vindicated there can be no true feeling of freedom.
On this side of the world, the talking heads and policy wonks are opining on whether this will signal the rise of the "next Iran" where fundamentalists take power. However, the comparisons ignore that in Iran the fundamentalist government has the luxury of being able to ignore reality when cushioned by massive oil reserves (something our dependence on foreign oil enables).
Egypt, with minimal oil reserves, lacks such a luxury. Plus, the movement that came together in Egypt was one that united Egyptians of all stripes: yuppie college kids from well-to-do suburbs, bus drivers, lawyers, and tour guides; Coptics (Egyptian Christians) and Muslims (both secular and observant). I will never forget the photo of Egyptian Coptics locked hand-in-hand to protect their fellow Muslim demonstrators while they prayed from the attacks of regime-paid thugs.
The people and the government of the United States should stand and support in both our words and resources the people of Egypt as they transition to a legitimate government. In case you think the events in Egypt matter little to you, just remember that some of those 9/11 hijackers were a few wayward Egyptians driven into the lure of extremism in part due to the repressive nature of the Mubarak regime.
That same much-touted "stability" of the Mubarak regime (and others like his) served as a catalyst to the growth of extremist groups that fueled "instability" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can help write a new chapter on U.S. foreign policy that is more representative of our goals and interests as we witness the first modern (post-colonialism, post-ideological) Arab constitutions being written for the 21st century.
It's time to step up and help Egyptians as they help themselves.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/12/masry-us-should-help-egyptians-help-themselves/#ixzz1DpF2LL8p
- vcstar.com
Hundreds of developmentally disabled Californians and their parents and care providers packed the Capitol on Thursday to angrily or tearfully denounce Gov. Jerry Brown's 2011-12 budget.
ReplyDeleteIt was the latest outpouring of opposition to cuts in health and welfare services he says are needed to close a chronic deficit.
Testifying en masse at almost daily legislative hearings, advocates for the poor, the aged and the disabled have hammered on two themes:
n Billions of dollars in service cuts would imperil recipients' lives, force them into expensive nursing homes, emergency rooms and even jail cells or, in the case of child care, make it tougher for parents to hold jobs; and...
n Many cuts would run afoul of federal entitlement laws and/or court decisions and would be tied up in litigation for months, if not years.
Brown seems unmoved by the first argument. He says the cuts are part of a much-needed "retrenchment" in spending that consistently outstrips revenues.
"It's necessary because we don't have the money," he said in January. "We've got to retrench and cut back." Then he added, "When we unwind what has been done, it's very difficult."
But what about the second argument about the cuts' legality? Brown appears to be more concerned on that point. Last week, he personally asked U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for federal waivers to allow the state to reshape federally supported "safety-net" services and said Sebelius is "receptive, but it isn't worked out yet."
A day later, Brown told reporters, "What I proposed, we believe are both legal, they're practical and I think they'll result in a better deal for the taxpayers," adding, "I understand there will be lawsuits ... but we think that each of the cuts we made are (legally) viable."
It's no small matter. Safety-net cuts and shifts represent, by far, the biggest chunk of his plan's permanent spending reductions to narrow the budget gap — which is why, of course, the pushback from program advocates is so vociferous.
Perhaps more importantly, they would demonstrate to the voting public that Brown and a Legislature dominated by liberal Democrats are serious about reducing spending.
That, he hopes, would make voters more willing to approve the second half of his plan, the five-year extension of $11.2 billion a year in temporary taxes that are now expiring.
The obvious political calculus and the cuts' questionable legality, however, raise another issue.
What if Brown and legislators defy the opposition and whack safety-net services, thus impressing voters who respond by approving the tax increase, only to see the cuts later blocked in the courts?That would obviously punch a big hole in the budget, but it would also feed suspicions that it was merely a cynical ploy to fool voters.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/12/walters-what-if-courts-stop-california-budget/#ixzz1DpFvcuLF
- vcstar.com vc star 02122011
Hundreds of developmentally disabled Californians and their parents and care providers packed the Capitol on Thursday to angrily or tearfully denounce Gov. Jerry Brown's 2011-12 budget.
ReplyDeleteIt was the latest outpouring of opposition to cuts in health and welfare services he says are needed to close a chronic deficit.
Testifying en masse at almost daily legislative hearings, advocates for the poor, the aged and the disabled have hammered on two themes:
n Billions of dollars in service cuts would imperil recipients' lives, force them into expensive nursing homes, emergency rooms and even jail cells or, in the case of child care, make it tougher for parents to hold jobs; and...
n Many cuts would run afoul of federal entitlement laws and/or court decisions and would be tied up in litigation for months, if not years.
Brown seems unmoved by the first argument. He says the cuts are part of a much-needed "retrenchment" in spending that consistently outstrips revenues.
"It's necessary because we don't have the money," he said in January. "We've got to retrench and cut back." Then he added, "When we unwind what has been done, it's very difficult."
But what about the second argument about the cuts' legality? Brown appears to be more concerned on that point. Last week, he personally asked U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for federal waivers to allow the state to reshape federally supported "safety-net" services and said Sebelius is "receptive, but it isn't worked out yet."
A day later, Brown told reporters, "What I proposed, we believe are both legal, they're practical and I think they'll result in a better deal for the taxpayers," adding, "I understand there will be lawsuits ... but we think that each of the cuts we made are (legally) viable."
It's no small matter. Safety-net cuts and shifts represent, by far, the biggest chunk of his plan's permanent spending reductions to narrow the budget gap — which is why, of course, the pushback from program advocates is so vociferous.
Perhaps more importantly, they would demonstrate to the voting public that Brown and a Legislature dominated by liberal Democrats are serious about reducing spending.
That, he hopes, would make voters more willing to approve the second half of his plan, the five-year extension of $11.2 billion a year in temporary taxes that are now expiring.
The obvious political calculus and the cuts' questionable legality, however, raise another issue.
What if Brown and legislators defy the opposition and whack safety-net services, thus impressing voters who respond by approving the tax increase, only to see the cuts later blocked in the courts?That would obviously punch a big hole in the budget, but it would also feed suspicions that it was merely a cynical ploy to fool voters.
Rust: Ask voters before gutting public education
Comments » 1Hide
February 13, 2011
nickeq writes:
well the ballot measures should have a prov to STOP this double cross The Govt. has an obligation to take care of the safety net How about cutting back as the comm. did for legislators who made over 110K CUT 25% the rascals that make over $12k across the board Also check out cutting the bloated pensions Do MORE outreach to kill te redevelopment MISMgmt stealth agencies Why 400 + cities with $200k + city Mgrs CONSOLIDATE Use the courts to get these reforms/legislature Sales tax distribute PER Capita stop zoning for dollars!!
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/12/walters-what-if-courts-stop-california-budget/#ixzz1DpHHKLL8
- vcstar.com
‘Son of Hamas’ speaks in T.O.
ReplyDelete2011-02-24 / Community
Hundreds pass through tight security to attend
By Jessica Chadbourn
Special to the Acorn
HERO OR TRAITOR?— Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of one of the founders of the militant group Hamas, speaks to an audience of 1,000 people Monday at the Hyatt Westlake Plaza. Yousef, under the protection of several bodyguards, discussed his book, “Son of Hamas,” in which he explains how he went from the organization’s inner circle to being a spy for the Israeli government. IRIS SMOOTAcorn Newspapers
The line to enter the Hyatt Westlake Plaza’s Grand Ballroom was out the door Monday night, and not just because the event was sold out.
Attendees were required to undergo a security screening to hear the controversial speaker: Mosab Hassan Yousef, the Palestinianborn son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding leader of Hamas. The militant organization is devoted to the formation of an Islamic state in Israel.
Yousef was invited to speak by the Conejo Jewish Academy.
“I felt that his was a message that needed to be heard,” said Rabbi Moshe Bryski, executive director of Chabad of the Conejo, which operates the academy. “He speaks having seen both sides and can give us an inside glimpse into the world of the Palestinian people and its leadership.”
BIG DRAW—A crowd fills the Hyatt Westlake Plaza on Monday to hear Mosab Hassan Yousef speak with North County Chabad Center’s Rabbi David Eliezrie. IRIS SMOOT/Acorn Newspapers
Raised amidst the inner workings of Hamas, Yousef began to question the organization’s motives during one of several imprisonments by the Israeli secret police.
“As a child I learned only how to hate,” Yousef told the standingroom only crowd. “But now, this is a time we need to look to the future and move on.”
After discovering that Hamas was torturing its own people based on “suspicions,” Yousef became a spy for Israel and a double agent within Hamas for almost 10 years, in spite of the repercussions he knew he would face.
“It was a very difficult life,” said Yousef, who endured torture while in prison. “We can’t fight an idea with a gun or a tank. You have to fight an idea with another idea.”
Yousef said he discovered “lies and shocking truths” about Hamas and details his experiences in the book “Son of Hamas,” published last year.
The book’s release caused his now-imprisoned father to disown him. Calling his father “a victim of his own government,” Yousef said he wrote the book to rid himself of the enemies’ “shame, guilt and fear.”
His mission, he said, is to liberate his people from “a false god.”
CONTD FROM ABOVE TOACORN 02242011 “You have to make choices,” Yousef said. “You either become a coward and you stick your head in the sand, or you stand up and save human lives. This is what really matters.”
ReplyDeleteYousef became a Christian and sought political asylum in the United States, which U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (R-Sherman Oaks) noted before presenting him with an American flag Monday night. He introduced Yousef as “a man of great courage and conviction.”
Yousef told the audience that Muslims need to understand the “true nature of Islam” in order for change to occur in Palestine.
“They focus on chanting rules without understanding their meaning,” he said. “We need to expose the very nature of Islam and tell the truth the way it is. Palestinians need to live in peace, but they are being lied to.”
The event was sponsored by the Conejo Jewish Academy, a project of Chabad of the Conejo. Rabbi David Eliezrie, founder of the Chabad Center in Yorba Linda, interviewed Yousef during the presentation.
Eliezrie pointed out that some people criticize Yousef for betraying the Christian faith by spying for Israel.
“If you knew about a suicide bomber that would be on its way to kill 20 innocent people and you could inform someone to prevent this, would you do it? I did it and I am proud of it,” Yousef said to resounding applause.
Not all in attendance were impressed with Yousef, however.
“I wanted to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but it just reinforced my conviction that this is a troubled individual who crossed all boundaries of morality and sense of personal dignity,” said Nader Barakat, a 30-year Moorpark resident of Palestinian descent. “He lost any and all sense of credibility or moral argument because of his spying and collaborating background.”
Due to the large crowd and tight security, questions from the audience were permitted only on index cards.
One of the questions: If Hamas is in charge of the Palestinians, how can an agreement can ever be reached in the Middle East?
“Peace is not a state of political borders,” Yousef said. “It’s a state of mind.”
LTR ACORN 02242011 Anti-Obama poster breeds hatred
ReplyDelete2011-02-24 / Letters
I am finally happy to see that someone else is as offended by that poster that is regularly set up in front of the U.S. Post Office in Thousand Oaks.
I actually wrote a letter to the Acorn last year and submitted a photo of the poster. My letter was denied because the Acorn said they would not print the photo.
I find it hard to believe that a permit is not required to set up a stand in front of the U.S. Post Office. Regardless of one’s political preference, any patriotic resident should find the defacing of a president offensive.
I wrote a letter with a photo of the poster to the mayor of Thousand Oaks and the City Council in protest and did not even receive a response.
The group that displays that poster for our children to see is only breeding hatred. They are no better than the activists who protest at military funerals.
Is this really the message that we should be teaching our kids?
The city of Thousand Oaks should be embarrassed that such an unpatriotic thing is displayed in front of their post office. Anna Arnaout Thousand Oaks
Friday, February 25, 2011
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone agrees that the federal deficit is a ticking bomb. But few can agree on how to defuse it. Ideas run the gamut from raising taxes to the wholesale elimination of scores of government programs. Some are contradictory. All are controversial. When you take a look at where the money actually goes, it's easy to see why it's hard to balance the budget.
More from Kiplinger.com
• Quiz: Test Your Federal Deficit IQ
• 12 IRS Audit Red Flags
• 10 Signs the Economy Is on the Upswing
Social Security, the Big Enchilada -- 20.6%
Many folks think that Social Security shouldn't be counted in the federal budget at all, because they contribute to the retirement fund with each paycheck. Actually, though, taxes paid in by today's workers aren't socked away for their future retirement, but are used for benefits for today's retirees -- an estimated $760 billion worth of them in fiscal year 2012. What's more, the so-called trust fund -- where payroll taxes not needed for current payouts are stashed -- consists of $2.6 trillion in IOUs from the U.S. Treasury. The funds have been borrowed over the past two decades to pay for other federal programs.
Big, Bad Defense -- 20%
Nearly 20% of President Obama's proposed FY 2012 budget is for defense spending. It includes funds for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and South Korea as well as for 760 bases scattered across the U.S. and abroad. The $738 billion tab also pays for research, construction, family housing and myriad defense-related items. About 25% of the total goes to personnel costs, and the figure doesn't include veterans' pensions and health care. With the winding down of operations in Iraq, Obama's budget has defense outlays for FY 2012 at about $35 billion less than a year ago.
Medicare and Medicaid: Greedy Twins -- 13.2% and 7.2%
Combined, these two national health care programs rival defense and Social Security as Uncle Sam's biggest expenses. While the White House and Congress talk a lot about cutting these health care costs, lawmakers have avoided taking the tough -- and extremely unpopular -- actions needed.
Help for Low-Incomers -- 9%
In addition to Medicaid, about 9% of the total federal budget is dedicated to assistance for the needy. The total -- about $297 billion for FY 2012 -- includes funds for housing subsidies, food stamps, school lunch and other nutrition programs, aid to families with dependent children (welfare) and other aid, plus the earned income tax credit.
In addition, unemployment insurance will account for a bit less than $100 billion -- and about 2.6% of the budget -- in FY 2012. With the economy improving, that's down from the $160 billion doled out in 2010 and the expected $135-billion tab this fiscal year.
contd. http://custom.yahoo.com/taxes/article-112200-cba8d53c-9d4f-358e-8950-122fb45462b9-how-uncle-sam-spends-your-taxes
ReplyDeleteNet Interest on the Federal Debt -- 6.5%
Next fiscal year, Uncle Sam is expected to shell out a whopping $242 billion in interest to the owners of U.S. Treasuries, here and abroad. For the past few years, low interest rates have helped keep a lid on this category. But interest rates are rising and so is the accumulated national debt.
The White House estimates that debt held by the public will approach $12 trillion in FY 2012. If you include intragovernment payments -- by the Treasury to funds such as Social Security, for example -- the nation's total gross debt will approach $17 trillion. In coming years, interest payments will gobble up even more.
And Everything Else -- 23.5%
The biggest five items in the federal budget -- Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest on the debt -- account for about two-thirds of the total. Everything from transportation (3.3%), education (1.9%), federal employees' and military retirement (3.3%) to science and space (0.9%) and homeland security (1.3%) comes out of what's left. International aid -- frequently mentioned as a potential source of savings -- accounts for just 1.7% of spending, and half of that is for humanitarian assistance. All environmental and natural resource programs, 0.6%. Help for low-incomers, which we have already discussed, is an amalgam of programs whose total adds up to 9% of federal spending.
Untouchables in the U.S. Budget
Only about a third of the federal budget actually falls under congressional control on an annual basis, and much of that is for defense spending -- mostly off-limits for political reasons. About three-fifths of the budget is dedicated to programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, crop subsidies and other programs for which spending is automatic -- controlled by formulas. Add interest payments to the list of uncontrollables and untouchables, and the share of spending Washington can actually manipulate from year to year is about 16%.
If that entire 16% -- encompassing programs as diverse and as popular as medical and scientific research, space exploration, maintenance of national parks, repairing roads and bridges -- were eliminated, it would reduce the federal deficit only by less than half. Individually, these programs amount to crumbs on Washington's dinner table, where $37 billion is just 1% of the main course.
Direct Payments to Your Fellow Americans
Looked at a different way, about 58% of all government spending consists of direct payments from Uncle Sam to individuals. Retirees get Social Security payments, veterans' pensions and Medicare benefits. Students get tuition assistance. Payments are made to farmers to idle erosion-prone land. Victims of natural disasters get a helping hand to rebuild their homes, businesses and lives.
Lobbies for many of these programs are immensely powerful and usually able to deflect attempts to trim spending. And while nearly everyone agrees that belt-tightening is needed, few are willing to cinch in their own waistlines.