Muratsuchi and Green Technoglogy -- AB 1077

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) showcased his clean-energy bill Assembly Bill 1077 at Hermosa Beach City Hall. His bill offers a tax credit for consumers who purchase an alternative-fuel vehicle. His prominence on this legislation demonstrates where his greatest interests lie. Apparently, Muratsuchi assumes that there are few pressing issues to consider.

Our local schools are struggling for funding. The rising average of forty students per class has diminished the quality of public education for California students. High school graduates cannot enroll in a proper post-secondary program because universities, both public and private, do not have the money or the space. Community colleges are raising fees while closing classes just to balance their budgets.

Local businesses are struggling to make ends meet. After Prop 30 passed, raising the income tax on small businesses and every consumer in the state, nineteen companies pledged to leave California for neighboring states. Because of ObamaCare and insurance regulations, California faces doctor shortages, higher premiums, and slacking access to healthcare.

"It is time we help Californians go green," Muratsuchi proclaimed. California is red in debt and blue with regulation asphyxiation. Aside from the fewer wealthy residents, who plans on purchasing a "fuel-efficient" vehicle any time soon?

With policies like Muratsuchi's, the state of California will soon indeed "go green". With no one willing to live here any longer, all the grass, plants, and trees will flourish once again, unheeded and unimpeded by human commerce, which obviously does not mean much to Muratsuchi, in the first place.

"We Already Have School Choice!" No We Do Not (Yet)

We already have school choice! - Diane Wallace, Beach Cities Democratic Club

People can send their children to any school they choose, no one is stopping them. Paying your property taxes does not equate to paying for YOUR child's education, it means that EVERY child has the OPPORTUNITY for a public school education. Susan 6:27 pm on Thursday, April 4, 2013

I have heard this misconception frequently: "We already have school choice!" in the state of California. This one myth, which California residents should resist upon hearing, that we already have school choice in this state, cannot be stifled soon enough.

School choice by its very definition would permit every parent to choose where they send their children to school. The reality in the state of California by far disputes this myth:

My parents had to provide a false address in order to take my sister and me out of failing Los Angeles schools and enroll in nearby Torrance Unified. Later on, my parents moved into Torrance, then moved out once again. Even though I was a top student in my class, my father had to drive every year to Downtown Los Angeles to get the permit for me to enroll in Torrance schools. Yet during my senior year, the dean informed me that Los Angeles Unified wanted to pull my permit and force me out of the school.

Because state funding continues to decline, Los Angeles Unified floated the option of rescinding its district permits. The firestorm which erupted forced the school board to back off, for now. Yet to this day, many parents wonder whether they can get an adequate education for their kids.

Charter schools have eaten away at the enrollment for poor schools, thus granting more freedom. Yet school districts have to allow charter schools to operate within their boundaries, and the same districts can refuse or revoke a charter. If choice does exist, the limits are severe, and more often than not students are sand-bagged with a poor school and a poor education.

I have tutored a number of students in the past. Parents have shared with me their struggles to remove their children from low-performing home districts to better ones. A friend of one parent was already rejected from receiving a permit, and she wonders if her child will have an opportunity to learn at a better school. Why do parents have to appeal to their "home district" in the first place? Even now, every public school in California requires incoming students to prove their home address with two proofs of residency -- trash, electric, or other utility bills (but no phone bills.)

Beverly Hills Unified has hired investigators to affirm the addressed submitted by Beverly Hills residents. Libertarian journalist investigated the time and expense of school districts to enforce the current residency laws, which bar students outside of the determined zipcode from enrolling their children. When the state funding was diminished, Beverly Hills Unified decided to deny permit renewals for students enrolling from outside the district.

At this time, school choice in its true form does not exist in the state of California. No, we do not have school choice in California, yet. There is an opportunity, however, for the state legislature to remove this officious roadblock which prevents parents from selecting the best public school for their children. SB 451 would extend the limited "Open Enrollment" provision to all students in California. Parents could enroll their children any public school instead of settling for the school in their zipcode. By forcing schools to compete for students, efficiency, innovation, and accountability from the bottom up will help shape public education for the better.

If SB 451 passes, then every California student will have school choice. No longer will students suffering in a classroom with incompetent or immoral teachers have to wait for administration to do something, if anything. Frustrated parents will have the option, the opportunity to choose where their kids go. School administrators will have to respond to the needs and concerns of their students, as opposed to ignoring their concerns. Furthermore, SB 452 and SB 559 will grant parents more power to reform their children's schools, and will give some peace of mind to teachers, who currently absorb pink slips long before school districts know their funding for the next school year.

I appeal to Diana Wallace, to every Democratic leader in Los Angeles County and throughout California: support school choice. Do it because it's right, and do it because it's fair. Governor Pat Brown was never afraid to do the right thing for Californians, even if it was not popular. School choice is the right thing to do, but we do not have it (yet). Help make it happen. Give students and parents the freedom to go to any school they want to, so that they will never have to force themselves through such bureaucratic meddling and hollow rigmarole of petitioning home districts for a permit, which they can refuse to offer.

Bill Sutherland -- Do You Rue Your Endorsement for Mura?

Torrance City Council member Bill Sutherland endorsed Al Muratsuchi for the State Assembly.

I have since learned that they were non-partisan friends.

Granted, friendships should not be broken easily, even over political values and goals.

The times are pressing and unprecedented in California, and basing an endorsement on friendship is not in the best interests of the state or her people.

Even Henry Waxman and David Dreier maintained an amicable relationship in Congress, but David Dreier never retired from his conservatism out of "friendship".

Yes indeed, and even Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could have a drink or two as friends.

Yet political figures owe their first allegiance to their constituents, not to their personal ties with other politicians.

Mr. Sutherland has a great opportunity in  his mayoral run, should he choose to continue, in right the wrong of putting a friendship ahead of the state.

He can still be friends with Muratsuchi if he chooses, but he has to make lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, limited government,  and local control more important.

Frankly, Muratsuchi does not espouse these values. He need to prove his mettle, or stop meddling in our lives altogether.

Sutherland -- endorse the "right" people!

Al Speaks Up for South Bay Schools -- What About SB 451?

This is an unprecedented move on my part, as I have published a number of posts critical of Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance, 66th Assembly District). Muratsuchi did a good thing: he expressed clear and convincing concern about Governor Jerry Brown's proposed school funding formulas, which would impoverish Manhattan Beach and Torrance Unified Schools at the expense of other districts.

Finally, the Democrat who slandered his opponent in the 2012 race, who refused to sign the Prop 13 Pledge, who refused to refuse the Union/Special Interests, money has done something commendable.
From Muratsuchi's website:

March 13, 2013 (Sacramento, CA) – "All school districts have been hurting over the last several years, and we can all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

He gets one cool point for stating the obvious.

However, the Governor's Local Control Funding Formula disproportionately negatively impacts suburban school districts.

Exactly. Finally, someone in Sacramento among the Democratic caucus is exposing the scam of "not all schools or students are created equal" should Brown's proposed funding reforms pass.

After full implementation of the Governor's proposal, Torrance Unified School District and Manhattan Beach Unified School District would be receiving significantly less per student funding than the adjacent Los Angeles Unified School District.

Torrance teachers are among the lowest paid teachers in Los Angeles County. It's disgraceful the cuts and losses which they have to sustain, yet the test scores keep improving, and parents all over the South Bay want their kids to go to Torrance Schools. Manhattan Beach Unified also commands a great deal of academic and scholastic respect. The governor has not right to punish these school districts and their staff because they are doing a great job. Yet twenty-four teachers face the chopping block this year. . .

"We need to find a proposal that helps all school districts recover from the severe cuts, and bring California closer to the national average of funding education."

Regarding "proposals", Muratsuchi does not have to "find" any, because State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) has proffered quite a few. Besides authorizing the "parent-trigger" law, which has empowered parents in Adelanto and South Los Angeles to take over their children's schools, Huff has advanced the following bills:

SB 451 -- Open Enrollment for all students in California. Currently, school districts do not have to compete for dollars because students are required to enroll in the school closest to their home, in the same zipcode. In effect, schools are guaranteed funding based on student attendance, whether they deserve it or not. With this bill, parents and students would be allowed to go to any public school of their choice. School districts would be forced to compete with innovative and efficient proposals along with more responsive curriculum which respected the needs and interests of students as opposed to the arbitrary whim of school boards, bureaucrats, and unions.

SB 452 - Parent Empowerment. Currently, interventions into failing state schools require extensive bureaucratic wrangling. This bill would give parents more power to push for reforms at their local schools.

SB 559 - This bill would give school districts more time before requiring them to notify personnel of layoffs. Instead of March 1, the initial deadline would be June 1, when district administrators would have a better understanding of next year's budget. Final notices would not be due until August 1. Moving these deadlines would save schools millions of dollars and give teachers more assurance about their positions for the next school year.

Muratsuchi (and State Sen. Ted Lieu, along with every legislator in Sacramento) should support these three bills. They represent reforms which would cost the taxpayer nothing, and would save the taxpayer millions of dollars. Furthermore, these bills would assist our kids in getting a better education and ensure more stability and support for our teachers and cash-strapped school districts.
Of course, if Muratsuchi wanted to make a real gesture of good will on behalf of students and taxpayers in the 66th Assembly District, he would sign the Prop 13 pledge, give back all that special interest money, and apologize for the lies he endorsed during his 2012 campaign for the Assembly seat. For now, I am grateful that Muratsuchi is not in lock-step with everyone of Brown's "proposals".

Honda Has Left the South Bay -- Al did Nothing

USA Today reported:

Honda North America is moving its top North American executive, along with about 50 other salaried workers, from Torrance, Calif., to Marysville, Ohio.

Where was Al when Honda was planning to move fifty jobs and administrative operations out of the state?

Why did he say, do, or make no move to preempt this transfer?

The voters, the residents, the growing number of unemployed, should not have to sit by and watch the businesses flee from this state, and then wonder why our leaders refuse to do anything about it.

The high taxes, the over-spending, the excessive regulations are just killing off jobs. There is no excuse for this.

Yet Assemblyman Muratsuchi, who has moved his office to the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, has done nothing.

How many more jobs will have to leave the state before voters get mad enough to demand that either Al do something about it, or leave office altogether?

"I am not an Ideologue"

How many times did Muratsuchi rattle off this talking point?

"I am not an ideologue."

Granted, people want people in office who will cross party lines to make decisions that serve the country, the state, their constituents.

Then again, Muratsuchi's slash-and-slander campaign against Craig Huey dripped with "ideology".

What did Huey's stance on abortion, or the Federal Reserve, or unemployment have to do with the needs of South Bay residents?

Why was Al getting all of that Union money? Whose interests does he claim to stand for?

Public sector unionism is an ideology, one which Muratsuchi stands by with both feet and all the campaign money.

"I am not an ideologue" -- those are hollow words.

Indiana, Tennesee, Virginia -- what about California?

 The Indiana State Supreme Court just upheld former Governor Mitch Daniels’s signature legislation, which has expanded a state-sponsored school voucher program. Protests from legal opponents argued that the voucher program was providing state funds to private religious institutions. Not so, countered the ruling majority, which correctly pointed out that the parents directly receive the funding, which they then invest in the school of their choice.


Now, the Governors of Virginia and Tennessee have advanced a similar program, in which students in struggling schools can enroll in a better school, regardless of the zipcode in which the family lives or where the school resides.

If Tennessee, Virginia, and Indiana have instituted school choice, why can’t California legislators follow their brave example? Democrats, who claim to care about equity and fairness, must extend “open enrollment” to all California students.

Contact your state legislators. Tell them to support SB 451 (statewide open enrollment).