Following the Affordable Care Act seminar, I also asked the Assembly why he supported granting undocumented residents, or illegal immigrants, drivers' licenses.
He justified his vote because the Los Angeles Police Chief, Charlie Beck, supports the measure.
He also argued that the law will provide future drivers, whether they are in the country illegally or not, to receive proper training before they drive.
These individuals will also be able to purchase car insurance, so that in future accidents, which including illegal immigrant drivers, insurance companies will cover the costs for any damages.
The logic behind Assm. Muratsuchi's decision is flawed on many levels.
What difference does it make what the Los Angeles Police Chief thinks about driver's licenses? Did the Assemblyman contact the police chiefs in Torrance, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or even the Palos Verdes region? What about the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department?
Their opinion on this policy matters too, and moreso since Muratsuchi represents the South Bay, including the Beach Cities, not Los Angeles.
Yet even if the Police Chief of Los Angeles offered his opinion, his authority on the matter still conveys very little. Why does the Police Chief support the measure? Does he have any research or evidence to support the argument that permitting undocumented immigrants to earn a state document will create safe roads and reduce accident liabilities?
What if Pope Francis had supported drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants? President Bush? Desmond Tutu? Or even Bozo the Clown? An established authority's opinion does not establish any authority for an opinion.
Not only that, but Susana Martinez, the first Hispanic female governor of New Mexico, the most Hispanic state in the Union, opposes drivers licences for illegal immigrants.
Her opinion ought to matter, shouldn't it?
She pointed out to reporters in her state that the roads are not safer since New Mexico adopted the statute to allow licenses for illegal immigrants. She further cited that the rate of fraud and human trafficking has increased because of the law. When runninng for office in 2010, she ran specifically on a platform of repealing the DL law, and she won.
"73% of New Mexicans opposed drivers licenses for illegal immigrants".
Political pressure had forced the repeal of the 2002 California law granting licenses to illegal immigrants. But societal realities should have convinced Assemblyman Muratsuchi to vote against permitting undocumented individuals from obtaining drivers licenses.
The logic behind the measure fails to consider that since individuuals have entered the country illegally, and a number of them are driving anyway, what makes anyone believe that they are going to change their behavior habits and earn a license?
Furthermore, legal and illegal residents drive without insurance, so the notion that someone with a drivers' license will automatically purchase insurance is also illogical.
Eight states have already repealed similar legislation. There is no research which suggests that expanding licenses to illegal immigrants will ensure safe roads and more insured drivers.
Not only that, but Muratsuchi as a former state prosecutor should have rejected any law which would violate the federal immigration laws of our nation.
Hopefully, a legal challenge will force injunction and repeal of this law.
In the mean time, Muratsuchi should have worked with his Republican colleagues to streamline the naturalization process and make it easier for immigrants to become legal residents of the state of California in the first place!
Friday, September 27, 2013
Muratsuchi Voted to Force the Minimum Wage
After the Affordable Care Act seminar on Tuesday Morning (Sept. 24), I spoke with Assemblyman Muratsuchi privately.
I asked him first about the minimum wage increase which Governor Brown just signed into law.
I thought that the Assemblyman had voted against the bill.
He acknowledged that he voted against the first version of the bill because minimum wage increases would have risen with inflation if the original language of the bill was not changed.
After the provision tying wage increases to inflation was removed, Muratsuchi supported the $!0 minimum wage increase.
I asked the Assemblyman if he was aware of the widespread opposition to minimum wage increases.
He did meet with representatives of the business community at the Red Car in downtown Torrance.
Still, Muratsuchi supported the wage increase because the wage had not been increased since 2008.
The staggering lack of economic understanding from our legislators cannot be underestimated.
Or rather, the political pandering which overcomes common sense cannot be ignored.
There is no policy more likely to create unemployment (which rose in the state of California this week) than a minimum wage increase.
The government cannot create wealth, the government cannot provide funding, and forcing the rise in the minimum wage creates another tax on already struggling small businesses, and even the larger ones, in the state of California.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi might want to explain to local residents why has sided with the Democrats in Sacramento against the small business owners, the wage earners, and the future (yet dwindling) work force in the South Bay.
I asked him first about the minimum wage increase which Governor Brown just signed into law.
I thought that the Assemblyman had voted against the bill.
He acknowledged that he voted against the first version of the bill because minimum wage increases would have risen with inflation if the original language of the bill was not changed.
After the provision tying wage increases to inflation was removed, Muratsuchi supported the $!0 minimum wage increase.
I asked the Assemblyman if he was aware of the widespread opposition to minimum wage increases.
He did meet with representatives of the business community at the Red Car in downtown Torrance.
Still, Muratsuchi supported the wage increase because the wage had not been increased since 2008.
The staggering lack of economic understanding from our legislators cannot be underestimated.
Or rather, the political pandering which overcomes common sense cannot be ignored.
There is no policy more likely to create unemployment (which rose in the state of California this week) than a minimum wage increase.
The government cannot create wealth, the government cannot provide funding, and forcing the rise in the minimum wage creates another tax on already struggling small businesses, and even the larger ones, in the state of California.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi might want to explain to local residents why has sided with the Democrats in Sacramento against the small business owners, the wage earners, and the future (yet dwindling) work force in the South Bay.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Forum on State and Fate of Public Education in South Bay?
Dear Assemblyman Muratsuchi:
I recently attended a seminar which you hosted on the Affordable Care Act.
You introduced to a small community of constituents to Ms. Marcia Davalos, a representative from the Small Business Majority.
She provided a number of graphs, statistics, and interlinking talking points discussing the rollout of Obamacare.
There is another issue which deserves greater attention, Assemblyman, which I fear has not received proper vetting for South Bay voters.
That issue is education, specifically the current condition of our youth's education in our local public schools. I have heard troubling reports regarding the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) which was supposed to supply greater funding to all California schools. Local school leaders have informed me that they do not know how much money they will receive this year from Sacramento. They also have no guiding rubrics or expectations for how to allocate and evaluate the spending of our state’s tax dollars.
Some South Bay residents have shared that their children’s education is still receiving less funding than other, more urban school districts. Local School board members and candidates have also voiced their concerns regarding the funding inequities toward our schools. Some parents have become so frustrated with the drastic cuts to education, that they have considered forming dependent charter schools within Torrance Unified. Other parents have opted for private education, but many families in this region do not have the resources to provide a private education for their children.
One parent in Palos Verdes complained that Proposition 30 was supposed to ensure that elementary school students on the Peninsula would not have to endure class sizes of thirty-eight or more students. Another parent frequently holds her school board accountable, despite the fearful recriminations of other parents.
What have you been doing on behalf of our students? What plans do you have to ensure that South Bay students do not lose out on more funding at the expense of other districts, where student achievement is still falling?
Constituents also have concerns about AB 1266, legislation which would permit students of a decided gender to enter school bathrooms. Voters are disturbed about the implications of this law, and deserve more information than they are currently receiving.
I thank you and your office for providing an educational forum on the Affordable Care Act. I now request that you and your office schedule a forum on the state and fate of public education (including SCROC and the community colleges) as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arthur Christopher Schaper
I recently attended a seminar which you hosted on the Affordable Care Act.
You introduced to a small community of constituents to Ms. Marcia Davalos, a representative from the Small Business Majority.
She provided a number of graphs, statistics, and interlinking talking points discussing the rollout of Obamacare.
There is another issue which deserves greater attention, Assemblyman, which I fear has not received proper vetting for South Bay voters.
That issue is education, specifically the current condition of our youth's education in our local public schools. I have heard troubling reports regarding the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) which was supposed to supply greater funding to all California schools. Local school leaders have informed me that they do not know how much money they will receive this year from Sacramento. They also have no guiding rubrics or expectations for how to allocate and evaluate the spending of our state’s tax dollars.
Some South Bay residents have shared that their children’s education is still receiving less funding than other, more urban school districts. Local School board members and candidates have also voiced their concerns regarding the funding inequities toward our schools. Some parents have become so frustrated with the drastic cuts to education, that they have considered forming dependent charter schools within Torrance Unified. Other parents have opted for private education, but many families in this region do not have the resources to provide a private education for their children.
One parent in Palos Verdes complained that Proposition 30 was supposed to ensure that elementary school students on the Peninsula would not have to endure class sizes of thirty-eight or more students. Another parent frequently holds her school board accountable, despite the fearful recriminations of other parents.
What have you been doing on behalf of our students? What plans do you have to ensure that South Bay students do not lose out on more funding at the expense of other districts, where student achievement is still falling?
Constituents also have concerns about AB 1266, legislation which would permit students of a decided gender to enter school bathrooms. Voters are disturbed about the implications of this law, and deserve more information than they are currently receiving.
I thank you and your office for providing an educational forum on the Affordable Care Act. I now request that you and your office schedule a forum on the state and fate of public education (including SCROC and the community colleges) as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Muratsuchi and the Unaffordable Obamacare Seminar
On September 24, at 8:00am, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi sponsored an Affordable Care Act seminar at the Hermosa Clark Building down the street from the Hermosa Beach City Hall. These Affordable Care Act seminars have been popping up all over the South Bay in the last few weeks, trying to prepare the Medicare exchanges y for California residents to purchase insurance.
About fifteen people arrived.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi addressed the small group first, informing everyone that the seminar would assist in making Obamacare work for them. “The train has left the building,” Muratsuchi commented, so everyone has to work with it.
I could not help thinking of US Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana, and retiring) who described the 2014 rollout of this law as a “train wreck”. After an hour presentation from Small Business Majority rep Marcia Davalos, the wreck looked bigger, yet now no one can look away.
Assemblyman Murastuchi shared that California was leading the way for states to enact Medicare exchanges. Davalos commented that despite the budget battles in Congress, Covered California (the state’s Medicare Exchanges) will not be defunded, so there is nothing to worry about. Of course, she never addressed the matter of unfunded. . .
Starting her presentation, Davalos presented graphs detailing rising health care costs in 2008, and if nothing was done, those costs would continue to rise. She also related, and rightly so, that small businesses pay a greater percentage of their budget toward health care costs. What she failed to acknowledge is that small businesses incur less revenue to begin with, compared to larger companies.
Why do small businesses not insure their employees? The high health care costs. No one has ever differed on this reality, but President Obama’s signature legislation has only aggravated those costs while diminishing access and raising taxes on working Americans.
Like many Affordable Care Act proponents Davalos emphasized the popular provisions of the law, like permitting children to stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26, or preventing insurance companies from declining coverage for clients with pre-existing conditions. She failed to consider the concerns of young people who would rather purchase their own insurance.
Obamacare also requires health insurance companies to invest 80% of their revenue toward medical costs, and up to 20% on administrative needs. Some companies are receiving rebates from their insurance companies, including one gentleman at the seminar, who had received $15,000. Davalos promoted that small businesses would receive larger tax credits.
Davalos assert that Obamacare has no employer mandate, but she featured that the fines would go into effect in 2015 (per Obama’s unconstitutional rewriting of his law). Businesses with fifty or more employees which do not provide insurance will pay a fine. Still, Davalos neglected to realize that businesses seek profits, and they want to maintain a high profit margin. Facing a mandated cost, whether providing insurance or paying a fine, businesses will lose revenue because of Obamcare.
From the business mandate, or fee, the speaker pivoted to the individual mandate. Americans have to pay for affordable health insurance, or pay a fine, which will increase over the next three years, as well.
Employers do not have to, but individuals have to. No wonder people are concerned.
Davalos then discussed the definition of “unaffordable”: insurance greater than 9.5% of one’s income. How many Americans are receiving an income, I wonder? She outlined different insurance plans available, from catastrophic to bronze, all the way to platinum, depending on the upfront costs an individual is willing to pay.
Enrollment in Covered CA begins October 1. At this part of her presentation, Davalos shared that California operatives had considered calling the exchanges “Avocado”, The whole program is starting to look like guacamole, and not very tasty. The states are grinding, not smoothly, rolling out all the information regarding individual enrollment.
The California Medicare exchanges, according to Davalos, contain five insurance companies. Recently, those numbers have reduced to two. Kaiser is contemplating whether to remain.
After an hour presentation, Davalos took questions. Two residents from Hermosa Beach announced their rising health insurance premiums. Another business owner discussed her anxiety about providing health insurance or directing employees to the Medicare exchanges. Another attendee discussed that Cedar Sinai will not accept insurance provided by the Medicare exchanges. Demonstrating the informed cadre of those attending, one person referenced Forbes Magazine, which reported that health care premiums are rising an average of $7,450. Another person said that Obamacare is “capitalism at its best” because of a forced market of insurance options.
Someone then mentioned that Walgreens has pushed 120,000 off the company’s health insurance, indicating that the employer mandate has forced fewer hours and opportunities for employees. Davalos countered that the corporation overseeing Olive Garden and Red Lobster cut hours for its employees following passage of Obamacare. The customer reaction was so vocal in opposition, that the restaurant industries brought back the hours.
I asked about the health insurance subsidy which low-income enrollees can receive. The lower costs are factored into the Medicare exchange calculator on the Covered CA website, Davalos explained.
There were questions afterwards, many of which remained unanswered.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Muratsuchi Backs Unfair Funding Formulas
http://www.easyreadernews.com/71739/south-bay-educators-parents-celebrate-lcff-compromise/
School administrators and school board members, whether running for office or staying in place, have decried the new Local Control Funding Formual enacted by Governor Brown.
Despite his promises to increase local control over school funding, and engage local leaders to embrace the funding and enhance their influence over expenditures, school districts still lament the lack of clarity and accountability expected of them.
One superintendent acknowledges that Brown's insistence on local contorl waned from January 2013 to May. The budget passed, and most school districts still have no idea what to expect.
South Bay schools have a lower population of povery-level students, and thus they will still be receiving less funding than less affluent schools. This disparity has concerned a number of leaders in the South Bay.
Why students born in wealthier communities should suffer just because their parents make more money and live in a wealtier area is just as unfair and inequitable as punishing those in poorer families and impoverished communities because of their location.
The race for funding equality is becoming a race to the bottom, and punishing high-achieving students and school districts with less funding has outraged a number of leaders in school districts, as well as city leaders and committed parents and teachers.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have been commended nonetheless for their leadership on this matter. Still, a disparity of rich and poor in the state of California cannot be undone by taking wealth from "the haves" in care of the "have nots".
In fact, some schools in the South Bay were adjudicated as "low wealth" districts for years, in spite of the growing rate of homeownership and affluence in the region.
Torrance Unified leaders point out that their schools do well because the culture in this community upholds education as critical to the well-being. Parents expect their children to go to school. This manifestion is a culuture issue, and cannot be created with more money. The well-being of a child's upbringing makes all the difference.
Yet school leaders still insist that more money will solve the problems in our schools. Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have refused to take a lead on real reforms which would fix all of these problems.
State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar)" submitted SB 451 and 452 in order for every child in the state of California to choose their public school. Torrance Superintendent George Mannon has not qualms about statewide school choice, and neither do members of the school board, because they already enact a comprehenisve permit program in Torrance Unified.
Nevertheless, the inequity of forbidding choice still forces parents to move their students within Torrance boundaries to take advantage of Torrance schools. Just reading over the rent rates along Western Ave, one will find that those apartments advertized along the western side of Western Ave cost an average of $300 more per month compared to the Eastern side of Western Ave, whose students are expected to enroll in Los Angeles Unified. Yet the irony continues in that LA students receive more money from the state than Torrance students.
Once again, it's not about the money, but how the money is spent. It's not about the funding, but how the school district allocates its funds. These are cultural issues, and such matters cannot be pressured or enforced with more laws and regulations. Competition and accountability through choice, and even vouchers and easier regulations for founding charters, will either force failing schools to commit to educating students, rather than funding expansive bureaucracies.
Al Muratsuchi ultimately backed an unfair funding formula, one which may have been the best deal which South Bay school districts could expect, yet one which reveals the fundamentally unfair elememts of driving funding from taxpayers to Sacramento back to school districts.
School administrators and school board members, whether running for office or staying in place, have decried the new Local Control Funding Formual enacted by Governor Brown.
Despite his promises to increase local control over school funding, and engage local leaders to embrace the funding and enhance their influence over expenditures, school districts still lament the lack of clarity and accountability expected of them.
One superintendent acknowledges that Brown's insistence on local contorl waned from January 2013 to May. The budget passed, and most school districts still have no idea what to expect.
South Bay schools have a lower population of povery-level students, and thus they will still be receiving less funding than less affluent schools. This disparity has concerned a number of leaders in the South Bay.
Why students born in wealthier communities should suffer just because their parents make more money and live in a wealtier area is just as unfair and inequitable as punishing those in poorer families and impoverished communities because of their location.
The race for funding equality is becoming a race to the bottom, and punishing high-achieving students and school districts with less funding has outraged a number of leaders in school districts, as well as city leaders and committed parents and teachers.
Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have been commended nonetheless for their leadership on this matter. Still, a disparity of rich and poor in the state of California cannot be undone by taking wealth from "the haves" in care of the "have nots".
In fact, some schools in the South Bay were adjudicated as "low wealth" districts for years, in spite of the growing rate of homeownership and affluence in the region.
Torrance Unified leaders point out that their schools do well because the culture in this community upholds education as critical to the well-being. Parents expect their children to go to school. This manifestion is a culuture issue, and cannot be created with more money. The well-being of a child's upbringing makes all the difference.
Yet school leaders still insist that more money will solve the problems in our schools. Assemblyman Muratsuchi and State Senator Ted Lieu have refused to take a lead on real reforms which would fix all of these problems.
State Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar)" submitted SB 451 and 452 in order for every child in the state of California to choose their public school. Torrance Superintendent George Mannon has not qualms about statewide school choice, and neither do members of the school board, because they already enact a comprehenisve permit program in Torrance Unified.
Nevertheless, the inequity of forbidding choice still forces parents to move their students within Torrance boundaries to take advantage of Torrance schools. Just reading over the rent rates along Western Ave, one will find that those apartments advertized along the western side of Western Ave cost an average of $300 more per month compared to the Eastern side of Western Ave, whose students are expected to enroll in Los Angeles Unified. Yet the irony continues in that LA students receive more money from the state than Torrance students.
Once again, it's not about the money, but how the money is spent. It's not about the funding, but how the school district allocates its funds. These are cultural issues, and such matters cannot be pressured or enforced with more laws and regulations. Competition and accountability through choice, and even vouchers and easier regulations for founding charters, will either force failing schools to commit to educating students, rather than funding expansive bureaucracies.
Al Muratsuchi ultimately backed an unfair funding formula, one which may have been the best deal which South Bay school districts could expect, yet one which reveals the fundamentally unfair elememts of driving funding from taxpayers to Sacramento back to school districts.
Electricity, Aerospace, Small Business Outages in the South Bay
On Sunday, September 15, the South Bay suffered another regional power outage. On average, the Southern California region from Manhattan Beach to Palos Verdes experiences twenty-five power outages a year, some of which have caused electrical fires. In many instances, drivers must detour from their original destinations on heavy thoroughfares throughout the region, and businesses large and small lose time and money preparing their goods and services. During these untimely setbacks, local police and fire stations must rely on generators to maintain their stations, then follow up on public safety away from their daily duties. These shortages even affected ExxonMobil in Torrance, where earlier this year the entire workforce was forced to evacuate in case of fires or explosions following the power outages.
Coincidentally, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-South Bay) submitted Assembly Bill 66, which would require California’s electric stations to submit information following power outages. The legislation passed with only one “no” vote, and awaits Governor Brown’s signature. This bill would require electricity providers to report to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and this agency would then document and enforce investigation and reforms for utility providers following the frequency of these problems.
Instead of documenting the power outages, the state legislature should investigate why they have been occurring for the past four years. Southern California Edison has a monopoly on electrical energy in the region. The service has become dismal and abysmal over the past four years, yet legislators have done nothing to permit competition and accountability from these utilities.
Some investigation into the lasting impact of Cap and Trade legislation, signed into law by the previous administration, would also spur discussion on the proper role of the state in regulating energy markets. So far, no one has turned up the lights on this matter, but the carbon tax did increase energy prices and increase pollution where instituted in other countries. Who knows how this abortive legislation is harming and hindering South Bay energy needs?
Besides the frustration, as well as loss of time and money for the South Bay business community, what other outages should spark outrage in the South Bay?
After two attempts, I finally contacted Muratsuchi’s office regarding the fate of the Aerospace Industry in the South Bay, one of the crucial businesses in the region still hard-hit by the sluggish economy. Murastuchi hosted a forum for the aerospace industry, whose diminished power stems from the detrimental taxes and regulations on California’s small businesses.
During the August 9th forum, business executives and leading aerospace entrepreneurs singled out a number of issues which the Assemblyman and his legislative colleagues need to address.
1. The high cost of doing business in California is hurting industrial investors. From high employee costs to high energy prices, potential business entrepreneurs often seek other venues for expansion. Governor Brown just raised the minimum wage, a move which small businesses throughout the state oppose. Assemblyman Muratsuchi’s AB 66legislation may increase costs since regulations and reporting alone will only increase the red tape instead of cut prices, tying up energy production in the state.
2. Worker’s compensation premiums are higher in California, also discouraging future investment and employment. There is nothing wrong with expecting companies to provide and protect their employees from workplace accidents. Yet with the rising costs, the ample legislation fit for a lawsuit feast, and the ongoing workers’ comp fraud, businesses look elsewhere for a fair opportunity to expand and profit.
3. California’s state debt continues to discourage investment. In spite of tax increases, in spite of promises for more frugal spending, Governor Brown’s promises of a balanced budget and an end to the wall of debt have gone unfulfilled. The tax revenues have decreased in the state of California since the passage of Prop 30. Even local schools still struggle to balance budgets. Local school officials do not know how much money they will receive this year, nor can count on stable and continuous funding.
Raytheon is moving one of its headquarters to Texas, and other businesses are moving to Orange County. A local law firm advertises services on how to leave their businesses! Not just power outages, but businesses going out should alarm Sacramento legislators.
Regarding these power outages in the South Bay, why doesn’t Assemblyman Muratsuchi investigate the effects of taxes, spending, and regulations like Cap and Trade on California’s economy? European energy markets have already endured the havoc of that terrible carbon-trading scheme, and voters in the South Bay and throughout the state of California are wondering how much longer the taxpayers will endure paying for not only the energy bills, but also the upkeep for a statehouse dependent on union-hall lobbying and special interest infiltration.
The South Bay power outages in electricity, aerospace, and small businesses will end when voter outrage in the region resurges and resists these outrageous policies. Residents elected a moderate legislator to represent a moderate role for government in the South Bay. Despite his lead on requiring reports of power outages, when will Muratsuchi resist California’s higher taxes and regulations, all of which are tying up businesses and forcing away potential investments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)