Skip to comments.Illegal Immigrant Driver License Bill (SB1160)
Posted on 03/23/2004 6:19:19 PM PST by DumpsterDiver
Posted by The John and Ken Show @ 5:06 pm
We have contacted all the Republicans in the State Senate and the State Assembly asking one question - How will you be voting on Senator Gil Cedillo's Illegal Alien Driver License Bill (SB1160)?
After hours of phone calls and playing phone tag, we have compiled a list of Legislatures [sic] that have answered our question.
If you DO NOT see your Senator or Assembly member, then they have replied with a big fat NO to SB1160.
For those who have not replied to any phone messages or seem to be on the fence about the issue, we have kindly made available their contact information. We urge you to call them and let them know that SB1160 is wrong for California.
No Reply To Phone Messages
1. Steve Samuelian ® District 29, Fresno
Capital Office: 916-319-2029
District Office: 559-243-4192
Seem To Be "On The Fence"
1. Bill Maze ® District 34, Visalia
Capital Office: 916-319-2034
District Office: 559-636-3440
2. Dave Cogdill ® District 25, Modesto
Capital Office: 916-319-2025
District Office: 209-576-6425
3. Abel Maldondo ® District 33, San Luis Obispo
Capital Office: 916-319-2033
District Office: 805-549-3381
4. Bonnie Garcia ® District 80, Cathedral City
Capital Office: 916-319-2080
District Office: 760-321-8410
He's about as much 'on the fence' as I have Britney Spears' flat tummy.
The only people who were saying Arnold Schwarzenegger was ever close to signing SB1160, or anything like it, were all Democrat hacks.
In other words, "consider the source."
The governor's office apparently jacked the security requirement way too high to suit the pro-illegal lobby.
Phone tax likely to make it to November ballot
By: ERIN WALSH - Staff Writer
Last modified Monday, March 22, 2004 10:26 PM PST
California voters should probably expect to see a new phone tax proposal to help pay for emergency rooms on the ballot this fall.
As of last week, supporters had collected 683,000 signatures ---- more than the 598,105 needed to put the measure on the ballot in November.
The Coalition to Preserve Emergency Care continues to collect signatures "to make sure we have enough valid ones to get this before the voters," said spokeswoman Kelly Hayes-Raitt.
If approved, the tax initiative would hike Californians' phone bills by 3 percent, raising about $550 million for emergency room costs, including doctors, equipment and care for the uninsured.
Supporters, including statewide doctor and hospital associations, say the tax is necessary to keep cash-strapped emergency rooms open.
Opponents say hospitals don't need more tax money, and that it's unfair to tax phone users for services almost entirely unrelated to telephones.
A very small fraction of the tax ---- 0.75 percent of revenues from the surcharge ---- will be designated for upgrading the state's 9-1-1 emergency phone system.
Residential phone lines could be taxed up to 50 cents each under the measure. Cellular phones and business lines would have no such cap.
The coalition says the tax is necessary to keep emergency rooms from closing their doors during rough financial times. Twenty-six emergency rooms have closed in California in the last five years, according to the coalition, primarily because of money problems.
"If you get in a car accident, you want to know that there's an emergency room open nearby to fix you up," Hayes-Raitt said. "Right now, you can't be sure that will be the case."
Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, said the measure would unfairly suck millions from phone customers ---- especially businesses and cell phone users ---- to pay for a health care system that needs reform, not more money.
"We agree that the health care system is in dire straits, but taxing phone users isn't the answer," said Larry McCarthy, president of the taxpayer association. "The answer is to do a better job with the resources we have."
Most of the revenue from the proposed phone tax ---- 60 percent ---- would be set aside for emergency room use, including doctors, nurses and equipment. Thirty percent would be earmarked to pay emergency doctors who treat uninsured patients. Five percent would go to community clinics that provide emergency care. About 4 percent would go toward paramedic and firefighter training, and less than 1 percent would be set aside for improvements to the 9-1-1 emergency phone system.
Proponents say the tax is necessary to make sure emergency services are available all over the state, where hospitals have been struggling to meet rising costs and to deal with cuts in government-funded health insurance.
Local hospital executives, who are pushing for the measure, said last month that hospitals needed the tax in order for hospital care to survive as North County knows it.
Late last year, Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas stopped taking low-income patients who use government insurance unless they are in emergency situations. Other local hospitals said they are having trouble keeping their emergency rooms staffed with enough nurses to meet strict new staffing laws.
Coalition spokeswoman Hayes-Raitt said taxing phone use is the best way to evenly divide the cost of emergency health care between residents of the state.
"Anybody who uses the phone could end up in the emergency room," she said.
But taxing phone users to bail hospitals out of their money problems is unfair, McCarthy said, especially because very little revenue from the tax will go toward the emergency phone system.
"The doctors and hospitals are simply looking for a convenient target to raise taxes and have more of the cost health care be borne by taxpayers," he said. "We think it's a scare tactic, and we don't think California voters are going to buy it."
Contact staff writer Erin Walsh at (760) 739-6644 or firstname.lastname@example.org
This is insane. Send the illegals home! Problem solved!
It seems that no matter how many times facts are posted here on FR and shown that information OFFICIALLY comes from Schwarzenegger or his OFFICIAL spokesman, you and/or Fair Opinion ignore the fact. The outrage you see toward this issue and Schwarzenegger is due to HIS actions, not those of Cedillo. Below is a recording of Arnold.... in his own voice and his own words. Why do you continue to ignore facts and criticize others who genuinely care about this issue?
Schwarzenegger January Interview with Univision:
Schwarzenegger: We are right now in the middle of working very hard with Senator Cedillo. My staff and his staff. Everyone is working together. And we are absolutely positive that we will come up with a great bill. With his help and with my team's help, I think we will work it out. So there's, uh, really a good move forward.
Interviewer: How would you deal with more conservative members of the legislature...?
Schwarzenegger: Again, it's one of those things where we all have to get together and see that this is a good idea and this is the way to move forward. So, I am talking to my Republican friends all the time about it, and also to my Democratic friends. We will do it.
Click HERE to Listen to the AudioTape
Washington Times, 3/02/04
"Our staffs have met, and they're working on this together,"
said Vincent Salido, spokesman for the Republican governor
The more Schwarzenegger's office now downplays involvement in Cedillo's bill, the more signatures I will get!
Note to All:
Download and Sign your petition Today! Save our State!
Might I direct you to my post #12 to you (above) and that you actually read it? I believe you will find that both Arnold, and his official spokesman, acknowledge that Schwarzenegger's staff are working with Cedillo to come up with a satisfactory bill.
Good idea to make the owners more responsible. But, often, the cars aren't worth $2000. Maybe something should go on the owners' DMV record so that their insurance rates will increase (after all, they are increasing liability to their insurance company without their knowledge).
Hmmmmm... Could be an opportunity to take out both an illegal driver, and an irresponsible vehicle owner. That sounds good. Let's make it $3000!
I didn't realize that. I'm going to have to go visit traffic court here in L.A. and check this out.
Oh goody! Another classic work of FairOpinion's spin, twisted interpretations in defense of a governor who said that only prison guards and tribes were special interests, inferring that Wall Street banks and real estate honchos didn't apply.
Thus, by the logic of Schwarzenegger (and you FO), "There's no deal," means, 'There's no deal, YET,' and "Arnold is NOT supporting this bill," more than clearly imputes that he wants changes in the current bill.
Here's your problem: Given Arnold has publicly said (and his spokesman has confirmed) that he and Cedillo are working on drivers' licenses for illegals, and that he has said through private channels, "There's no deal," he is either lying to us or to Cedillo et al. It can't be both
Arnold was elected on the premise that he was going to cancel SB-60. He did. What the idiot public who voted for him believed is that he would represent their interests in preventing the issuance of drivers' licenses for illegal aliens. Clearly, by Arnold's own admission, that impression was false. So, either Arnold allowed the public to operate upon a false impression of his intentions, or he lied outright. Feeding people information from which one knows they will draw a false conclusion and allowing them to continue to believe that false impression without correcting it is a dishonest act. Either way, Arnold shows up as a clever manipulator, exactly what I told you he was a month before the recall.
Truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, FO, else it is a lie. Thus, when you offer, "There's no deal," in response to the charge that Arnold is WORKING on drivers licenses for illegals, your response is deliberate misdirection. Arnold is a liar, and so are you.
Please do, and let your observations be known. There have been laws to cite these owners for decades, but they are not enforced.
I don't know why I keep expecting more, but I do.
Chalk it up to "entertainment value".
How else would she earn her paycheck?