« Anaheim Considers WiFi Pilot with Earthlink | Main | NEWS FLASH: Haidl, Nachreiner and Spann »

October 21, 2005

Comments

PBinLH

When your career of living at the trough is coming to an end, why not go down in a blaze of glory? Unless one of you can tell me something he's done other than work as a career politician.

Tom hasn't a prayer of being Lt Gov.

He was opposed to Prop 172. And he wrote about its misuse.

Now he is aligned with a Board that gave away the bank on pensions. And he is aligned with tens of thousands of forcibly extracted PAC dues paying members.

Well done Tom. Your flip flopping is some of the best ever.

redperegrine

"He was opposed to Prop 172. And he wrote about its misuse."

After watching you public employee union apparatchicks wrangle over 172 gravy - like hyennas over a wildebeest carcass - I'd say McClintock was right. Both cops and firemen have made excellent cases why the other side is overfunded or misusing funds. Why not admit McClintock was right and give it back?

BTW, I think McClintock would make an excellent Lt. Gov and I would vote for him (again).

PBinLH

Well at least you'll know he'll get two votes.

And btw. I'm not a firefighter.

I think it is the Supes who have jacked this up.

Jim Lacy

I agree with redperegrine, Tom would make a great Lt. Governor. But there isn't much surprise in this mailing. McClintock signed the ballot argument against Prop. 172 way back in 1993. If he had his way, even the DA and Sheriff's Dept. wouldn't get Prop 172 funds.

Measure D distributes just 5.7% of Prop. 172 revenues to fire safety, according to the impartial analysis by the County. That's all, just 5.7%. It will save lives, without raising taxes. Vote Yes on Measure D.

Sergeant

Mr. Lacy,

After his arrest, the house burglar said it was an old television set and the homeowner drives a Lexus and can replace the TV, so he should get a break. I said it is still a crime to steal someone else's property, regardless of the homeowner's ability to replace it.

Measure D is designed to shift taxes away from countywide public safety and into a public safety agency that has dedicated property tax funding.

As for Measure D, it matters not one cent how much it is. Jim, Measure D it is a tax grab regardless of the amount of it.

OCFA does not need the funds and public safety is not jeopardized if Measure D fails.

No on Measure D.

Jim Lacy

Sarge: You have my respect, we just have a difference here.

Riverside County commits 5.1% of Prop. 172 funds to fire safety. Santa Cruz County gives 5.63% of Prop. 172 funds to fire safety. According to the LA Times (11/1/03, Nancy Vogel reporting) at least 10 counties commit some percentage of Prop. 172 funds to fire safety. Why is 5.7% under Measure D in Orange County such a shock to you? It is what the people intended, after all.

PBinLH

Sarge,

Actually the burglar is in downtown Santa Ana.

He just happens to be well dressed.

The punk who B & E's a house for a TV set is your frame of reference.

The exec in the Savile Row suit who steals millions (maybe billions) is far more sinister. And no one is the wiser until it is way past too late. Because he looks just oh so respectable.

Measure D is your savior. Accept it.

Vote YES on Measure D.

Logical

"10 counties commit some percentage of Prop. 172 funds to fire safety"
10 out of 50+ counties puts OC with the majority of counties. Do those 10 counties that do share P172 funds with fire have the same or similar funding mechanism with property taxes as we do here in OC?

Jim Lacy

Logical- You can read the Vogel article in the LATimes archives for details. The data is actually 10 of the 28 counties responding (not 10 of 50 plus) to a request for info from the Counties Association on Prop. 172 funding, as reported by Vogel. There may be more counties in the balance that did not respond, that actually provide some level of Prop 172 funds to fire. All these counties have essentially the same revenue sources as OC. For example, Riverside, which does provide about the same Prop. 172 funds to fire that Measure D will over the next 10 years.

Jeff Flint

This McClintock piece is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. When even Tom McClintock calls a slight reduction in the amount of the increase of spending a "cut", then I know we've lost it.

I would bet that Tom McClintock has given the speech 100 times on the floor of the Assembly or Senate that reducing the rate of increase is not a cut. Yet he signs on to a mail piece that says the Sheriff and DA share of Prop 172 funds will be "cut by $30 million a year."

Think about this, Tom. If Measure D passes, according the analysis prepared by the opponents of Measure D, then instead of the Sheriff's Prop 172 allocation going up 6% per year, it will go up 3% per year for the next 4 years, and then it goes right back to 6% per year!

In the words the Tom McClintock we used to know, THAT IS NOT A CUT!

By the logic used by McClintock, the CTA is right, Arnold has cut the education budget by $3 billion, and he hates children and puppies too.

While I can't find an exact McClintock statement online to this same effect, if you assume that he and Chuck Devore have roughly them same opinion, then here is what Chuck wrote on the pages of Human event in June of this year:

The governor proposed an increase of $3 billion to $50 billion, up from $47 billion spent last year. The California Teachers Association (CTA) union calls this increase a draconian cut and wants $2 billion more.

Yet the same logic used by the CTA that allows our Board of Supervisors and McClintock, and so many others, to say that law enforcement will be "cut.

Truly, truly sad.

It's an embarrasment that McClintock and all the others would sign on to a campaign funded by the three largest public employee unions in Orange County. I note that the disclaimer on this piece is cut off...the disclaimer that shows the public employee unions which paid for sending this piece to Republican voters in Orange County.

Crazy.

OCFA E67

Logical,

This should help answer your question.

http://www.cpoc.org/Information/Surveys%20and%20Information/Prop%20172.htm

It's a couple of years old. So there are some counties who have started sharing.

Jeff Flint

PS:

While McClintock signed the above piece to the Republicans in Orange County, here's the copy on the piece that the Democrats got today:

1. Claims cuts against programs "that benefit our most needy families."

2. Tax shift to an agency that "ONLY services the very wealthiest communities."

3. "Measure D is a slap in the face to working people." SEIU, Local 660

Excellent...class warfare, cuts against "the needy" (wait, I thought all the cuts would go against Deputies and prosecutors) and the SEIU talking about "the working people."

There, my fellow Republicans, is your "No on Measure D" campaign.

Here's the SEIU Local 660 website so you can see the teammates of McClintock for opposing Measure D.

Agent 13

Jim Lacy said,
>>>It will save lives, without raising taxes<<<

And you guys say WE are crying "GLOOM AND DOOM."

I sure would like to see the data on this Jim.

Just how many lives were lost due to OCFA not recieving 172 revenues.

NFPA, (my favorite PRIVATE PEER GROUP) states, when lives are at risk a Fire fighter SHALL be permitted to enter a structure ALONE.

Shame on you!

Jim Lacy

"13": Response times are important because they directly correlate to whether or not a person's life can be saved or will die in an emergency situation. Firefighter/paramedic response times in OC have unfortunately increased 34 seconds and in the last decade the population served has grown 500,000 with an increase of only 24 firefighters, further straining the life saving abilities of firefighters. If you read the Prop. 172 ballot argument in favor, it flatly states as a reason to support Prop. 172 that if 172 doesn't pass, that response times for fire will increase. Guess what? Prop 172 passed and response times still increased in Orange County! Part of the reason for that is the County has not provided any Prop. 172 funds for fire as the voters intended. Measure D commits just 5.7% of Prop. 172 funds to fire over the next ten years -- about the same as is done in Riverisde County. It will result in better response times as promised in Prop. 172, and it will save lives.

OCFA E67

Agent 13. Didn't they teach you in the Agent 13 academy that it is impossible to prove a negative?

I guess not.

We're not crying GLOOM and DOOM. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure that out.

My neighbor showed me the 'Vote Democratic' mailer. And my keen investigative skills showed it just so happens to have the same address as.......

AOCDS

So now aside from a fear and threats campaign, you are engaged in class warfare.

You must be very proud.

OC Fire Storm

Agent 13 said...

>>>NFPA, (my favorite PRIVATE PEER GROUP) states, when lives are at risk a Fire fighter SHALL be permitted to enter a structure ALONE.

Maybe, but it's certainly not the safest thing to do. With that said, fire fighters often do enter structures alone to make a rescue when needed. However, to continue to ask them to do so is unreasonable. Do you really expect one fire fighter to pull your doughnut ridden butt out of a building alone?

Police officers don’t enter a building alone to confront armed suspects (remember Columbine?) Why should fire fighters be asked to continue to place themselves in jeopardy just because the Sheriff Union wants hoard 172 funds and forgo the will of the people?

Vote Yes on D

Got to firefightersforpublicsafety.com and see Sheriff Corona endorse 172 to funds for fire fighters.

Logical

Since this briefly shifted to when/when not to enter a structure, I have to lay this out ...

I've seen window decals on homes stating a certain # of cats/dogs in home and basically asking firefighters to save them in event of fire; they gotta' be kidding right; enter a burning structure to save a person - yes; putting a FF's safety in jeopardy for a pet - ridiculous.

OC Fire Storm

>>>putting a FF's safety in jeopardy for a pet - ridiculous.

Thanks, Logical...we agree. And the cops won't enter if the pets are armed

Go ahead and high five it with this mailer, but think of this: if it is so powerful why did Sheriff Mike and Tony R. pledge to raise a 100 K?

OCFA E67

Well did they?

OC Fire Storm

>>>why did Sheriff Mike and Tony R. pledge to raise a 100 K?

Because they know Measure D is in trouble. It's a bit late to be trying to infuse the campaign w/ 100K. They shoulda put the money up a long time ago. That way they coulda had better quality filers and commercials, rather than the cheesy ones that are out now. Putting the money in this late in the came shows their desperation.

OC Fire Storm

E67, yes they did...see the Tin Star Blog.

There’s an old saying about not strapping yourself to a bomb. With Corona’s long list of issues, he’s likely to prove to be AOCDS’ bomb. The result will be Measure D will go down to defeat due to Corona’s personal and professional short comings.

OCFA E67

Just saw it Fire Storm. You're right. And a pledge is not a contribution.

OCFA E67

What this really means is that No on D has done some polling and knows it's losing.

Why else would these two be getting engaged financially at this late date.

If you want to see Carona's support of Measure D go to:

www.firefightersforpublicsafety.com

What a weak argument against the increasing support for No On Measure D.

You fireguys must really be feeling the weight of the support against your efforts! It's not fear of you that causes support to increase, it's the obvious disgust with your greed that fuels the fire.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories