California’s 10th Congressional District Representative, Ellen Tauscher, Not Among H.R. 1207 Cosponsors

Representative Ellen Tauscher, California 10th Congressional District

H.R. 1207, also known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009,  enables the Comptroller General to audit the Federal Reserve System and federal reserve banks, without first obtaining written consent from them (which is currently required).  It  also directs the Comptroller to complete an audit of the Federal Reserve System by 2010, and provide a detailed report to Congress.  In addition H.R. 1207 removes language from Subsection b, section 714, of Title 13 of the United States Code, and would enable the Comptroller General to audit the following items which are currently exempt from auditing:

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)–(3) of this subsection.

When asked if she would consider joining the list of H.R. 1207 cosponsors, California 10th Congressional District Representative Ellen Tauscher’s e-mailed response was:

“Thank you for writing me about H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. This bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Financial Services. With the near collapse of our financial system last fall, it is apparent that efficient, effective regulation that strengthens consumer and investor protections and promotes market stability and transparency is needed.  As we repair the financial system, we must incorporate strong oversight and accountability measures that enhance the current regulatory standards.  Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I review the report for the committee.”

Rep. Tauscher skillfully dodged the question of whether or not she would considering joining the list of H.R. 1207 cosponsors.  She also wrote that she will “review the report for the committee” (House Committee on Financial Services), on which she does not serve. As of June 5, 2009, H. R. 1207 had 190 cosponsors, and Rep. Tauscher was not among them.

Could it be that Rep. Tauscher and others are against a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System and federal reserve banks?  If so, why?

Update: Tauscher was confirmed as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security on June 25, 2009.  Her last day in the House was June 26, 2009.

Democrats in California Assembly Move to Restrict Rights of Law-Abiding Sportsmen

Assemblymember deLeon

First introduced in 2007 as AB 362 by California State Assemblymember Kevin deLeon (D-Los Angeles),  AB 962 was “reintroduced” in February of this year.  Mr. deLeon touts AB 962 as a gun violence prevention bill, and has the misguided support of politicians and government officials such as Sacramento police chief Rick Braziel, Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Assemblymember Sandre Swanson (D-Alameda).

On deLeon’s website, it states that:

” (AB) 962… prohibits the sale or furnishing of ammunition to criminals and gang members subject to a gang injunction”

….and in deLeon’s own words:

Or if you prefer, in Spanish:

Channel KXTV reported:

The truth of the matter is that AB 962  will have little or no effect in preventing criminals from obtaining ammunition, and will not cure gang violence, which has nothing to do with the availability of ammuntion, but is a result of the failure and disfunction of the families of gang members.

What AB 962 will effectively accomplish, if passed, is to restrict the rights of  law abiding citizens to engage in lawful sporting activities. Conscientious sportsmen, who want to use lead-free ammunition, or who use other specialty ammo not readily available in retail stores will no longer be able to place internet orders to legally obtain the products they use.   Marksmen at a shooting competition would be prohibited from exchanging more than 50 rounds of ammunition with each other, as would friends and family members who participate in legal shooting and sporting activities.

Assemblymember Diane Harkey meeting with Orange County Sheriff's rescue.

Assemblymember of the 73rd district, Diane Harkey, who is endorsed by the Crime Victims United of California,  Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, Santa Ana Police Officers Association, Anaheim Police Officers’ PAC, LA County Professional Peace Officers Association, Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and Orange County Sheriff (retired) Brad Gates, has stated:

“I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners.  This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities.  Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures.  This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962.  As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer.  This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.”

On May 28, 2009 the California Assembly Committee  on Appropriations voted along party lines (12 Democrats vs. 5 Republicans) to pass AB 962, opening the way for a similar vote on the Assembly floor, which could happen as soon as this week.  If passed, AB 962 will deal a devastating blow to California’s sporting industry and businesses, at a time when the State cannot afford to lose them.

3 Out of 5 Contra Costa County Supervisors Vote to Support Increase in State Deficit

County Supervisor John Gioia

Knowing of the impending State fiscal crisis, in February of this year, State Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco introduced SB810, also known as the “California Universal Health Care Act”.  The bill would establish a State government run California Healthcare System administered by a newly created bureaucratic agency, the California Healthcare Agency, under the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor.

State Senator Mark Leno

Coauthors of the bill include California State Senator and California 10th Congressional District candidate Mark DeSaulnier, and State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson.  Both are former members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

Passage of SB810 would result in an outrageous cost to California taxpayers.  If passed, implementation of SB810 would cost taxpayers $200 Billion the first year, and cause an estimated State budget shortfall of approximately $42 Billion each year thereafter.  Keep in mind that the projected State budget deficit is $28 Billion by the end of FY 2009 – 2010.

On May 19^th, 2009, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted on board agenda item C.17, to adopt a position in support of SB810 as recommended by Supervisor John Gioia.  Without any comments or public discussion, Contra Costa County supervisors John Gioia, Susan Bonilla, and Federal Glover voted in favor of supporting SB810.  In essence, they voted in favor of plunging the State into an additional budget deficit of $42 Billion per year.  Supervisors Mary Piepho and Gayle Uilkema voted against supporting SB810.

On Memorial Day, Please Remember Those Men and Women, Who Have Paid The Ultimate Sacrifice To Defend Our Great Country.

American Cemetery, Omaha Beach, May 2008

Board of Supervisors Takes Position on Props 1A – 1F…or did they?

A couple of weeks ago I sent an e-mail to each member of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors asking a very simple question.  What is your position on Proposition 1A?  I received a single response from the office of District 2 Supervisor, Gayle Uilkema:

“The State propositions are outside of the jurisdiction of the County Supervisor.”

After that answer, imagine my surprise when I saw the May 12, 2009 Board Agenda and found agenda item SD.4 to consider propositions 1A through 1F on the May 19, 2009 special election ballot.

So my reply, in part, was:

“Since you say that State propositions are outside the jurisdiction of the County supervisor, I trust you will “abstain” when tomorrow’s (5/12/09) Board agenda item SD.4 is voted upon, because according to you it has no business being on the agenda in the first place.”

On May 12th, the 15 minute discussion of agenda item SD.4 began with a presentation which was followed by supervisor comments.  While no supervisor expressed a definite position on any of the propositions, it was clear that they had differing opinions.  Bonilla asked, if the propositions don’t pass, where will cuts be made and where will the money come from?  Piepho stated that we need reform in Sacramento and we need reform in County government.  Gioia said there were good things and some bad things in the propositions. Glover repeated what Bonilla and Gioia said.  Uilkema said she supported a neutral position because the State hasn’t done it’s job.

Well, Supervisor Uilkema didn’t abstain from voting, even after another Board member questioned the need for taking any position so close to the election.  In fact, Uilkema made the motion to vote.  Being so common as to be disturbing, and despite the fact they have differing opinions, the Board once again voted unanimously.  This time to take a “neutral” position on Props 1A – 1F, in essence following the recommendation of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) in order to avoid:

“…the political risks involved in taking affirmative or negative positions on each (proposition)…”