Fighting for integrity

The Union-Tribune Editorial Board questioned whether the California Republican Party should be undertaking a referendum drive on the Senate lines (“GOP should fight for voters, not new lines,” Editorial, Oct. 26). Without question the referendum is necessary to insure the integrity of our system and fulfill voter intent.

The process by which the lines were drawn was corrupt. The lead commissioner was initially screened out for partisanship but then used a false address to slip through. The commission hired the Democrat firm Q2 Research to draw the legislative lines. Commission member Dr. Gambino Aguirre failed to disclose ties to the organizations and politicians he donated to who benefited from the lines. No Californian should let such corruption stand.

Beyond that, 11 of the 40 Senate lines violate the rules by which the commission was instructed to draw lines. Through Propositions 11 and 20, California voters approved a redistricting process that allowed for a referendum if the commission did not fulfill its constitutional obligations. They did not, and the California Republican Party has no qualms fighting for the integrity of our voting system in the same manner other groups have questioned the commissions act – an important fact left out by the commission.

Contrary to the U-T editorial, that is not all that we are doing.

As the party’s new chairman, I’ve led a statewide town hall series. I made it absolutely clear that Republicans need to move beyond our comfort zone to be successful. The Union-Tribune has chronicled our efforts at expanding our reach, even going as far as calling it “good for democracy.” Our voter registration drive is in full effect – as a result of our aggressive voter registration program, more voters are re-registering as “Republican” at a pace two times more than last year.

I look forward to future editorials acknowledging these efforts. – Tom Del Beccaro, Chairman, California Republican Party

The wrong direction

In response to “Local officials object to curbs on use of E-Verify” (Oct. 26): It is obvious from the recent bill signings by Gov. Jerry Brown that he is in full re-election campaign mode. His liberal base has been rewarded with Assembly Bill 131 (Dream Act), which allows illegal immigrant students to apply for state-funded college financial aid even though our schools are facing cataclysmic budget cuts. Then he signs union-backed Senate Bill 922 intended to end local project labor agreement bans that help cities control their budgets that are spiraling out of control because of defined pension and health care costs. Now AB 1236 has been signed that curbs the use of E-Verify to ensure that businesses are not hiring illegal aliens.

The California Assembly, Senate and the governor continue to write and sign nonsensical laws that almost guarantee that we will move from 48th to 50th on the list of business-friendly states and put us on the fast track to bankruptcy that will parallel what has happened in Greece, but his political base will be happy. – Bill Dabbs, Carlsbad

If anyone still has trouble understanding why our nation’s economy is headed in the wrong direction as jobs are moved offshore at an alarming rate, they’d be able to connect a few more of the dots after reading “Local officials object to curbs on use of E-Verify.” If I understood the article correctly, local politicians like Escondido Mayor Sam Abed and County Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Bill Horn are upset that state politicians, like Assemblyman Paul Fong and Gov. Jerry Brown, have just enacted a new state law that effectively prevents local governments from interfering in the affairs of purely private businesses. The article quotes Jacob as saying that the new law is “the heavy hand of a broken state telling local governments what to do and how to operate.” So I guess these local politicians would like to be free to tell private businesses what to do and how to operate. The irony, and frankly the hypocrisy, of that, is stunning. A state law that actually prevents local governments from enacting new laws and regulations on private businesses, such as requiring those businesses under their jurisdiction to participate in the federal E-Verify system, strikes me as a surprising and welcome move in the right direction for California.

Here’s an idea: Legalize immigration, therefore solving the “problem” of illegal immigration. Let businesses decide who to hire, where and when they choose, without having to get permission from government, at any level, to do so. Adding local and state immigration regulations to the 500,000-plus-word federal Immigration and Naturalization Act will only frustrate employers and drive businesses and jobs elsewhere. – Russell F.H. Gibbon, San Diego

S.D. schools in crisis

In response to “Board paints dire picture” (Oct. 26): The comments from the president of the San Diego school board in are classic. It’s disappointing to hear someone like Richard Barrera blame the state’s governors and Legislature in regard to their preference to cut public education rather than raise taxes on the wealthy. That’s convenient. However, Barrera along with his fellow board members have dished out 7.5 percent annual raises to all of their employees while the U.S. and California have been in recession for four long years.

People who have sought positions of leadership are expected to lead. What would happen if Barrera worked in the private sector and failed to keep track of his income and expenses? He’d be gone.

This school board decided that taking care of its employees was more important than taking care of our children. Do you suppose that the teachers’ unions might have helped elect these folks and contributed to causing the problem? – Bob Annett, La Mesa

As a former teacher in San Diego city schools, as well as a taxpayer of both the city and county, I am very interested in the proposed closure of Point Loma schools to meet budgetary concerns. My grandchildren would eventually attend the proposed closure of these named schools.

Rather than close these schools, the school board should consider selling off unused or underused properties, such as the old, blighted Mission Beach Elementary School, which sits on prime property in the beach area. It is certain that families will never support this site for myriad reasons: lack of affordable homes, lifestyles of current residents, etc.

There are other closed or underused sites within the San Diego Unified School District boundaries that should be considered for sale. Whatever these sites are currently being used for, be it storage for vehicles, maintenance, etc., an in-depth evaluation should be made and presented at board meetings. The Mission Beach property is far too valuable to be used as a storage/maintenance facility. To the school board: Please look at alternative ideas such as selling off underused properties before making a sweeping closure of these schools in the Point Loma area. – Genie Brown, Poway

We’re barking up the wrong tree when we complain to Superintendent Bill Kowba and the San Diego Unified School District board about imminent budget cuts and school closures. We need to look in the mirror.

We (or our parents) voted for Proposition 13 in 1978. We really liked the thought of reducing our property taxes and capping our assessed property values. We even thought commercial real estate needed the tax break. Lots of us sold our homes or businesses in other states so we could some enjoy the golden sunshine of Proposition 13.

Then we realized our schools were losing money, so we voted for Proposition 98 in 1988, then Proposition 111 in 1990. We had good intentions, but we ended up convoluting the system so badly that few people today can possibly understand education funding in California and our schools continue to lose. Basically, we voted for initiatives whose consequences we didn’t understand. We succeeded in reducing education spending so that today we rank 47th in the nation in spending per pupil.

And we’re really mad at the school board? The state? We did this! We’re the state! – Amy Byrne, Coronado

In response to Robert Zitsman (Letters, Oct. 25): Schools do not need more money. They need to live within their budget like the rest of us. Stating that “paying a few hundred dollars more for our schools” is OK – it is not. It is outrageous that people still think that throwing money at the problem is what works. Schools receive billions of dollars. Educators are going to be getting step increases in salary and phased-in raises of 7.2 percent starting next year in 2012. Let me state this again: 7.2 percent increases! In this economy these raises should be postponed as well as lowered. Also, San Diego Unified has rescinded the pink slips given to teachers earlier.

We as homeowners and residents of San Diego pay plenty in taxes. It has been shown that even though billions of dollars in increases have occurred over the last two decades there is a severe decline in the understanding and education of students. The answer is not more money! It is to decrease the outrageous salaries of the bloated middle management. Principals and all the bureaucracy of the school system is the reason for the outrageous salaries and outflow of money. – Carolyn Hutchins, Del Mar

In response to John Wester (Letters, Oct. 25), in which he called for the “rich to show some empathy,” I ask if Wester realizes the billions that are spent annually in California to educate students (regardless of legal status) in our public schools and universities?

San Diego Unified educates each pupil at an annual cost of $9,855, according to a California Department of Education report dated Feb. 23. According to the report, “Who pays education costs at California’s public colleges and universities?” published by California Legislative Analyst’s Office, resident student fees cover only 31 percent of the California State University system’s operating costs. If the 20 percent facilities expenditures are added, the percentage paid by student fees is considerably lower.

The LAO report also reports: “Most lower-income students do not pay education fees. More than one-third of all [University of California] and CSU undergraduates receive grants or waivers that fully cover education fees. About one-third of all [California community college] students receive fee waivers that fully cover education fees. Most of these grant recipients are low- to middle-income students. Middle-income students at UC, CSU, and CCC who do not receive grants or waivers to cover their education fees may claim the federal American Opportunity or Lifetime Learning tax credits. The American Opportunity credit allows students with family incomes up to $180,000 to subtract all or a portion of their education expenses from their families’ tax liability. If their families have low or no tax liability, they can recover up to $1,000 of their educational costs from the federal government.”

Wester fails to recognize that the taxpayers of all income levels have been both empathetic and generous when funding schools. The SDUSD has received millions of dollars from “the rich” to whom Wester refers. (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated many millions.) What taxpayers often resent is the allocation of education funds that does not provide the same high-quality education California residents have received in the past. The people involved with Occupy Wall Street claim this same lack of empathy from the so-called rich. Empathy has always been present; it’s mistrust and a lack of transparency with public funds that is at issue. Maybe state and local education coffers would benefit from the Federal government providing the funds to educate children who are not in San Diego as legal residents. After all, it’s the federal mandate that requires the district to educate almost everyone who applies. – Clarice Hurst, San Diego

Mortgage reform plan not a bailout

In response to Mark Pulliam (Letters, Oct. 26): President Barack Obama’s mortgage relief plan (“Obama seeks to aid sinking homeowners,” Oct. 25) is not about bailing out people who took out mortgages they couldn’t afford. In fact, borrowers can only participate if they have not had one late payment over the past six months or more than one over the last year. It’s about allowing people who thought they were getting a good deal around 2007 by getting a 6.5 percent to 7 percent mortgage, only to watch their property values decrease to the point where they now do not have enough equity in their homes, to refinance at today’s 4 percent to 4.5 percent rates.

Currently, the mortgage relief program requires that borrowers not exceed a 125 percent loan-to-value ratio (the mortgage is 25 percent more than the house is worth). This new program eliminates that requirement, so you can obtain the lower rates regardless of how “upside-down” you are. This then puts thousands of dollars a year in disposable income back into the pockets of good-standing homeowners to pump back into the economy. But, you must have good credit and a good payment history to qualify for the program. – Paul Willemssen, Bay Park

I take exception to the letter from Mark Pulliam (Letters, Oct. 26). It seems that he’s painting with very broad accusatory strokes.

First off, I didn’t “gamble” buying a home that I could not afford. I bought my home at the market price at the time (2004) and I also had a very well-paying job at that time. I was not “speculating”; this was to be my eventual retirement home. I also thought that I got a good mortgage rate, also considering the market at that time. However, how could I have predicted the market crash and the massive deflation in home prices? How could I have predicted being laid off that well-paying job in 2009? According to Pulliam, I am to blame for all of that.

I think that I speak for quite a large population who are in this same predicament. We could not foresee the future either in home values or our income. We are making our mortgage payments even though it is a struggle. We are owning up to our responsibility; and, yes, we would greatly appreciate assistance in being able to refinance when our mortgages are “under water.” So please, don’t lump all of us into a “garbage pile.” – Anita Bunting, San Marcos

Portrayal of Greece faulted

The Hellenic people deserve far better treatment than U-T editorial cartoonist Steve Breen insultingly depicts them to be. Breen must be reminded that these are the progeny of the very same Greek people who, more than 2,500 years ago, gave mankind the very democracy he uses to disparage them as he did in his Oct. 25 cartoon.

Apparently, Breen knows nothing about our culture, nor does he understand the great debt the world owes Greece for the creation of the civilized Western world. And, most importantly, Breen is in no position to be criticizing Greece while he silently sits by and enjoys life in the very midst of the most corrupt political and financial environment in the history of mankind.

I am proud to be an American and equally proud to be of Hellenic lineage. I would be happy to enlighten him as to why the great British scholar Sir Henry Sumner Maine so aptly stated, “Except for the blind forces of Nature, nothing moves on this earth that is not Greek in its origin.” – George D. Koulaxes, President, Hellenic Cultural Society of San Diego

Watershed lawsuit for orcas

A lawsuit has been filed that would require SeaWorld to release their killer whales under the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery (“Parks’ whales called slaves in suit,” Local, Oct. 26) Considering that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations are “persons,” maybe the court will do the same for whales. It’s maybe not as absurd as the corporations decision – whales, at least, are living mammals. But then, their campaign contributions would be minimal. – Louise A. Buck, San Diego