SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 22, 2009· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

October 22, 2009 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • Amgen Tour of California not returning to Santa Clarita this year, according to the City. Jason Crawford from the city: “They told us from the very first year they would be changing locations to keep the race fresh. We’re pretty lucky to have had it three years in a row.” SIGNAL If you’re interested, you can watch here as the list of cities hosting a stage gets released this morning  (looks like Bakersfield is getting a stage)
  • More on the possibility of Santa Clarita slipping into a blue Congressional District. Much of this depends on who is elected governor next year SIGNAL
  • No word yet on the John Doe found in the riverbed by the South Fork Trail, but detectives are awaiting autopsy results SIGNAL
  • Assemblyman Smyth calls restoration of funding for Domestic Violence Center “one of the great achievements that I have had the privilege to be a part of during my time in the Legislature.” Cheers to that! KHTS
  • Quigley Canyon open space -approved for purchase at the last City Council meeting- now belongs to the City of Santa Clarita and will soon have picnic tables, water fountains and trails SIGNAL
  • Castaic High location a metaphor for all that’s wrong (or right, depending on your perspective) with Castaic, or so some think as Castaic Union School Board candidates campaign SIGNAL
  • Democratic Congressional Committee tags Congressman Buck McKeon as hypocrite for dissing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act even as local institutions, like Henry Mayo, receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from said Act DCCC
  • Reminder: Steve Poizner coming to town. If you’re a business owner, why are you still reading this? Get over to the Chamber, stat! DAILY NEWS
  • Patti Rasmussen brings reason to the Beacon with a good article/essay on the choice ahead for West siders on November 3 WEST RANCH BEACON
  • More lobbying from the west side and county: with a County Seal on the ‘press release,” Dave Bossert announces that the Stevenson Ranch HOA has passed a motion recommending west siders stay with the County WRB

Comments (16)

  1. mikeOctober 22, 2009 at 12:12 pm
    The 25h, as it is, will be up for grabs when Buck departs. There is only a 2-point spread in party ID (40-38), contrasted with an 11-point spread five years ago. Both Lancaster and Palmdale are blue cities now, and Buck’s territory in San Bernardino County has also gone blue, based on the most recent numbers.
  2. Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm
    I seriously doubt that voters are moving in the direction of the Democrat Party. My guess is that party lines are about as good for the Dems as they will be for the next 20 years.
  3. Timothy MyersOctober 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm
    Kevin: We’re not talking about the people you hang out with, its the people who have moved in in the last ten years that you have not even met!
  4. mikeOctober 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm
    Kevin, the proof is in those registration reports we sparred over so famously back in 07. The shift has been quick, but they aren’t the old SCV Democrats. No aging hippies, just people in the 18-40 Demo that have been unpersuaded by the Republicans. Not ideologues, so they are swayable. Translating that into actual political power is another question entirely, as the local GOP has generations worth of well-known office holders. But the rules of the game have shifted. Consider Obama’s near-victory in SCV in 2008. On the same day, Bruce McFarland, a far-left SCV resident who didn’t run a campaign to speak of, got within 10 points of über incumbent George Runner. If anything, that caught my attention. Back in the day, that would be a 68-32 romp.
  5. Jim FarleyOctober 23, 2009 at 7:36 am
    The Gerrymandering that goes on is unconscionable. While Prop 77 in 2005 may not have been the best solution it would have been better than what we’ve got. Don’t read too much into the Obama turn out in the last election. I know several who voted for him that are now having serious regrets. I know that is not a scientific poll, but I think a lot voted for Obama as the ‘anti-Bush’, just as a lot voted for Carter as the ‘anti-Nixon’. Obama appears on his way to a failed presidency just as Carter’s was. Remember what happened after Carter?
  6. mikeOctober 23, 2009 at 8:16 am
    It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. The state legislative districts will be done by the independent committees and the congressional district will be done by the legislature. Obama was more popular in SCV than an average Democrat would be – he nearly won. But as a separate matter, Republican registration in the 25th has been on a steady decline going back much further. In the city of Santa Clarita, there is now just a 10-point spread between Ds and Rs, a ratio that is closer still if you count the Stevenson Ranch and Castaic, which already have Democratic majorities. I’m not making a normative point, just an observation as a younger person, but it’s pretty clear that people in my generation, say under 35, have not taken to the Republican party nearly as much as past generations have. This has remained true after we get a mortgage, pay taxes and have kids. You can speculate as to why, but it’s an empirical trend that can’t be disputed and it was true long before Obama.
  7. navigatorOctober 23, 2009 at 12:17 pm
    You’re correct Mike. My daughter is still a Dem even after asking why her paycheck keeps getting smaller and smaller
  8. mikeOctober 23, 2009 at 1:31 pm
    navigator, if you are who I think you are, I was friends with your older daughter back in the day.
  9. navigatorOctober 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm
    The oldest is a Rep. The youngest is a Dem
  10. mikeOctober 23, 2009 at 2:56 pm
    I would have guessed that!
  11. CastaicClayOctober 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm
    After Carter came “Reaganomics”. His “trickle down theory” never worked. The business owners never trickled down any of their tax break savings. They kept it for their greedy selves and eventually drove us into the mess we are in now. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
  12. Jim FarleyOctober 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm
    CastaicClay: Spoken as a true communist. You clearly do not have an understanding of economics. By cutting the tax rate Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush increased overall tax revenue. The problem under Reagan and especially Bush is that spending was not decreased. Are you aware of the fact that Blacks were at their highest level of prosperity during the Reagan years. All boats rise with a rising tide. Obama’s plan for government takeover of the economy will keep us at low tide for a long time.
  13. mikeOctober 23, 2009 at 11:46 pm
    Jim, glad to see you’ve been taking your Glen Beck. The only period in decades where we had a serious drop in tax revenue is in the years following the Bush tex cut. It took 5-6 years to recover to pre-tax cut revenues, while tax revenue increase, year over year for decades prior. Second, Blacks were not at their highest level of prosperity during Reagan. By what measure? Or are you not counting the four presidents since Reagan?
  14. IndyOctober 24, 2009 at 9:20 am
    Navigator: You’re correct Mike. My daughter is still a Dem even after asking why her paycheck keeps getting smaller and smaller The problem that you note here has nothing to do with the Democrats other than the ‘demand’ for services by the public for government. Most republicans have bought into the ideology of ‘anti-tax’ as if taxes in and of themselves are ‘bad’. But as see, this simply approach is illogical since it makes spending decisions on ideology grounds and not the reality of what the public demands like infrastructure and expanding public schools to meet the rising enrollments Simply saying that ‘taxes are too high’ without context is only creating more and more problems with the state. I’m hope that the reason your family members have had enough of the no brainer ‘anti-tax’ recitals and would rather elect people more in touch with reality. The Dems aren’t perfect in that area . . . they likewise like to stay away from the ‘demand’ issue knowing the conservative will ‘beat them to death’ in the media with distortions from their ideology. Their lack of courage is just as distressing as the conservative lack of thinking. For now, we’re stuck but I hope people soon ‘get hip’ to why government exist in the first place. It’s not some ‘entity’ on to itself . . . it’s ‘our government’ that serves ‘ours interest’. We just need to filter out the political sloganized nonsense to see that.
  15. IndyOctober 24, 2009 at 9:30 am
    Jim Farley: By cutting the tax rate Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush increased overall tax revenue. This conservative belief is causing more damage to our nation that most Americans understand. Yes, it does appeal to the ‘casual voter’, one not likely to have read any non-fiction since high school, doesn’t read any nonpolitical daily newspaper, and votes strict party line (no thinking required). The tax cuts under Kenney didn’t produce the expanded economy, that was due to the money supply being expanded. This ‘minor detail’ is not stated with the standard ideology recital you’ve stated and I’ve heard repeated by conservatives over and over and over and over and over and over . . . all without any basis. Where’s the ‘white paper study’ that validates this assertion about less taxes? If it’s as ‘obvious’ as you believe, you should be able to produce it quickly and I’m sure everyone here would like to see the ‘validation’. In reality, from what I’ve seen over the years just before and after Reagan, is the ‘buy off’ of the conservative in the Republican party that have been told that cutting taxes is our only solution but this has just distorted the ‘demand’ issue as well. But this is just the ‘anti-government’ bias being put forth to get money away from government and back into the hands of ‘big business’ since if the public spends the money, the big business interest (putting up the $40,000,000 per year for folks like Rush to put forth the ‘anti-tax’ ideology) get the funds versus putting those resources into our nation’s infrastructure. Likewise, the national debt under this ‘anti-tax’ approach is just lying to the public making them believe they can still have government services ‘ they both demand and expect’ and get future taxpayers to make up the short fall. This is unconscionable but as we see with your recital, misunderstood. Time to wake up. And please . . . communist? That’s was the manta used during the McCarthy era during that 50s and that as we see, was tire and worn out rhetoric.
  16. IndyOctober 24, 2009 at 9:43 am
    Jim Farley: Are you aware of the fact that Blacks were at their highest level of prosperity during the Reagan years. All boats rise with a rising tide. Obama’s plan for government takeover of the economy will keep us at low tide for a long time. It appears this conservative position hasn’t been in play for some time. From: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_672.pdf In 2004, approximately 18 percent of all children in the United States lived in poverty. Overthe last five years, child poverty has risen substantially, increasing by 12 percent.1 After hittinga low of 12.1 million children in 2000, more than 1.4 million children have been added to the poverty rolls, becoming members of this country’s “new poor.” As we see, this rise occurred during the conservative policies of George W. Bush. Your recitals of RNC positions especially of those against Obama including your ‘government takeover’ . . . forget the fact that government exist for ‘all Americans’. It doesn’t sit ‘apart’ as you suggest. But if you’re getting your info from Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Mark, your remarks are consistent with these folks views . . . which are ideology based and not founded in reality. We have to move away from the politics that you present that make no sense and are actually hurting America as the people pushed into poverty under Bush indicate. When Bush rescinded the tax rates to the wealthiest Americans, we see that your statement about ‘rising boats’ is false.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support