http://talkaboutwidget.hmbreview.com If it's cool, it's on the coast! en-us
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/white-house-under-fire-for-adding-obama-policy-plugs-to-past-presidents-bios/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D161610]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 18:42:10 PDT    
On February First, 2012, Mike Alifano made that statement in a editorial he posted to the HMB Review.

Here is the link: -- http://www.hmbreview.com/opinion/matters_of_opinion/fire-board-just-doing-its-due-diligence/article_4616d5b4-4d1b-11e1-9412-001871e3ce6c.html

That is over fourteen weeks ago. During those fourteen weeks, we have allowed our contract with Cal Fire to lapse. We have have blown off a grand jury investigation and we have been presented with two vastly different visions of what a reconstituted fire department would look like. Alifano wants direct control of hiring, promotion, and training. Mackintosh envisions a department where we contract out to Pacifica and Mid County.

Has anybody seen numbers that show that we can do better than Cal Fire or that any plan that is being considered is fiscally sustainable?

Have you seen those numbers Mr. Alifano?

Have you seen those numbers Mr. Riddell?

Have you seen those numbers Mr. Mackintosh?

Has anybody seen those numbers?

What numbers were you talking about, on 2/1/12 Mr Alifano? Numbers from the Grand Jury? Numbers from the first consultant that was hired to justify this? What numbers were you waiting for? Have you seen them? Surly you have because you voted to let the contract with Cal Fire expire. Right? Due Diligence would require that you had proof of a viable plan prior to starting the countdown to "something different"? Right? I mean this stuff is serious. We aren't talking bike paths or the naming rights to such. We are talking a vital service.

So let us assume that Mr Alifano is not so arrogant as to pull plug on Cal Fire prior to his seeing proof that reconstituting a stand alone department is fiscally viable. A responsible business man would not burn his bridges to a key vendor without having a better option scoped out. That would be stupid and Mr Alifano is not stupid.

So if you have those numbers, Mr Alifano, and you are comfortable with your decisions to scuttle the contract with Cal Fire why haven't you shared them? You must have them because only a fool would end a contract that everybody says has served us well without having convincing evidence that we can do better. Especially when we could have just re upped with Cal Fire for another year until we had a plan in place.

Either you have the numbers to justify letting the contract expire or you don't. Either you are a liar and a fool or you are an elitist who will not show us the data we paid for?

Do you have the data Mr Alifano, or not? Which is it Mr Alifono? Did you vote to allow the Cal Fire contract to expire when in possession of numbers that prove there is a fiscally sustainable model other than Cal Fire or did you vote your hope that you are smarter than those who oppose you?

Which is it? Foolish Liar or Arrogant Elitist.

Show us the numbers Mr Alifano or explain why the following statement:

"We are waiting to hear what the numbers will be and if it's fiscally sustainable." -- Mike Alifano

:isn't just crap shoveled to the rubes.


]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 18:24:52 PDT     Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:57 PDT     Wed, 16 May 2012 11:36:59 PDT    
]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 11:11:43 PDT    
Hamilton was born to poverty. As a teenager he became legend for his financial skills and wisdom. He was also notable for his stance in the Federalist Papers and other writings for protecting the rights of individuals including opposing slavery. When he died in a dual he left his family in a comfortable though not extraordinarily wealthy position, something he would have surely achieved had he not died young.

Hamilton modeled our financial system and economy after the system used by Great Britain. Great Britain used debt financing throughout its period of world dominance to maintain its hegemony over its colonies and to win wars with its continental adversaries, i.e., France.

Hamilton realized that governments are not like families because governments control the supply of money and through that also can control interest rates. Sovereign debt when it is held in the national currency is not like personal debt. This is a fundamental difference that Hamilton understood and Jefferson did not.

Jefferson thought of national debt in moral terms very similar to the beliefs today of the Tea Party and conservative movements. Hamilton on the other hand saw debt as an instrument of commerce and with the government’s ability to control the money supply, influence interest rates, and regulate the economy realized that Jefferson’s moralist views of national debt were wrong and foolish.

Today the Fortune 500 companies all have healthy debts used to finance their business. Stockholders would complain if they held zero debt and large cash reserves. Although large corporations are not like our government whose debt is entirely denominated in our national currency, they are more like government than like families.

This is the fundamental issue that is raging today in our presidential politics and policy debate. Today’s radical conservative movement, like Jefferson before them, see the national debt in moralist terms as if it was held by an individual or single family. The moderates who are mostly in the Democratic Party or who are being challenged out of the Republican Party are the modern equivalents to Hamilton. Their point of view is based upon economic history and the role of debt in national global economic dominance.

Analogies to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe today misunderstand the Hamiltonian position in two ways. One solution for Greece is to rid itself of debt denominated in Euros by reestablishing a Greek national currency. One difference between the US and Europe today is that our debt is denominated in dollars which we control. The second fundamental difference is that the dollar remains the benchmark currency for the industrial world.

The Tea Party and fiscal conservatives in general, regardless of party, have misunderstood the lessons of financial history that Hamilton deeply understood. Hamilton’s vision and the economic system he created enabled the US to become the dominant world economy even before we fought our Civil War. The extreme policies of the right today will only weaken our nation, not strengthen it.
]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 11:10:35 PDT     Tue, 15 May 2012 17:48:40 PDT    
Go to the following link
Type in your APN Number (Assessor's Parcel Number
Scroll down to where it says NET VALUE.
For instance, if it is close to $500,000 the Measure S charge will be $45.000 X 5 = $225.00 per year ($5,525.00-$9,000 over the Bond's term for 25 or 40 years -whatever the district decides).

In another instance should your tax bill say that your NET VALUE is closer to $700,000 your Measure S 'tab" per year might be closer to $45.00 X 7 = $315.00 X 25 ($7,875-$12,600 over the 25/40 yr. term)

While you're there be sure to check the blue typed word that says: MORE SPECIAL CHARGES in blue)
Here you will see that the San Mateo County Community College District will be taking $34.00 each year from you and that the CUSD has the Measure E parcel tax there as well at $150 per parcel for another 4 years.

THAT ONE (Measure E) at least, has a Senior Exemption.
If you are age 65 and didn't know about the exemption, you can not get back any past paid years on the Senior Exemption, HOWEVER, you should hurry on down to the School District office on Kelly Avenue and file before JUNE 30TH for the next few years.

All you will need to show that you are qualified is a copy of your Driver's license (or passport or birth certificate) and a copy of your property tax bill. They have the forms to fill out on a walk-in basis.

Unbelievebley, I have talked to three seniors who did not know they could get that Senior exemption of $150.00.]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 15:22:58 PDT    
http://www.infowars.com/talking-surveillance-cameras-coming-to-u-s-streets/]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:38 PDT    
Republicans Order Navy to Quit Buying Biofuels
Noah Shachtman in Wired Top Stories

"In its report on next year’s Pentagon budget, the House Armed Services Committee banned the Defense Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs more than a “traditional fossil fuel.” It’s a standard that may be almost impossible to meet, energy experts believe; there’s almost no way the tiny, experimental biofuel industry can hope to compete on price with the massive, century-old fossil fuels business."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/republican-navy-biofuel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

OF COURSE, I'M REALLY JUST MAD THAT THE REPUBS ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH ABOUT SAVING MONEY WHEN YOU KNOW THE BIG OIL'S DOLLARS ARE ROLLING AROUND IN THOSE REPUB'S POCKETS! (and yes, I do know that Dems get BIG oil bucks, too).]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 16:13:07 PDT    














http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57434070-1/samsung-cops-a-feel-in-galaxy-s-iii-for-humans-ad/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 15:34:22 PDT     Sound familiar?
Just looking locally, for starters, the CCWD is increasing rates by 12% again this year: http://www.hmbreview.com/news/water-district-eyes-rate-increases/article_eaed1f6c-8fe7-11e1-a93b-0019bb2963f4.html This increase is the 12th of the last 13 years.
The City of HMB is doing worse and has already tried multiple partial remedies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038390054784916.html
Looking at our schools, we see the CUSD has unanimously approved a measure for this June's ballot seeking $81 MILLION!
The Fire District (CFPD) needs more money, too. They are way behind in their contributions to CalPers, the state pension fund - just like the City of HMB. Estimates on the CFPD shortfall varies, but $20 MILLION has been discussed; the City has about the same shortfall, according to the expert they brought in to educate them several months ago.
The same needs are present with SAM and MWSD.
Next, looking at the County, we see we are facing 2012-2013 with a $28 MILLION deficit start there, too.
I see no need to get into the US deficit. We see that "...the country remains on track for a fourth straight $1 trillion deficit..." $ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!! http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-deficit-looms-large-april-surplus-16321373#.T7FK3O3N45Q
I'd say, in my infinite wisdom, that we have a problem - and that the problem appears to be consistent and consistently with government; which of course makes it our problem.
For me, and I am being way too simplistic here but...I'd say there appears to be a problem with government. How's that for a revelation? Pretty good, huh?
They all do the same things the same way and come up with the same results; and those results are beyond abysmal.
We've all read and heard about others, like Bell, CA or Vallejo, or ... It only grows worse by the day.
Does anyone know of any government agencies that are not in financial trouble?]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:27 PDT    
http://www.cabrillo.k12.ca.us/CUSD_file/Oversight/MeasureE_Minutes%2010-04-10.pdf

Without presenting a detailed plan or budget, the CUSD School Board voted 5 – 0 on March 8, 2012 to ask Coastside voters to pass Measure S, an $81M platinum credit card. This ballot measure is being presented in a primary election, when voter turnout is low, just like the 2010 Measure E. By taking advantage of a loophole in California tax law, it would pass with as little as 55% approval instead of the 2/3 majority required for other taxes. Assuming 5% interest for 25 years, we would also pay an additional $61M in interest, so the true cost of Measure S is actually $142M, or $5.68M per year for 25 years - $16,910 per household. By law, not a penny of this $142M can go to the teachers, or towards books or other necessary supplies. The 2011-12 CUSD annual budget projected expenses of $25.9M, with salary and benefits costing $22.3M, or 86% of the budget. Measure S represents a school spending increase of $5.68M per year, or an overall 22% increase, locked in for 25 years.

We won’t know for sure who bought this election until long after it is over. Last week I received two different expensive glossy mailers from the “Friends of Cabrillo Unified Schools – Yes on S FPPC #1346607”. Tellingly, neither mailer mentioned how much money they were asking for, or what it would cost us. One flier lists member organizations including the “San Mateo County Building Trades Council” and the “San Mateo County Central Labor Council”. Both these groups represent local construction and other unions. A quick search of their own website shows these groups could not care less if a job gets done for the lowest cost, as long as their union members are the ones doing the work. One can safely assume they will take this same attitude towards your $16,910 of Measure S money. If they succeed in buying this election with a few tens of thousands of dollars, local construction companies and labor unions will have hit an $81M jackpot.

http://www.sanmateolaborcouncil.org/Labor_Paper/sm-labor/0511article2.html

Teacher health care and pension expenses continue to climb while revenues from the state continue to fall. If we need more money for teacher’s salaries and benefits, the School Board should simply admit that 2010’s Measure E Parcel Tax was not enough, and ask for another tax increase for the teachers. An article from another local newspaper says they’ll be planning to do that as early as next year.

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_20481742/cabrillo-unified-school-district-pushes-bond-measure

There have been discussions over the years regarding the costs of keeping King’s Mountain, a school with 3 teachers and 80 students, open. To my knowledge the district has not formally studied the potential savings to CUSD taxpayers by closing the school. In times like these, we should be exploring all options.

The City of Half Moon Bay just proven that solar panels don’t work in the fog – the $25k parking boondoggle at Poplar Beach doesn’t get enough sun on its solar panels to even function. Now the city pays a city employee to replace rechargeable batteries at Poplar Beach every few days.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/paid-parking-had-bumpy-trial-in-hmb/article_3208fdba-0025-11e1-9359-001cc4c002e0.html

Unfortunately the School Board has not learned anything from this, and is proceeding full speed ahead with a rumored plan to spend $7.7M it does not have for solar panels that will not work in the fog. Some of the other rumored wish list items on the school board’s $81M Christmas list include $5M for a new pool, $15M for a performing arts center, $10M for new ‘technology’, and $6.8M for new Astroturf. If Measure S passes, it will be Christmas every day at our expense for Apple, local construction companies, and local unions until the $81M runs out, which is guaranteed to be a lot sooner than 25 years, given the lack of any substantive planning or budgeting we’ve seen to date. Schools that are broke in times that are tough should not be in the business of spending huge amounts of money we don’t have on solar panels, Astroturf, swimming pools, performing arts centers, or ‘technology’. Asking voters for a $142M blank check for money that cannot go to teachers proves this School Board has lost its collective mind. The CUSD School Board should be ashamed of themselves, and they should do some serious soul searching regarding their priorities.

Keep your $16,910, and vote No on Measure S. Make the CUSD School Board present a budget and a plan before you give them more of your money.
]]> Sun, 13 May 2012 11:33:47 PDT     - the majority of the U.S. population is super-offended by Janet Jackson's breast showing at a Superbowl?
- the majority of the U.S. population is super-offended by Time Magazine's breast-feeding cover?
- the majority of the U.S. population is super-offended by President Obama's support of same-sex marriage? **

Geezus!


* OK, I admit I was never part of the majority of the U.S. population, but it makes a fairly good headline...

**extrapolated from the fact that Newsweek believes it will sell more magazines if it pastes Barack Obama the country's "first gay president" on its May 21 cover.]]> Sun, 13 May 2012 09:55:25 PDT    
The Boys Division:
92 lbs. Tristan Keller placed 1st
100 lbs. Dante DalPorto placed 1st
106 lbs. Adrian Sanchez placed 1st
92 lbs. Will Fullerton placed 2nd
113 lbs. Jasper Gananin placed 2nd
204 lbs. Jacob Ghret placed 2nd
72 lbs. Lane Wills placed 3rd
107 lbs. Javier Vasquez placed 3rd
170 lbs. Miguel Luquin placed 3rd

Girls Division:
119 lbs. Carina Isidro placed 1st
119 lbs. Miranda Rivera placed 1st
113 lbs. Marisela Martinez placed 3rd
89 lbs. Carmen Zefra placed 3rd
91 lbs. Haley Mulderick placed 4th

That closes out another successful wrestling season. We will start up again at the HMB High School on November 6. If you have any questions please contact me at (530) 263-2685 or email.]]> Sat, 12 May 2012 22:10:08 PDT    
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/this-is-not-a-joke-government-issues-study-of-a-study-about-studies/]]> Sat, 12 May 2012 09:35:20 PDT     Fri, 11 May 2012 11:16:42 PDT    
For instance, last night at a meeting, when I asked Mike Alifano to explain if the CUSD BOND known as Measure S was for a term of 25 years or 40 years he could not (or was is would not) answer the question. Instead he said "speak with me afterward", and handed out the Bond Resolution # 07-12. In it, I read this SPECIFIC language on Exhibit 5B:

"OTHER TERMS OF THE BONDS.
When sold, the bonds shall bear interest at an annual rate not exceeding the statutory maximum, and that interest will be made payable at the time or times permitted by law. The bonds may be issued and sold in several series, and no bond shall be made to mature more than 25 years (if issued pursuant to the provisions of the California Education Code) or 40 years (if issued pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code) from the date borne by that bond."

OK, so I am no genius when it comes to this, but it clearly states that there will/could be more than one bond and more than one term. NO INTEREST RATE IS SPECIFIED.

ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE YOURSELF AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS a TAX increase for that many years when he admitted at the meeting that the "Project List" was what he called a "SOFT LIST"? (Meaning what? Once they dupe the voters, they'll do whatever suits them with the funds?)

Sorry, but , I want specifics. The "soft list" includes a proposed $15 MILLION dollar "Performing Arts Center". I asked where it would be located.
DUNNO was his reply. (Another talk to me afterwards again).

Should a guy with such sketchy details be on a CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE?

At the same meeting he stated that the Citizens who are overseeing Measure E funds have all agreed that they'd like to serve on the Measure S Citizens Oversight Committee - should the Bond Measure pass on June 5th.

Please remember that it is a BOND, not a PARCEL TAX and therefore there can be NO SENIOR EXEMPTIONS, like there are for Measure E.

Also, Please remember, this will burden property owners for many years to come and we are already paying on two other School Measures currently.

Many Seniors are on fixed incomes and can't afford THREE School taxes tacked on to their Property tax bill.

Many Homeowners are struggling to keep their homes due to not reading some of the fine print on mortgages taken out in recent years, after being induced by banks to refinance and lower their interest rates! (ONLY to learn the loan had some negative features that no one bothered to mention while they were cheer-leading them into signing by inducements like: "Lower your monthly payment" or" Get a lower interest rate")

OK, so I'm being too long-winded here.

PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS and READ THE FINE PRINT before voting!

"Don't get fooled again."

I'm voting NO on Measure S. ]]> Fri, 11 May 2012 09:50:22 PDT    
$81 (eighty-one) Million – that's not a misprint. CUSD is asking us for a bond in an amount more than three times their entire annual budget. Payments would last a quarter of a century, until 2037. We're still paying on the 1996 $35 Million bond, passed 16 years ago to build a new middle school on Wavecrest that never happened. We have 6 more years to pay on that one. We're also paying $150 per year per parcel for another 4 years to satisfy the 2010 tax.

Now what does the school district need an extra $81 million for? That's where things get murky. According to the ballot measure summary, the district intends to "improve the quality of education in local schools by replacing leaky roofs; performing essential safety repairs on classrooms and facilities...” etc. This is the same vague language they’ve used before. Where would all the money go this time?

I don't think they know. After I made repeated requests from the district for any specifics - perhaps detailed improvement plans, with a cost spreadsheet, for example - I received two double-space pages that read like a back-of-the-envelope wish list, with ridiculously unrealistic cost figures.

A “New Performing Arts Building" is projected to cost $15 million. However did they arrive at that number? Does anyone reading this believe that a performing arts center could be built for as little as $15 million? A new swimming pool to replace the high school pool is wish-listed for a mere $5 million. Pacifica just spent $20 million – four times that amount – to repair the pool at Oceana High.

Not all of the figures are ridiculously low. Some are ridiculously high. For example, solar power for the schools is penciled in at $7.7 million. The district estimates that solar would save $300K each year. Assuming their guesstimate is accurate, it would take about 26 years to break even if somebody GAVE the district the $7.7 million interest-free. But the district would have to borrow it, and the cost to borrow $7.7 million? About $300K per year. So the cost of borrowing the money would cancel out any supposed savings. Either the district leaders flunked basic math, or they hope the taxpaying public did. Because the numbers don't come close to adding up.

Another line item, to “Establish Endowment Fund for Current and Future Technology Needs," chalks out at a cool $10 million. A big round number, with no specifics whatever. There are plenty of other questionable items on the wish list, but let's cut to the chase.

Having an $81 million load of bond money sitting around that isn't strictly budgeted is an invitation to graft and waste. In fact the whole motivation for the bond has a bad smell. The district is facing an operational deficit, yet the bond money is supposed to only be used for infrastructural – not operational – expenditures. They chose that kind of bond because it only requires a 55% voter approval. District officials have indiscreetly made odd comments that indicate the operational/infrastructural firewall might be cleverly breached. The Review while endorsing the bond measure noted the comments, but then concluded that regardless the district would have to follow the law. Really? Is that what we've learned living around here these last few years? Now I'm wondering whether the folks at the Review flunked civics class.

Nobody rides for free on this bond measure. There is no senior exemption, and renters can expect to see the extra expense tacked on to their rent.

Here's a much simpler solution than an $81 million slush fund, something that would actually save the district about a million dollars per year in their operational budget: offer employees one healthcare plan, not two. Choose the best one, and go with it. Why not? And on a more abstract note, will the district ever address a more long term solution and make an effort to get the legislature to wake up and restructure their lopsided and ridiculous funding formula that discriminates against our children and places an additional burden on district tax payers.


Vote NO on Measure S. The district was in such a hurry to rush the measure onto the June ballot, they forgot to provide a real plan for the money. And without a plan, much of our taxes will end up down a rat hole.]]> Fri, 11 May 2012 07:43:42 PDT    
So stop worrying and be happy!

http://www.coastalliving.com/travel/americas-happiest-seaside-towns-00414000075266/page8.html

]]> Thu, 10 May 2012 22:10:27 PDT    
The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts' "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and various "problematic" program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops. -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/girl-scouts-catholic-bishops_n_1507133.html?ref=religion

I say dunk 'em in the water and see if they float!

]]> Thu, 10 May 2012 20:52:01 PDT     Clay, could you comment? On one side, I like the poll's informality, but I'd hate to see it abused as a tool (weapon?) for gaming the system. Is there a way to limit votes to one per person, using some sort of identification? Your article on the afire Board meeting last night was very good. Too bad it got moved off the home page...]]> Thu, 10 May 2012 14:44:40 PDT    
BTW: I'm not going to vote for him, but it isn't because he was a male child.]]> Thu, 10 May 2012 08:27:53 PDT    
What a revelation. I learned much too much to report here, but keep an eye on next week's newspaper and I'll try to do the honor justice.

Among the highlights, for me, was learning that there are no military or even government employees who work regularly at the station and that the "golf ball" was meant to protect telemetry equipment within.

It was interesting to see the World War II bunker within 100 yards of sophisticated equipment capable of tracking a tiny object in orbit around earth.

As I say, more later. For now, thanks to Brent Gammon, Eddie Andreini and others with the pilots' association.]]> Wed, 09 May 2012 20:46:24 PDT     Tue, 08 May 2012 20:00:15 PDT