Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 26, 2010

Make it Rain

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Election — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

I didn’t do this for the last campaign disclosure set, but since we have a new set, I thought I would play catch up this time.   Normally I do a round up of campaign expenditures so that you can get a quick and dirty look at who has raised what and how much is being spent.   I used to itemize contributions less than $300, but have lowered it to $250 because that is what is being considered for the the “campaign finance reform” as a cap per individual and PAC to contribute to each candidate.

Some notable contributions, given the baseball fever is a $500 contribution to Rob Bonta from Theo Eptsein, General Manager of the Boston Red Sox.   Owner of Perforce Software, Christopher Seiwald, spread $17,500 amongst three candidates Marie Gilmore, Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft, and Rob Bonta.   Everyone who cashed an Argent Management check made a big point on their disclosures to point out that they had returned the money.

So this post is very very long, most will just skim it, the takeaway is that there has been a lot of money raised for this election.   I’ve been hearing how the one industry that has not been affected by the economic downturn is the business of campaigning and using Alameda as a tiny gauge, clearly that is the case.

Mayor

Doug deHaan

  • Total Contributions Received: $15,557.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 15,557.00
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $0
  • Total Expenditures: $12,173.82
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $4322.00 & 910.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Larry Pirack
    2. Ashley Jones
    3. George Bruno
    4. Barbara Borden
    5. Lillian Molzan
    6. Jo & Fred Leitz
    7. Patricia & Roger Baer
    8. Donald & Emmet Steed
    9. Donna Folliard
    10. Linda Gilchrist
    11. Kenneth Hanson
    12. Luise Roke
    13. Susan Gehtman
    14. Joseph Oram
    15. Nancy Hird
    16. JoAnn Milne
    17. Gordon Stevenson
    18. Holly Sellers
    19. Roxanne Le Blanc
    20. Nita & Anthony White
    21. Nancy Rogers
    22. Robert Ellinthorpe
    23. Kurt & Janet Libby
    24. Richard & Eleanor Stallman
    25. Geraldine Justin
    26. Madelina Deaton
    27. Janine Shafer
    28. Dennis Chavez
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Diane Coler-Dark ($1000)
    2. Kathy & Brian Schumacher ($750)
    3. Lillian Molzan ($900)
    4. Robert & Claire Risely ($500)
    5. Mark Posner ($250)
    6. Jeannie Graham ($250)
    7. Frank Ghiglione ($250)
    8. Reyla Graber ($1000)
    9. Robert Chasse ($500)
    10. Marlene Kerr ($500)
    11. Ray Gaul ($250)

Frank Matarrese

  • Total Contributions Received: $43,178.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 35,681.00
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $7,497.00
  • Total Expenditures: $43,885.00
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $1,784.00 & $1,703.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local #3
    2. Nancy Li
    3. Dennis Yee
    4. Kevin Kennedy
    5. Eric Cross
    6. Susan McDonald
    7. Joyce Mercado
    8. Frank Reed
    9. Judith Marsh
    10. Deryk Wade
    11. Frank Reed
    12. Thomas Charron
    13. Allen Michaan
    14. Judy Gerstle
    15. James Davis
    16. Andrew Slivka
    17. John Kendall
    18. Thomas Keenan
    19. Margaret & Brian Murray
    20. Don & Claudette Peterson
    21. Bruce Reeves
    22. Tom & Patti Jacobson
    23. John Costello
    24. Irene Dieter & Richard Bangart
    25. Leonard Bridges
    26. Stewart Chen
    27. Eleanor Ezzy
    28. Susan MacDonald
    29. Victor Jin
    30. Tiffany Treece
    31. Lee Franklin
    32. Hugh Cavanaugh
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Sheet Metal Workers Local #104 ($1000)
    2. Nancy Long-Brandt ($250)
    3. Tom Geanekos ($300)
    4. Argent Management ($250, returned)
    5. Marilyn Schumacher ($250)
    6. Operating Engineers Local #3 ($500)
    7. Kyle Conner ($500)
    8. Steven Gerstle ($250)
    9. Lynn Farris ($1000)
    10. Claudia Albano ($400)
    11. Andrew Merriam ($250)
    12. Dick Berman ($250)
    13. Sandre Swanson for Assembly ($5000)
    14. Eric Cross ($300)
    15. Thomas Squire & Mark Sorenson ($500)
    16. Michael & Nancy Torres ($500)
    17. Carpenters Regional Council ($1500)
    18. Lynn & John Faris ($3200)

Marie Gilmore

  • Total Contributions Received: $44,021.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 44,021.00
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $0
  • Total Expenditures: $33,991.00
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $300.00 & $2054
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. The Hartman Living Trust
    2. Jean Wagner
    3. Irene Hollister
    4. Gregory Tully
    5. John Piziali
    6. Helen Sause
    7. Catherine Wada
    8. Dorie Behrstock
    9. Richard Bartalini
    10. Burnham Matthews
    11. John Sweeney
    12. Karen Kenney
    13. Honora Murphy
    14. Anne Elfan
    15. Jean & Barbara Gaskill
    16. Donald Gilmore
    17. Marsha Begun
    18. Mike Mergenthaleri
    19. Anthony Tolbert
    20. Gia Codiga
    21. Raymundo Mendoza
    22. Dana Takahashi
    23. Ronald Matthews
    24. Gail Wetzork
    25. Donald & Marjorie Sherratt
    26. Charles & Angela Carlise
    27. John & Lynn Ishibani
    28. Elizabeth Mark
    29. Burnham Matthews
    30. Eric Cross
    31. Northern California Swap Meet
    32. Karen Pillsbury
    33. Stephen Jones
    34. Lucy Gigli & Dan Wood
    35. Cami Schumacher
    36. Donna Layburn
    37. Alice Lai-Bitker
    38. Studio Alchemy
    39. Del & Diana Bain
    40. Law Office of Paul Mahler
    41. Diana Bain
    42. Carole Ward Allen
    43. Carl Chan
    44. Mark Irons
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Darrell Holt ($500)
    2. Linda Lynch ($500)
    3. Jeanine Lynch ($500)
    4. Maureen Shandobil ($250)
    5. Suzanne Lindsey ($250)
    6. Christopher Siewald ($10,000)
    7. Alameda Firefighters Association ($5000)
    8. Anthony & Angela Harris ($1000)
    9. Bladium Sports Club ($1000)
    10. Harsch Investment Realty ($1000)
    11. Neighbors for Russo ($1000)
    12. John & Gloria Nolan ($500)
    13. Mark Mordell ($500)
    14. Kimberly Willingham ($250)
    15. Terecita Dean ($500)
    16. Alan Grossman ($250)
    17. Donald Bruzzone ($500)
    18. Allen Grossman ($250)
    19. Irving & Alicia Gonzales ($250)
    20. Vince Morris ($250)
    21. Richard Chow ($500)
    22. Leonard Mauney ($500)
    23. Garden Cleaners ($250)
    24. Daniel Cohn ($250)
    25. Peter Bing ($1000)
    26. Arnold Fong ($250)
    27. John Beery ($2500)

Tony Daysog

  • Total Contributions Received: $14,831.89
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 11,831.89
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $3,000.00
  • Total Expenditures: $11,831.89
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $910.00 & $150
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Ruben Tilos
    2. Chris Corpus
    3. Tatuko Daysog
    4. Steve Vanni
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Tony Daysog ($9281.89)
    2. Tony Daysog ($6500)

City Council

Beverly Johnson

  • Total Contributions Received: $22,518.16
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 22,118.16
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $400.00
  • Total Expenditures: $6519.86
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $1,164.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Patricia Gannon
    2. Karen Follrath
    3. Kevin Kennedy
    4. Gene LaFollette
    5. Eric Cross
    6. Joel V
    7. Ken Friman
    8. James Davis
    9. Lars Hansson
    10. Betsy Houston
    11. Robert Birges
    12. Felix Seilder
    13. Richard and Jane Young
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Argent Management ($250, returned)
    2. Beverly Johnson for Mayor ($3746.42)
    3. Beverly Johnson for Supervisor (13,682.81)
    4. Reyla Graber ($1000)

Jean Sweeney

  • Total Contributions Received: $9,520.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 8,260.00
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $1,260.00
  • Total Expenditures: $7,864.00
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $443.00 & $1,868.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Richard Bartalini
    2. Ronald Schaeffer
    3. Carol Asker
    4. Donald Mclean
    5. Donald Keleher
    6. Nancy Hird
    7. Holly Sellers
    8. Jon Lambden
    9. Claire Risely
    10. Dorothy Boynton
    11. Karin Lucas
    12. Ann Richter
    13. Marlene Kerr
    14. Paul Anders
    15. George Humphreys
    16. Joe Williams
    17. Helen Jefferson
    18. Kathy McIntire
    19. Duncan Campbell
    20. Carol Asker
    21. Andrew DuBois
    22. Reyla Graber
    23. Sharyn Loshakoff
    24. Deborah Greene
    25. Judith Lynch
    26. Nancy Gordon
    27. Eugenie Thompson
    28. Jim Thompson
    29. Gianvelle Gilbert
    30. Theodore Berry
    31. James Kennedy
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Jean Sweeney
    2. Argent Management ($250, returned)
    3. Diane Coler-Dark ($500)
    4. Robert Chasse ($300)
    5. Steven Gerstle ($250)
    6. Penny Cozad ($250)
    7. Jenny Curtis ($500)
    8. Barbara Thomas ($599)

Jeff Mitchell

  • Total Contributions Received: $3,199.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 2,949.00
  • Loans: $1,500.00
  • Non monetary contributions: $250.00
  • Total Expenditures: $2,096.00
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $579.00 & $220.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Jeff DelBono
    2. Don & Suzanne Lindsey
    3. Rob Schmidt
    4. Finley Walter, Jr.
    5. Diane & Bill White
    6. Rosemary Reilly
  • Contributions more than $250

Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft

  • Total Contributions Received: $48,411.00
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 48,411.00
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $0
  • Total Expenditures: $48,025.00
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $700.00 & $1601.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Eleanor Ezzy
    2. John Brennan
    3. Del Blaylock
    4. Phillip Jaber
    5. Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft for City Council
    6. Robert Beirwith
    7. Art Autorino
    8. Carol Gerdes
    9. Violet Jaber
    10. Fred Joyce
    11. Rosemary Reilly
    12. Lucy Gigli
    13. Jose Patino
    14. Barbara Curtis
    15. Lori Coile
    16. Clare Waterloo
    17. Lynda Olson
    18. Delbert Gee
    19. Ron Silberstein
    20. Kathy Mohering
    21. Bob Santilena
    22. Bryan Schwartz
    23. Helen Sause
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Christopher Siewald ($5000)
    2. Matthias Masem ($1000)
    3. Tara Mochizuki ($250)
    4. Kyle Conner ($250)
    5. Richard Tabor ($250)
    6. Bladium Sports ($1000)
    7. Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft ($19,500 & $12,600)
    8. Jackie Speier for Congress ($500)
    9. Judith Boyette ($250)
    10. Dave Johnson ($500)
    11. Kym Aguilar ($250)
    12. Victoria Henley ($250)
    13. Abraham Hittis ($250)
    14. Nancy Torres ($500)
    15. Tom Squire ($500)
    16. Carmen Plaza deJennings ($250)
    17. Alameda Pediatric Dentistry ($250)
    18. Maureen Shandobil

Rob Bonta

  • Total Contributions Received: $57,336.20
  • Monetary Contributions: $55,656.82
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $1,679.38
  • Total Expenditures: $30,702.71
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $405.00 & $2330.00
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Suzanne Chan
    2. Karen Burton
    3. Jennifer Williams
    4. Josiah Lewis
    5. Richard Stierwalt
    6. Remedios Reyes
    7. Ravi Goel
    8. Ben Nate
    9. Gail Miller
    10. Rod Bustamante
    11. Bacardi Jackson
    12. Matthew Klein
    13. Crickett Woloson
    14. Jennifer Ong
    15. Donna Gibbs
    16. Richard Buery
    17. Walter Yonn
    18. Derrick DaCosta
    19. Matthew Rochschild
    20. Robert Kaplan
    21. Kazuyo Morishita
    22. Tito Andrada
    23. Rene Laroa
    24. Ronald Tom
    25. Liewellyn Ventura
    26. Ruth Asumundson
    27. Laurena Cabanero
    28. Sonney Chong
    29. Raymonn DeJesus
    30. Efren Diaz
    31. Joyce Iseri
    32. Josefina Patria
    33. Remedios Soloman
    34. Emmelina Weizenberg
    35. Jose Valdez
    36. Neilsen Tam
    37. William Wong
    38. Frank Martin
    39. Christine Debro
    40. Marita Chico
    41. Jennifer Chacon
    42. Josh White
    43. Gloria Hitz
    44. Jeptha Boone
    45. Rick Evia
    46. Kimiko Burton
    47. Marisa Moret
    48. Sean Connolly
    49. Blake Loebs
    50. Ronald Flynn
    51. Mark Joseph
    52. Michelle Sexton
    53. David Sewell
    54. Dennis Pagones
    55. Hilary Crosby
    56. Joel Najar
    57. Cami Schumacher
    58. Stacy Abrams
    59. Wonder Liang
    60. Kate Quick
    61. Rafael Climaco
    62. Patrick Ancipink
    63. Richard Weitznberg
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Paul Mandell ($250)
    2. Henry Fernandez ($300)
    3. Marcelo Bonta ($350)
    4. BMWL ($500)
    5. Thomas Simpson ($500)
    6. Warren Bonta ($500)
    7. Theo Epstein ($500)
    8. Mary Gallagher ($1000)
    9. Christopher Seiwald ($2500)
    10. Dr. Alka Sharman ($250)
    11. Wes Lagrone ($250)
    12. Dennia Hanna ($250)
    13. CC Yin ($2000)
    14. Law Offices of Jerry Chong & Alice Yin ($250)
    15. Derek Ledda ($250)
    16. Christopher Calbaldon ($500)
    17. Betty Yee ($250)
    18. Robert Leach ($300)
    19. Scott Emblige ($250)
    20. Roger Lee ($500)
    21. Ryan Chin ($250)
    22. Ronald Wong ($250)
    23. Jean Fong ($250)

Lena Tam

  • Total Contributions Received: $31,851.30
  • Monetary Contributions: $31,851.30
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $0
  • Total Expenditures: $29,763.17
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $674.00 & $1782.91
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. John & Kate Quick
    2. Marilyn Ng
    3. Raymond Tang
    4. Sugiarto & Betty Loni
    5. Moon Tam
    6. Wilma Chan
    7. Winston & Nancy Hui
    8. Yong Liang
    9. Gary Hin
    10. Benjamin Reyes
    11. Karin Lucas
    12. Francis Chow
    13. Richard Bartalini
    14. Marilyn Ng
    15. Elizabeth Rogers
    16. Ronnie Caplane
    17. Glen Dahlbacka
    18. Honora Murphy
    19. Florence Butter
    20. Otto Lee
    21. Lucy Gigli & Dan Wood
    22. Lynette Lee
    23. Wayne & Kris Nishioka
    24. Mark Irons
    25. Bruce Knopf
    26. Kathy Moehring
    27. Karen Scanlon
    28. Luann Dewitt
    29. Delbert Gee
    30. Hans Wong
  • Contributions more than $250
    1. Suzie Lee ($250)
    2. Sue Chan ($250)
    3. Carl Chan ($300)
    4. Lily Hu & Associates ($500)
    5. Sandre Swanson for Assembly ($500)
    6. Tricia Emerson ($2000)
    7. Alameda Firefighters Association ($2500)
    8. CC Yin ($2500)
    9. Albert Wang ($500)
    10. Neighbors for Russo ($600)
    11. Jean & Arnie Fong ($300)
    12. K.M. & Betty Tam ($250)
    13. Macy Tong ($250)
    14. Gayle & Gia Codiga ($250)
    15. John Quick ($300)
    16. Betty Yee ($500)
    17. Meyer Brown ($500)
    18. Danny Wan  ($300)
    19. William Smith ($250)
    20. Alice Lai Bitker for Supervisor ($1000)
    21. Chrisine Towata ($500)
    22. California Asian Peace Officers Assoc ($500)
    23. Albert Wang ($250)
    24. Firefighters Association ($2500)
    25. Nicky Gonzales-Yuen ($250)
    26. NWPC ALameda North ($500)
    27. John Tam ($2500)

Tracy Jensen

  • Total Contributions Received: $894
  • Monetary Contributions: $ 894
  • Loans: $0
  • Non monetary contributions: $0
  • Total Expenditures: $396
  • Non itemized contributions (less than $100): $544
  • Contributions less than $250
    1. Lym Mice & Tom Georg
    2. Ruth Abbe
    3. Cheryl Taylor
  • Contributions more than $250


About these ads

70 Comments

  1. In a year when I’m completely un-inspired by ANY of the candidates, this list is a big help. Reading it has gotten me near a conclusion on mayor when before I had no opinion at all, though I still have trouble finding a council candidate that rates above lackluster apathy.

    Comment by dave — October 26, 2010 @ 6:38 am

  2. Interesting that Beverly Johnson talks bad about one developer but takes money from another. Shouldn’t this list say “Ron Cowan” instead of “Johnson for Supervisor?”

    I mean, come on, this list was supposed to help us understand where the money is coming from.

    Comment by Dave L. — October 26, 2010 @ 6:50 am

  3. P.S.. I’m not blaming you Lauren.

    Comment by Dave L. — October 26, 2010 @ 6:50 am

  4. It’s nice to see that some of our regular suspects on this blog put their money where their mouths are. It’s interesting to see where the support for each candidate is coming from. Thanks, Lauren. This was a good post. (It’s fun to see people you don’t like on the list of a candidate you don’t like. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!)

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 26, 2010 @ 7:31 am

  5. Money doesn’t buy elections, as Meg Whitman is about to discover. And $44,000 — $57,000 for candidates in sleepy little Alameda? Must be something big, like one third of the island, at stake.

    But I worked in advertising for 25 years, and we began to see a curious phenomenon at work, as viewers/readers became more savvy and more resistant to all advertising messages, all those slick mailers and spots. A blizzard of the stuff is in the air and on the cable and in the mailboxes these days.

    The average Californian is being exposed to 26 TV ads from Meg Whitman PER DAY! And beginning to resent them. Likewise the spots from SunCal slamming Gallant. So money doesn’t guarantee outcomes. Americans are ornery cusses, and I like it that way!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 8:23 am

  6. wait really, Theo Epstein gave money to Bonta? How random. I wonder how that transaction took place.

    Comment by E — October 26, 2010 @ 9:05 am

  7. Nonpartisan interlude…

    Comment by Jack B. — October 26, 2010 @ 9:11 am

  8. I first saw Tom Waits and Bonnie Rait playing at the Blubird Cafe in Santa Barbara in 1976, a tiny little joint. And they were both wasted! Thank you, Jack B!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 9:46 am

  9. @5. Why start at $44k when Frank is at $43k? Because that wouldn’t fit your narrative?

    Comment by alameda — October 26, 2010 @ 9:51 am

  10. E, according to Wikipedia, Theo Epstein went to Yale as an undergrad, as did Rob Bonta, they probably met there.

    Comment by Lauren Do — October 26, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  11. The Sawx are the only outsiders hated more than Suncal.

    Comment by dave — October 26, 2010 @ 10:19 am

  12. In reviewing the most recent statement from Mayoral Candidate Marie Gilmore, I notice a paragraph that confuses me. She indicates her campaign is “focused on kids and schools.” If elected Mayor, “she will rally our community to help schools stay open and keep class sizes small during this critical time. Here in Alameda, we can not allow this generation of school children to miss out on the opportunities we enjoyed because of incompetence in Sacramento.”

    Perhaps Ms. Gilmore should have run for the school board rather than Mayor of Alameda. This city is facing some very critical issues as we move into the new year. These issues include finances, public safety, development, and much more. While education and our schools are important that is what the School Board is for. The Mayor and City Council need to focus on the City – that’s THEIR job.

    Comment by L Baroni — October 26, 2010 @ 10:34 am

  13. 12:

    Marie Gilmore is well aware of – and has been responding to – the issues L. Baroni raises. That’s why I have been backing her for mayor since last year.

    While the Mayor and City Council do not run the AUSD (the Board of Education certainly does that) there are several areas of overlapping or mutual responsibility on the fiscal front: redevelopment funding, sports facilities (playing fields, pools, parks, etc.), school crossing guards/law enforcement, and more…

    The mayor also has a “bully pulpit” that can be used far better than it has been for eight years.

    Gilmore is the most articulate and intelligent candidate in the mayoral race and will provide Alameda with the breadth of vision and leadership
    we need to face the challenges of unfunded pension obligations, redeveloping Alameda point, transit service cuts, public safety financing, emergency services contracts, and more….

    In case you haven’t noticed, many other city council and mayoral candidates have now followed Marie Gilmore’s lead and are voicing their concern for education and the school district….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 11:43 am

  14. Jon Spangler stopped shilling for SunCal, (remember the Desert Hot Springs letters..?), but is stilll shilling for Gilmore, who has disqualified herself with many voters by defending Tam. Reality check!

    And #9, I tiried to advise Frank, but when he went for that silly “Frank4Mare” slogan, I gave up on him, and sure as helldidnt vote for him. $43K…$44K, who cares?

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

  15. Ah, the silent treatment! As if…

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

  16. Some of the most sound and innovative ideas for assisting AUSD that I’ve heard–by combining maintenance costs, better using Kofman Auditorium, and creating a city center–are coming from Ann Marie Gallant, someone who might not be around much longer if Gilmore is elected. As for support for the arts, Gilmore is also late to the table. As an ACLO board member I can tell you her support for us was nil. Frank not only came to our shows, he paid for his own tickets. His support helped us keep our student internship program going another year, a program that has resulted in full-time jobs in the entertainment industry for many Alameda High students. Interesting that when the polls indicated voters were especially concerned about schools, it suddenly became Gilmore’s number one priority. I’m voting for Frank in spite of his not so great campaign signs. As someone who used to have a last name that didn’t fall trippingly on the tongue (Luczaj), I can appreciate the problem he faced in trying to come up with a way to make an impression with voters. I’m also in full support of Frank’s ideas for Alameda Point. Light industrial development–I’d like to see alternative energy firms–makes the most fiscal sense. We’ve seen business parks sit empty and too many housing disasters. With the transportation limitations, the dream of the mega multi-use utopia some have trumpeted just isn’t feasible.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 26, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

  17. I watched the LWV clip that was posted on this blog the other day. I have to agree with dave on this one. None of them was inspiring. But we get what we deserve, I guess.

    Two surprises, Gilmore was a disappointment and Matarrese was better than I thought he would be, in fact, his response to the most important question from the audience (city long term fiscal responsibility) was very encouraging.

    Gilmore, on the other hand, began her answer to the same question by talking the talk. Warning the city cannot take on any new missions that require large monetary outlays because of our long term red ink hole. Then, after the fiscal responsibility cant, (by the way, she telegraphed where her true sentiment and monetary support lies by the mushy talk about being fair negotiating with labor unions) was her desire to place the city is some kind of brotherhood with the school district. No details just some kind of financial support. Now, if that’s not taking on long term fiscal responsibility, what is? Weird.

    Her Point response, in the clip, set her apart from the other two candidates (more on the third later). She is in favor of a ‘third time’s a charm’ magic bullet developer with their own money that will rescue the city from all that’s bad. Good luck on that one. But the reality of the current economic situation makes it likely that her magic bullet will never be chambered. So she’ll be left with what the other two suggested, city going it alone.

    I must admit after Daysog’s introductory comments, I tuned him out. If I hear one more time how he single handedly rolled up his sleeves and, against all odds, build the wall around wallmark, I will get a sledge hammer and start tearing down that wall. Plus, his pitch octave is off the chromatic scale and my aging ears can’t decipher.

    I probably would vote for Matarrese but I won’t because his previous foreign policy foray. So that leaves no choice but three for goofy.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 26, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

  18. There is a nationwide reform movement for American education, but you wouldn’t have a clue from listening to Frank. In Harlem, L.A., D.C., huge gains have been made with charter schools, and Alameda could go “Charter District,” but nobody pays attention except Trish Spencer, whom I have interviewed twice.

    Yes, the future of AUSD is intimately entwined with the future of our City, just as all the schools are with America. We have 16,000 Drop-Out Factories nationwide, and Frank doesn’t get that. Which is when I gave up on him, not just because of those dumb-ass lawn signs.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

  19. We have 16.000+ factories that dropped out too.

    AUSD may be entwined with the city but the future of the City isn’t going to depend on the school district. It will depend on those workers who were and continue to be discarded from the dropped out factories.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 26, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  20. Enrollment at AUSD schools declined almost 900 students, but no teachers were laid off. Not until Measure E was defeated, the most regressive, unfair and huge school parcel tax in Alameda’s history, was defeated, did the school trusttes or Superintendent begin planning to lay off teachers. Didn’t even really cut salaries, because “furlough” days are just unpaid vacation. No work, no pay. What B.S.!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

  21. #20 —

    That’s incorrect Dennis.

    AUSD handed out more than 130 pink slips in mid-March.

    Comment by Susan Davis — October 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

  22. 16:

    Denise, The Interim City Manager’s grandiose “City Center Vision” (CCV) is a pretty – and distracting – pipe dream that cannot go anywhere because :

    a) there is no city redevelopment money available to build it in our depleted capital projects budget, and

    b) it depends on too many commercial players, including developers, who are willing to spend money in Alameda. In this depressed and depressing commercial real estate climate nobody will spend their capital on a project like the CCV.

    According to Planning Board member Patrick Lynch,
    ““We don’t have the density here to make it work. That’s the long and short…To make something financially fit in the real world – you need to have people there to do that.”

    The economic reality is that higher-density redevelopment – towards 3500 housing units at Alameda Point, for instance, configured like the Peter Calthorpe plan – will be necessary in Alameda to attract the kinds of commercial and recreational redevelopment features and attractions that many Alamedans say they desire.

    And we are wasting our time thinking that we have either the staff expertise or the available development capital to redevelop major projects like AP or the DelMonte complex on our own. We have neither and do not have any prospects for developing any such wings” overnight, either.

    Neither will we ever get the US Navy to give us AP for less than $108.5 million, and the “free” conveyance is another pie-in-the-sky assumption of Frank Matarrese’s or Doug deHaan’s plans for AP.

    BTW, as great a community resource as ACLO was, it was not fiscally sustainable, which is why it went dark. Sad, but true. And nothing that any board or board member could do could ever change that lack of sustainability. It is disingenuous to imply that Gilmore – or anyone else – might have stemmed that tide by herself….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

  23. I worked pro- boon for Civic Light for a full yes trying to save it, and the civic theater in Santa Barbara, same size as Alameda, still kicks ass! And XXX can tell yup, Jon that density isn’t the key, and that the Navy price is like rubber, could easily revert again to a percentage of the profits.

    As for development out there, why not hire my old pals at Dorick Development — Ron Cowan, Tim Hoppen and Steve Brimhall — as consultants? Ever hear about consultants, experts hired to help manage a project you don’t have the expertise to do yourself? I worked as a marketing consultant for many years, and my clients saved money instead of hiring their own experts on staff.

    No brainers, except to no brainers like Jon.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

  24. Sorry, XXX was my old friend Aidan Barry.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

  25. 20. ah the silent treatment. Dennis once again spouts total BS, Susan immediately corrects him, but he conveniently ignores her.

    Dennis, the national fixation with charters as a magic bullet, is also BS. When I recommended you read Diane Ravitch’s book I’m sure you ignored me because it gives authoritative refutation to the charter phenomenon as magic fix, as well as merit pay, unions being THE problem, and the rest of the boiler plate arguments you have latched on to bash public schools.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/why-you-should-read-diane-ravi.html

    Challenge: Take a deep breath and see if you can respond on topic with out gratuitous insults.

    Comment by M.I. — October 26, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

  26. “She wants a national curriculum that explains what every child in every grade should be learning.

    And she wants people in the worlds of politics and business to stay out of education decisions.

    Sounds good to me.

    What do you think?”

    M.I. I don’t intend to read the book so summarize the steps society must take, according to Ravitch.

    I think getting politics out of school decision making is a good idea. But how can a national curriculum be implemented without political input, in our form of government? Business, on the other hand, has an important stake that those kids, who finally do graduate, are able to enter the work force, Instead they find semi-literate mush with no inkling of how the real world works and have to retrain them.

    Maybe we’d be better off if business did it all in the first place.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 26, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

  27. Jon,

    What I heard Andrew Thomas say at last night’s planning board meeting was after City Council review and approval of the Del Monte project, they plan to phase the development and entitle the Chipman Warehouse site for redevelopment and market it to developers.

    The City also has plans to streamline the approval process after the property is entitled and maybe offer incentives to developers like they did with VF Outdoors (smart move).

    I see these as a positive steps forward; partnering with developers in this economy is crucial to any project’s success.

    And finally there are other plans oher than the Peter Calthorpe plan for Alameda Point. After what SunCal has put us through, the community wants a fresh start — we need a fresh start. We need to take ownership of the plan for Alameda Point. The upcoming community workshops for Alameda Point will be an exciting opportunity to review the lessons learned and move forward.

    Marilyn Ashcraft said it best last night when she reminded everyone that development takes time. Just like her work on the library campaign that she started well over 10 years ago (and now we have a lovely library to enjoy) we are planting seeds. We will develop Webster St, Park St, the Del Monte site and Alameda Point. I’ve seen developments in the planning stages for 15+ years before they take off. It will happen.

    It won’t happen overnight, but during these difficult economic times, planning, streamlining the approval process, offering incentives to developers, partnering with developers and staying focus will reap us huge benefits down the road.

    I see the cup half full — and I’m looking forward to the future!

    Comment by Karen Bey — October 26, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

  28. Yes, development takes time. Hamilton AFB was vacant for more than 25 years before anything happened there. This general recession will last a decade, and the real estate collapse much longer, with more than ten million homes in foreclosure.

    And #20,Susan Davis, there were no layoffs, only threats of such, until Measure E failed. And if M.I. were so concerned with context, he would address that issue instead of just putting me down, as he always does. Ho and Hum!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

  29. BTW, in the private sector, when an employee is “laid off,” s/he is given a few days notice and sent packing. In California, by law, every teacher without tenure must be sent a letter reminding/warning them that they may not be rehired in the next school year. These notices are usually meaningless. So tell me the names of AUSD teachers who were sent packing in mid-March, Susan Davis.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

  30. #28 — That’s incorrect, too, Dennis.

    The district’s plan all last spring was to raise class sizes (which results in laying teachers off) in K-3rd and 9th grade, even if Measure E passed .

    I believe the district began planning this in February.

    There were some very heated public meetings about this very topic last spring.

    Comment by Susan Davis — October 26, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

  31. How many teachers receiving these fabled “pink slips” are no longer employed as teachers by AUSD? Such language is very misleading.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

  32. 29:

    There is no expectation of any last-minute reprieve by September, as has happened in past years when the state schools budget was less destitute and/or local funds were reassigned to keep teachers on staff.

    According to BOE member Mike McMahon, the 130 pink slips in March were just the beginning…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

  33. Careful Dennis, Susan might censor you.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — October 26, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

  34. The first three league of Women Voters of Alameda election forums, featuring City Council, Mayoral, and School Board candidates plus the nine state propositions, are now on the League website:

    http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org.

    The final forum featuring Hospital Board candidates will be found there very soon. If your mind is not yet made up regarding any candidate or issue, these videos should help!

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

  35. This is a better link to go directly to the LWVA videos:

    http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org/Public_Events.html

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 8:28 pm

  36. So Jon is changing the subject! And Susan, who claims that some teachers were given pink slips in mid-March, can’t name any who are currently unemployed, or even give a number, because so far as we know, they are all actually still teaching. Some “layoffs!”

    And Jon can only quote Mike McMahon, who has been discredited as many times as Jon has been, Wanna quote some Desert Hot Springs former City Council member convicted of conflict of interest and fined $18,000?

    So if the next school parcel tax passes, will all those layoffs just be rescinded? Scare tactics? C’mon Susan, speak up!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 8:35 pm

  37. LOL
    look at this bit of genius logic I found on the action alameda site

    “The Taxpayer Network, although paired with the Rocklin address on the fliers, is actually located in Tustin CA, a mere 8 miles from Irvine where SunCal has its headquarters. Which means that Bonta, Gilmore and Tam, the beneficiaries of all this activity, are being supported by SunCal. ”

    OH NOES THEY ARE WITHIN EIGHT MILES OF EACH OTHER!!!

    Blizzard, the company that makes Starcraft is also in Irvine. THAT MEANS THE ZERG ARE IN FAVOR OF BONTA!!! RUN!!!

    Comment by E — October 26, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

  38. E, is that laughter, or just your ass sucking air?

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

  39. The teachers were permanently laid off. That means they were not rehired Dennis. But Dennis don’t worry about it because those are not your kids and I’m sure they carefully laid off all the bad ones who work in the “dropout” factories. Yeah, Alameda is a lot like Detroit and Chicago, huh? As usual your arguments are dogmatically nonsensical. Oh and do us all a favor and don’t cite your time in Santa Barbara to support any argument you make, ask old Ron Cowan to do anything, much less develop the base- and it is spelled DORIC.

    Comment by Hot R — October 26, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

  40. Hot R, a senior administrator at AUSD, is always in denial. My logic says that if some teachers were actually laid off, permanently, fired, not rehired, in the face of declining enrollment, GOOD! Closing under enrolled schools might be next, laying off half those overpaid administrators, cuts and efficiencies long overdue!

    But Hot R always has some excuse, so I won’t believe him about those layoffs until I see some names and numbers. Maybe on the AUSD website. How is McMahon’s daughter doing as webmaster? Has she learned to use spellcheck?

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 26, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

  41. #36 — I don’t know the exact number of teachers who were laid off.

    More to the point, I don’t feel a need to defend how many were laid off, because I don’t think laying off teachers is a good thing. In my mind, small class sizes and a range of solid programs are intrinsic to a good education system. And those require teachers.

    My point, in responding to you, was to correct your two false statements about just when the district started planning on lay-offs, not to debate how many were or should be laid off.

    Comment by Susan Davis — October 26, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

  42. 39:

    Doric Development never made it to the final round when it tried to become the master developer for AP. Cowan and company could not compete with Catellus, SunCal, Lennar, and others.

    36: I was posting news that I believed most people would find useful.It is at least *somewhat* germane to the original post du jour…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

  43. 37:

    Thanks for the comic relief, E.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 26, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

  44. Dennis, glad you enjoyed the Tom Waits.

    My kid’s 3rd grade teacher from last year was pink slipped and she’s gone, gone, gone. She was an outstanding teacher and we’ll probably never see her again. He couldn’t wait to go to school everyday.

    Comment by Jack B. — October 26, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

  45. #43: If you found that funny, then this should be a scream. Here’s another Taxpayer Network funded effort on behalf of Lena Tam. The same “Taxpayer Network” (aka SunCal) that has a Mayer Brown partner on its board, SunCal’s law firm.

    This video is an attack on Ann Marie Gallant — just like SunCal/TN’s other flyers and TV ads, in support of SunCal’s agenda.

    If Tam wanted to put a stop to this, she could. She wants the benefit of the campaign financing without the connection to SunCal. Good luck on that.

    Comment by dlm — October 26, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

  46. This gets even better. Here’s the video that was posted by “AdamSTurner” just prior to the Tam videos sponsored by “Taxpayer Network”. Play to the end then pause, and you’ll see that the sponsor is “SCC Alameda”, aka SunCal.

    Here’s the part that’s really funny tho — go back a few more videos posted by the same person and, sure enough, there’s Peter Calthorpe himself, extolling the virtues of his plan for Alameda Point.

    Comment by dlm — October 26, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

  47. Jon–As to the sustainability of ACLO, things would have gone a lot smoother if we had the kind of support that other cities like Hayward and Walnut Creek give their community theaters. The rent AUSD charged on Kofman was so high that we would have had to charge more than Alamedans were willing to pay to break even. The arts always need help from foundations, donors, and civic programs to keep going in the best of times. It was the economy more than anything else that did us in–donations and grants just about disappeared and people had to cut back on luxuries like theater tickets– but the fact that the rent was so high on Kofman (so high in fact that even the high school has to do most of their shows in the Little Theater) made it impossible. Now of course, without ACLO, they’re bringing in considerably less on the property since we used it more than any other group. Of course if they can’t manage a school district, why should they be able to manage a performance venue?

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 27, 2010 @ 2:17 am

  48. If Alameda homeowners and businesses, in this recession, can’t afford to pay the salaries of all those teachers, the luxury of small class sizes will have to go. Likewise, those police and fire pensions, the almost 70 City employees making over $200K/year, etc. All those expenses mounted up during the last Bubble and like public taxpayer expenses at all levels of government, are a thing of the past. Because of tenure and the seniority system, some of the very best teachers will go, and that is just insane!

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 27, 2010 @ 2:18 am

  49. Now I know why I didn’t attend any of the ACLO productions. So your attitude is a city should support arts but not education?

    Didn’t I read in the paper a year or 2 ago ACLO was way behind in paying the district anyway?

    Comment by Member of a real family — October 27, 2010 @ 3:42 am

  50. Dear Member, you and I can certainly support education without supporting small class sizes, bloated salaries and administration, and keeping underenrolled schools open. Base Closure took hundreds of students out of the district, and cuts should have begun then, but didn’t. And besides, your logic notwithstanding, supporting the arts IS supporting education, but since you never attended an ACLO production that speaks for itself.

    Comment by Dennis Green — October 27, 2010 @ 6:25 am

  51. It’s amusing how some people put two and two together and get five. Exactly when did I say the City should support the arts and not education? I guess it was about the same time I said Marie Gilmore could have single handedly saved ACLO. You guys need to pause the conversations you’re having in your own heads and actually READ what someone writes before you comment. You might not come off sounding so stupid. (Cranky, haven’t had my first cuppa this a.m.)

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 27, 2010 @ 6:41 am

  52. And yes, we were behind in paying the school district, in part because our agreement to off-set rent by improvements to Kofman made with one superintendent was reversed by a subsequent one. We always paid their expenses for staffing, power, etc. so we didn’t ever cost them anything and, while operational were continuing to pay them the back rent. Of course, I suppose the training and opportunities we provided to kids in the community both on and off-stage (for free unlike the dance companies and groups like Kids take the Stage who charge tuition for their classes)don’t count for much with some people, but I think it was outstanding and a crying shame to lose.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — October 27, 2010 @ 6:57 am

  53. 26. Jack I appreciate that you actually read and responded to the article, but I’m too busy to do what you ask. I got the library to obtain a copy and if people want to get into a serious debate about the education issue they simply need to read the book. To refuse approaches willful ignorance. Here’s another seminal read you may not want to read.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/why-obama-duncan-should-read-l.html

    Comment by M.I. — October 27, 2010 @ 8:00 am

  54. 45: “If Tam wanted to put a stop to this, she could. She wants the benefit of the campaign financing without the connection to SunCal.”

    Not true.

    Lena Tam, Rob Bonta, and Marie Gilmore have been
    trying to stop SunCal from “helping” them, but to no avail.

    SunCal and its minions refuse to listen to anyone. (Jeff Mitchell and Sam Singer are both on the record saying SunCal did not follow their advice, for which SunCal had paid good money.)

    The only thing SunCal is doing with all their ads, mailers, and polls is giving a black eye to all of the candidates they supposedly support. Ask Lena or any of SunCal’s “beneficiaries.”

    The SunCal efforts are backfiring so effectively that many of us wonder if SunCal actually wants deHaan, Sweeney, and Johnson to win in order to “punish” Alameda for giving them the boot.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 27, 2010 @ 8:22 am

  55. 51, 52: We could only afford to attend one or two shows over 10 years but I do appreciate the value of the performing arts and did try to support ACLO.

    The turmoil in the administrative offices that you cite is at least due in part to AUSD’s financial difficulties, and those are primarily due to Sacramento’s budgetary gridlock and the resulting lack of school finance reform.

    It’s sad to see the arts-versus-education exchanges here. Once again, it shows how voters in school districts all over CA are fighting each the over the crumbs left by the “taxpayer revolt” that began with Proposition 13. It has been very successful – in crippling our state….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — October 27, 2010 @ 8:32 am

  56. 53
    Reading the blurb in your latest link, Mark, leaves me confused. Your first link suggested that government ought not be involved in education. While this one wants the whole country morph into some kind of socialist, centrally dominated equitable government dominating (whatever equitable means because it’s not defined in the blurb) state. If that happens, the blurb suggests, education will be left to the educators (wealthy ones, at that) and education will flourish like that famous quotation from Chairman Mao when he was in Finland/Singapore: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.”

    Final confusion: because Obama’s chose the wrong person to be Sec of Ed, he doesn’t support the total rule by government concept. That’s laughable on its face. If there ever was a potus with those beliefs it’s most definitely Green’s man bo.

    Since you’re too busy to read the damned books, I guess I’ll have to. Hope they’re on kindle.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2010 @ 9:17 am

  57. Jack,

    Since we have a huge country and a huge problem and “accountability” is such a priority with regard to how well students are or or not learning and how well teachers do or do not teach, it makes sense to at least have a general national standard.

    The implementation of those standards don’t have to be political the way No Child Left Behind was a political gimmick. As for businesses, education is not a process like widget making and all the principles of for profit business do not apply.

    You need to read the book to understand how people like Bill Gates and Wallmart Corp.s foundation are tinkering with education by funding certain things they think are cool, like charters, but without necessarily approaching their choices based on sound study of efficacy in certain methodologies.

    Study of efficacy is what Ravitch has done for the last thirty years and she is a recognized authority. Her critique is compelling , but I can’t regurgitate all the salient points for somebody who doesn’t want to take the four or five hours it takes to read the book.

    Darling-Hammond wrote a book which reviewed all the countries in the world and their ranking for how well their students learn, and she discusses their methods and why they succeed or fail. It’s a good companion piece to Ravitch.

    I don’t share your concern about the role of government and what seems like socialism. I believe in publicly funded and implemented education for all as a fundamental function in any real democracy.

    I believe education, health care and some kind of basic retirement security should be fundamental services guaranteed by government. If that’s socialism, big deal. The military budget of this country and our current wars are what is bankrupting us. It’s insane.

    Comment by M.I. — October 27, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

  58. Mark’s insanity: “The military budget of this country and our current wars are what is bankrupting us. It’s insane.”

    A book “The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics” written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
    Social Security: 23%
    Medicare: 12%
    Medicaid: 7%
    Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
    Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
    Net interest on debt: 11%

    From Wiki

    The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues.

    Social programs = 65%
    Military = 19%

    Tell you what Mark, you read the Idiot’s Guide and I’ll read the teacher’s efficacy (your new word of the day?) Report. That is, if they’re on kindle because I’ve already got Bill Smith’s group on my ass for contributing to the delinquency of deforestation.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2010 @ 5:50 pm

  59. Jack:

    1)
    The Bush administartion launched & continued the Iraq war off budget, a brazen bit of legerdemain that significantly reduced the apparent size of the military budget and the magnitude of the deficit in those years. A goodly portion of the deficit increase under Obama has been the simple recognition of those heretofore unlisted expenses.

    2)
    The majority of the interest on the Federal debt results from military spending.

    Comment by dave — October 28, 2010 @ 6:49 am

  60. 1) A mere pittance compared to the war on poverty.

    2) A mere pittance compared to ongoing entitlement promises at all levels of government.

    Military wars end. Social wars just get worse, more costly and never end

    Lamb BBQ joint in Sullivan closed down. Last one in Crittenden County.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 28, 2010 @ 9:03 am

  61. 1)
    Multiplier effect better on social programs, but you already know we should eliminate the age-based entitlements.

    2)
    Same, and be careful conflating fed vs. state/local.

    Even in our (all too rare) interludes of peace, we maintain a massive standing military, which is as perpetual as any entitlement program.

    Head over to Owensboro, it’s worth the trip. Or smoke a lamb shoulder at 220 for 8-12 hours to a 195 internal temp, basting 1x per hr. It’s not the same as what you’d get in Daviess County but it’s a close approximation. Google has a few sauce recipes, first of which I’ve used & it’s good but not perfect.

    http://www.dizzypigbbq.com/recipesKentuckyLamb.html

    http://bbq.about.com/od/barbecuesaucerecipes/r/bl01020c.htm

    If you can get actual mutton instead of lamb it’s a lot closer to the authentic. I’ve considered reducing the brown sugar & adding a bit of coca cola, and adding a dash of sweet mustard but haven’t got round to it yet.

    Comment by dave — October 28, 2010 @ 9:26 am

  62. correction: 185 interneal temp, then foil/towel/cooler for an hour

    Comment by dave — October 28, 2010 @ 9:28 am

  63. My argument (ongoing) with Mark is basic philosophy of the role of the individual as it relates to government.

    Simply put, I believe in self reliance and limited (very) government. Mark believes in something else. I won’t use a descriptive because he can (if he wants).

    We have a standing military and it provides for the common defense and it is expensive. The reality of history proves that is necessary.

    As far as the multiplier effect of military spending, I guess you mean that in a financial sense, like trickle down. You’re the financial guy here and I can’t argue details. However, assuming financial is what you alluded to, there are many significant multiplier effects (both social and financial) the military creates that social programs try to effect but don’t.

    In fact, I can’t think of one social program that created what it set out to do, unless transfer of wealth from the makers to the takers was the unspoken goal.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 28, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

  64. You say that you cannot argue the financial details (and I agree, you can’t) of social spending, but claim that military spending has its own multipliers. Elaborate.

    Comment by dave — October 28, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

  65. Jack and dave, I’m just dodging in here at lunch and checked these last comments to see where the thread has gone. I want to retrace and pick up where I left off, but can’t until later.

    Meg Whitman has talked about her desire to “fix” California. That’s so great, she makes it sound like a carburetor tune up. I would like to fix the federal deficit too, but with a sober prescription for maintaining life line social programs, not by ending all social programs. Gotta get past the vilification of “tax and spend liberalism”. In a sense, the military is just another social program, but it’s all complicated and no ideological fix has all the answers. more later

    Comment by M.I. — October 28, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

  66. Jack, I guess the definition of insanity depends on what you value, educating kids and maintaining security for the elderly, or blowing people up. That may sound simplistic, but that’s kind of what it boils down to.

    I agree that there is historic justification in maintaining a military, The Good War, and expenditures on domestic military contractors create jobs, which if we wiped them all out today would send the economy into a worse tail spin. But the profiteering on those contracts does not end up in the pockets of the average machinist at Boeing, nor does the insane waste on projects like the Osprey. Even Dick Cheney was trying to cut that stuff before 9/11.

    There is also a history of jingoism, and unnecessary and ginned up wars dating back to and before the Spanish American war, “Remember the Maine!”. Not to mention Remember the Gulf of Tonkin! and Remember the WMDs, Iraq in 2003. The cost in human life and suffering does not show up in the budget as a percentage.

    I checked current stats and CBO still puts current expense at the same 19% as your 2003 figure but it also stated a 9% annual increase from 2000-2009, so it doesn’t quite jive. But it is about one fifth. One in five bucks just to military, versus ALL other programs.

    Anyway, I’d say that while Social Security is not paid with money put in previously by those who are currently drawing on it like some perfectly formulated savings account, unlike welfare or other examples of people who are totally dependent, social security has some reciprocation between money in and out, as opposed to simply be old people leaching off our taxes. S.S.I. is a huge slice of the pie. I don’t mean to pry, but if you don’t collect SSI, do you have a nice military pension?

    I can’t quote chapter and verse all the statistics, but I have heard it argued repeatedly that congress constantly plunders the social security account to shuffle money around to balance phony budgets, which is a great cause of the stress on the system. Ask Paul Krugman for details.

    I’ve also heard it argued that the reason Ronnie was able to stand there in Berlin and quote Peggy Noonan “Tear down those walls Mr. Gorbachev”, then take credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, is that as he spoke those words the USSR was suffering economic collapse in no small part from it’s adventure in Afghanistan. Maybe you know the percentage of their budget spent on military at that time?

    Outside the perspective of military spending as a percentage of total budget, according to one internet source (I know, I know) our military expenditure of $684 billion in 2009 was 45% of total military spending for all nations on the planet. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    It’s not a matter of whether ideologically one thinks the proper and fair way is for each of us to be responsible for our own boot straps. On a pragmatic level, the less we look out for each other the more expensive it gets to protect ourselves from all the have nots without education or jobs.

    When it comes to education or any other social programs, this country is unique in the complexity of our problems because of the size and number of regions, as well as cultural and racial diversity. Beyond immigration is the super complex legacy of slavery which was not miraculously ameliorated with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. How can the remedies be anything but painful, and expensive?

    Comment by M.I. — October 28, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

  67. Dave
    Like I said, I assumed you were talking about a direct financial multiplier with social spending. Like if the government spends money, that money trickles through the economy which, theoretically, will cause more economic activity and multiply the effect of the initial spending.

    What I was referring to as the military multiplier is not just the military spending for goods and systems, which is substantial, and which has the same effect as other government spending. I’m talking about is the human element costs that the military spends on training and schooling personnel. Most individuals leave the military after one hitch. The US military has state of the art equipment throughout each service branch. Most of the individuals serving in the military must be able to be trained in very highly skilled jobs.

    That training, for the most part, is easily transferable to civilian jobs once they’ve left their service commitment, and many technical and non-technical companies recruit ex-military for those reasons. This, in effect, is a long term financial multiplier with individuals added to the economy because of military training.
    In a sense Mark is right that this is a social program but with a difference, Nothing is handed out free in the military, one must earn what is offered.

    The other multiplier is the military’s enticement of recruits with promises of higher level education funding after they’ve served. This has an even greater multiplier effect because, usually, college graduates earn more.

    There are many more indirect multipliers that effect the long term economy positively but this is getting tiresome. If people aren’t aware of this or them, so be it.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 28, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

  68. Mark, blowing people up is a lot more fun, trust me.
    I thought Ronnie only had one wall to tear down.
    I think we do well protecting the entire planet with only 45%.
    You feel threatened by the have-nots? So are paying protection taxes?
    The problems of this country are no more complex than any other country’s. It’s our solutions that are unique.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 28, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

  69. Interesting to see that both Ashcraft and Bonta , coming from the planing board and economic development , denying any tights with any developers {suncal and south shore} when almost all their backers are have a financial interest in both project , and looking at the dollar amount raised .
    Something does not add up.

    Comment by joel — November 1, 2010 @ 9:32 am

  70. I don’t subscribe to “Suncal Slates”
    But Frank is the one Suncal hates.

    SunCal’s Election Suggestions

    http://alamedans.com/?p=23035

    SunCal has spent more on trying to defeat Frank Matarrese than on all the other three candidates combined.
    $ 3,400+ deHaan
    $ 3,400+ Johnson
    $ 8,000+ Sweeney
    $ 36,000+ Matarrese

    There is a gallery of their “nice work” posted here…

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/54212193@N05/sets/72157625150043227/with/5129565894/

    Lovely stuff, eh? Why does Suncal hate Frank so much??

    Comment by Jack B. — November 1, 2010 @ 10:03 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 873 other followers