Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who rode into power on a wave of voter angst in the first recall of a California governor, now finds himself a target for removal as his own popularity is declining.

The state's well-financed prison guards union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., is bankrolling a recall effort against Schwarzenegger.


"This is a governor that has done absolutely nothing," union spokesman Lance Corcoran said in an interview Monday. "We have the largest budget deficit in the history of California. We have one of the longest budget stalemates."

Schwarzenegger and the union known as CCPOA have been at odds for years, unable to agree on a new contract for the guards. Last fall, the governor invoked a rarely used provision of state law allowing him to unilaterally impose new working conditions on the union in the absence of a deal.

Corcoran said the dispute has nothing to do with the recall effort, but the governor believes otherwise.

"I'm not going to get intimidated by those guys," Schwarzenegger told reporters in the Capitol on Monday after a ceremony honoring California's Olympic medalists. "The state should not spend more money than we take in, and their intimidation tactics will not make me change my mind whatsoever, because I happen to not represent the CCPOA. I represent the people of California."

The perception that the guards' campaign is self-serving could limit their ability to garner support, said Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican political analyst. He said they would need a broader movement like the one that destroyed former Gov. Gray Davis, the Democrat recalled on Oct. 7, 2003, amid anger over higher vehicle license fees, immigration issues and the energy crisis. - See Schwarzenegger target of recall effort for the full report.

California is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban restaurants and other food facilities from using trans fats, which are known to increase the risk of heart disease, under a bill approved by the state Legislature Monday and sent to the governor.

The measure, passed with a bare majority, comes two weeks after a similar ban in New York City became fully effective. California doctor and consumer groups support the law, while restaurant groups have offered a lukewarm response. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position, a spokesman said.

Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia (Los Angeles County), who wrote AB97, said the measure is intended to promote the health of Californians.

"When it comes to heart disease and diabetes, communities of color are leading the way," Mendoza said. "I figured that the use of trans fats in our restaurants is a leading contributor to that."

Mendoza's bill would require restaurants, hospitals and facilities with food-preparation areas to remove oils, shortenings and margarines with trans fats by Jan. 1, 2010, except for use in deep frying for dough and batter. Bakers would be given an extra year to figure out how to make goods free of partial hydrogenation. - See Legislature approves bill banning trans fats for the full report.

Prop 98 summary

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.” Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant.

According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office >

This measure amends the State Constitution to (1) constrain state and local governments’ authority to take private property and (2) phase out rent control. The measure also might constrain government's authority to implement certain other programs and laws, such as mandatory inclusionary housing programs and tenant relocation benefits. The measure's provisions apply to all governmental agencies.

The measure prohibits government from taking ownership of property to transfer it to a private party—such as a person, business, or nonprofit organization. In addition, government could not take property to use it for (1) a purpose substantially similar to how the private owner used it (such as public operation of a water or electricity delivery system formerly owned by a private company) or (2) the purpose of consuming its natural resources (such as its oil or minerals). These restrictions on government's authority to take property also would apply to cases when government transfers the right to use or occupy property (but does not take ownership of it). None of these restrictions would apply, however, if government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a state of emergency declared by the Governor. Under the measure, government could continue to take property for facilities that it would own and use, such as new schools, roads, parks, and public facilities. Government could not take property for one purpose, however, and then use it for a different purpose unless it offered to sell the property back to its previous owner.

The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again.

The use of eminent domain has been abused over and over again by state and local government officials and needs to be brought to an end. This measure will go a long way in bringing about that end.

Rent control was needed at one time but is now causing more harm than good and also has to be phased out.

I urge a yes vote on Ca. Prop 98.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

This applies to you, my real estate investing friend! And even if you're not normally interested in politics, it's urgent (to protect your own financial interests) that you take 60 seconds and read this article, because it will affect you profoundly.

"Capital gains taxes" are the taxes that you pay whenever you sell your real estate investment properties. Right now the capital gains tax rate is 15%. Obama has stated (and reaffirmed in a debate with Hillary Clinton a few days ago) that he wants to raise the rate to 28%.

Just so you understand how this will affect you: Under the current law, if you you have a property profit of $35,000, you'll pay $5,250 in tax. Under Obama's plan, you'll pay $9,800 - fully $4,550 more than at present. And here's the reason that Obama gives for raising taxes on you:

"Fairness"

Yes, that's right. It's not "fair" that you have the potential to make more money than anybody else. And he wants to PUNISH you. Don't believe me?

In his debate with Hillary Clinton a few days ago, Obama was presented with well-known evidence of two huge points:

Historically, every time the capital gains tax has been raised, the actual revenue received by the government has declined because higher capital gains taxes are a DIS-incentive for economic activity and investment
Historically, every time the capital gains tax has been cut, the actual revenue received by the government has actually INCREASED because lower capital gains taxes are a strong MOTIVATOR for investment

Obama, showing himself to be fully unfamiliar with tax policy, stated that his reason for wanting to tax you at nearly double the current rate is that it's "fair". This is when it got interesting, because the moderator then pointed out that over 100 million people in the USA own stocks (not to mention everyone who owns real estate), and each one of them would be directly (and negatively) affected by the tax increase.

So what's going on, Obama? Clearly you're not concerned about what is "fair", since your tax proposal will further burden nearly every family in this country. And you know that raising the capital gains tax doesn't even increase government revenues, so the tax rate increase certainly won't contribute to the government in any way.

This is not an endorsement of any political candidate, but an encouragement to think very critically about the candidates rather than basing your vote on rhetoric and personality alone.

By: R. Bryan Ellis
Interested in HEATED DEBATE about Obama? Check out Bryan Ellis' blog now.
Bryan Ellis is a real estate investing strategist in Atlanta, Georgia. He's sought after world wide for his unique and ground-breaking strategies of mixing real estate investing with internet marketing for high profits with low effort.

As the United States enters into the 2008 and another presidential election, there is widespread anxiety over the state of the economy. The subprime mortgage crisis, and the subsequent collapse of the housing market have cast a pall across even the most optimistic projections. In response, many Americans look to government to alleviate their concerns and usher in a new cycle of economic growth. Though such impulses are understandable, it would be a grave mistake to take any steps which would lead us away from the free market.

The reason to hold fast to free market principles is simple: no other institution can so effectively meet the wants and needs of American citizens.

The roots of our economic system can be found in the basic human drive to create, buy, and sell-interactions which have taken place since human beings began to form communities. These interactions are entirely voluntary-- no government ruled that they should take place; rather, they have occurred spontaneously as human beings seek to satisfy their desires for food, comfort, and entertainment.

For that reason, buying and selling only occurs when both parties stand to benefit from the exchange. The other side of the coin is that neither party is interested in paying more than he or she believes a particular good or service is worth.

In the free market system, price and value are determined by the time, labor and expenses that contribute to the finished product, as well as the total supply of such products on the market, their relative availability to the customer, and the customer's need to purchase the product. This incredibly complex latticework of variables is what sets prices and determines value in such a way that the manufacturers', the buyers', and the sellers' considerations all factor into the equation.

In short, the genius of the free market system is its ability to process and transmit information to billions of people while continuously adapting in response to the actions of its participants.

Government intervention into economic activity, on the other hand, usually results in a form of price control. In contrast to the free market, which sets prices according to the behavior of people, government's attempt at determining price is always arbitrary, for it cannot grasp the concept of value in a market system. This is why government intervention into the price mechanism usually worsens, rather than alleviates, economic crisis.

In response to the embargo set by OPEC in 1974, the United States interfered with supply and demand by rationing gasoline. There were long lines at gas stations, and citizens could only buy gas on certain days of the week. And yet, in Germany and Japan, there were no gas lines. The reason is that Germany and Japan allowed the market to continue to set gas prices. As supply went down and demand remained constant, prices went up. The increase in price transmitted valuable information to consumers: gasoline is less readily available than it was a few months ago. The United States attempted to avert the crisis by superseding the market, and paid an economic price for that action.

As the United States attempts to weather the housing crisis and the slowdown of the economy, it is important to remember that there are no quick fixes; no silver bullets. Government tampering with the machinery of the market tends to come at a steep price. The best course for now is for businesses and consumers alike to exercise caution and prudence in their dealings. The market forces will balance, as they always do, and hard work and ingenuity will continue to be rewarded in the land of opportunity.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.