Santa Clara County Supervisors Prohibit Fast Food Restaurants from Giving Away Toys with Unhealthy Meals
Yesterday, the Santa Clara County Supervisors approved the first ordinance nation that would prevent restaurants from giving away toys with certain meals that are deemed to be unhealthy. The law prohibits restaurants in unincorporated parts of the county from giving away toys unless the meals meet certain nutritional guidelines.
The idea behind the law is to discourage children from wanting to eat “unhealthy” food because of the association between that food and the toys that are often given away with them.
The crackdown will affect about a dozen restaurants in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. But county supervisors hope their vote will create a ripple effect in other cities, counties, and possibly the state.
This is yet another example of the government stepping into things that it should not be wasting its time on. I do not like the idea of the government acting as if it were some sort of nanny that is authorized to tell people what they can and cannot do in their private lives. What a person eats is a personal decision. It should be left up to the individual to decide for him or herself what they choose to consume. And in the case of a child, it should be up to the parent to decide what their kids eat, not the government.
It doesn’t take much of an imagination to figure out that this is simply a small step on the road to the government trying to take away individual liberties and regulate what a citizen is allowed to do. That is something that troubles me greatly. The fact that the government would even want to do such a thing in the first place is appalling. We need to stop this tendency of the government in its tracks, before all of our liberties are stripped away from us.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Cost of Diesel Filters Threatens Livelihoods of Port Truckers
When the State of California set a January 1, 2010 deadline for port truckers to comply with strict new air quality rules, they forced many drivers into a very difficult position. Drivers would be forced to either buy new trucks that comply with the new air quality standards or install new diesel particulate filters. If they did not do so, they would not be allowed to work at California’s ports, effectively putting them out of business.
Trucks with engines manufactured before 1994 are banned outright, and engines manufactured from 1994-2003 must be outfitted with new filters that reduce diesel particulate emissions by 85 percent. The deadlines are phased in for owners of trucks manufactured from 2004 to 2006. Trucks manufactured in 2007 or newer are compliant. Even tougher emissions regulations go into effect on January 1, 2014.
More than 1,300 drivers lost out on $22 million in state, local, ad federal grants that were made available last year to pay $50,000 toward a new truck or the entire cost of the filters, minus sales tax. An additional $11 million was found over the New Year’s holiday to help those drivers, and the deadline to meet the new standards was extended to April 30 (because of the severe backlog on filter orders). But the new retrofit grants were limited to $5,000. Since basic filter costs averaged $16,000 to $21,000, that left 670 drivers scrambling to find $10,000 to $20,000 in financing to pay the difference. Many of these drivers are barely scraping by, and now they have monthly loan payments of $300 to $500 to deal with.
And now, many of the truckers are now faced with maintenance costs associated with the filters that can run into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month. And that’s on top of the additional thousands of dollars that some had to pay in order to upgrade their engines before the new filters could be installed. And the filters weight 80 pounds, which hurts gas mileage. As a result, the port truck retrofit program is bankrupting many independent truck operators, many of them newer immigrants who are driving older trucks that are more costly to maintain once they are upgraded with the new filters. Even more truckers will inevitably be forced out of the trucking business once the stricter emissions standards go into effect in 2014.
This is yet another example of the government imposing regulations that hurt both businesses and the common man and have a direct effect on the level of unemployment in the State of California. The additional costs associated with the diesel filters were borne by many trucking companies. Those costs were then either passed on to consumers, leading to higher prices paid by everyone, or led to the reduced workforces for those companies, contributing the California’s unemployment rate. And for the independent truckers who were forced to cope with tens of thousands of dollars on additional expenses, the new air standards means that their very livelihood was put in jeopardy. Many of them are on the brink of going out of business, which would mean increased unemployment and an additional drain on California’s social services.
These new emissions standards were not necessary, and to implement them in the middle of a recession made absolutely no sense. This sort of reckless behavior on the part of the government must stop. I will stand for jobs and the common man over ridiculous new government regulations any day. It’s too bad that many of our elected officials will not do the same.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Health Care Tax Threatens Tanning Bed Industry
As part of the recently passed federal health care overhaul, a 10 percent tax on tanning bed use starts nationwide this July. Before I go any further, I want to clearly state that I have never used a tanning bed in my life, and I don’t intend to ever use one. Accordingly, my opinions are based purely on my beliefs of right and wrong and are not influenced by money or financial burdens in any way. Put bluntly, I have no financial stake in the taxation of tanning bed use.
The new tax will add anywhere from 90 cents to a couple dollars for a single tanning session, depending on the machine. The tanning business has already slowed in the past few years. Health warnings about the skin cancer risks of tanning beds, combined with consumers forgoing nonessentials in this recession, have the nation’s estimated 18,000 tanning salons on hard times.
Congressional tax writers project the tax will raise about $2.7 billion to help expand health coverage to uninsured Americans over the next decade, and they’re betting that indoor tanners won’t stop because of a few extra dollars of taxes. I don’t know what kind of imaginary world these people live in, but even basic economics courses teach that demand will decrease if price increases. A new tax on tanning bed use could diminish the number of people who actually use the service, possibly leading some or many tanning businesses to go out of business.
But let’s look beyond the fact that government officials don’t care about consumers having to pay more in taxes or businesses closing and people having to be laid off. There are far more general questions that need to be addressed. What does tanning have to do with health care in the first place? Why was this industry specifically targeted in the health care legislation? Why should people who decide to use a tanning beds be subject to paying an extra tax that will help subsidize the new federal health care plan?
And just because tanning is a luxury, does that make it okay for the government to tax it for no other purpose than to raise revenue? Just because the people who tan have a little extra money in their pockets and perhaps can afford to pay a few extra dollars, does that legitimize the tax and redistribution of that money to people who cannot afford health care?
Just because someone is able to afford more in taxes does not mean that they should have to pay more money to the government in order to subsidize others. This idea of taking of money from the assumed wealthy and frivolous users of tanning beds and redistributing that money to those who cannot afford health care is a clear example of socialism. In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Karl Marx stated the now famous phrase, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” This is a concrete example of the government implementing the ideas of the father of communism into American society. This must stop immediately.
It is not right to tax certain items or services simply for the purpose of getting more money for the government. What makes the use of tanning beds any different than any other services? If politicians are okay with taxing this one service, what is to stop them from taxing many other services in the near future in order to pay for unnecessary pet projects?
The government needs to stop implementing new taxes simply to increase revenue. Any taxes that are imposed on the people should be done so for absolutely essential reasons, such as public safety or needed infrastructure. Taxes should not be imposed simply to reallocate resources from the haves to the have-nots. This is not a difficult concept. Why do so many elected officials have a problem understanding this?
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
AB 1934
I have been in a foul mood since this afternoon. I’ll get to the reason why in a little bit.
About one year ago, I decided to run for the California State Assembly. Over the last few years, it became increasingly apparent to me that there are people in this country who do not believe in the same sort of United States that I believe in. Many people do not seem to believe in things like the United State Constitution, thinking that the words contained in that contract between the government and the people do not really mean much of anything. There are also those who believe that the government is infinitely wise. These people seem to think that we should continue to give up more of our individuals liberties to the all-knowing government and allow our elected officials to behave as wise parental figures.
Well, I believe the United States Constitution actually means something. I value it, and I respect it. It is a travesty that so many elected officials, all of whom swear allegiance to the Constitution when they take office, do not take the Constitution seriously. I also believe in a limited government. I had a father. He passed away in 2007, and he was a great man. I have a mother, and she is a great woman. I do not need, nor do I want, the government to try to act like it is wiser than me and can tell me what to do. I refuse to surrender my rights to the government.
I started noticing how our elected officials in Sacramento continued to be passing laws that did not make any sort of sense. The tendency was to continue to impose more restrictions on the behavior of the citizens. On top of that, these elected officials had a nasty tendency to want to raise taxes and fees whenever they could. In effect, they were taking away our rights and our money, and they felt that they, in their wisdom, could decide which rights we should be able to continue to enjoy and what our money should be spent on.
All of this seemed insane to me. Fed up with seeing what was going on, I decided to run for State Assembly. I was tired of simply being upset; I wanted to fix the problem. If the people in Sacramento were doing things in the wrong way, I wanted to go to state Capitol and start doing things the right way.
Then we got around to the issue of unloaded open carry (UOC). In the State of California, it is virtually impossible for most average citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits (CCW). In most heavily populated counties, unless a person is rich, famous, and/or well-connected, the ability to carry a concealed firearm in order to protect oneself is denied by the government. Before I go any further, I want to stress the point that the police are not always around. If your life is put in jeopardy, it could be minutes or hours until the police arrive. The only person you can depend on to protect you when you need it is yourself.
About five years ago, I applied for a CCW in Alameda County, and I was denied by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. In the intervening years, I have applied for non-resident CCWs from other states, even traveling outside of California in order to train and pass their licensing procedures. As a result, I am currently allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm in 32 states. And yet California, the state that I was born and raised in, and the state where I spend the vast majority of my time in, denies me the right to carry a concealed weapon to protect myself with. The fact remains that, because of the amount of time that I spend in California, if my life were to ever be put in danger, it would most likely occur in California. But my state government has taken the right to defend myself with a concealed weapon away from me. It isn’t right, but it’s reality in California.
Then last December, I became aware of the fact that the unloaded open carry of firearms was legal in California, as long as one does not do so in certain restricted areas (e.g. within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school, in government buildings, etc.). As long as a person is not in a restricted category (e.g. not a gang member, no restraining orders against them, no intention to commit a crime), law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry ammunition for that firearm on their persons, thus allowing the individual to be able to protect him or herself if the situation were to ever arise. Speaking for myself, I viewed unloaded open carry as an inferior means of self defense as compared to concealed carry. But concealed carry was not available to me, so I looked into the only legal means that was available for me to be able to protect myself. It was the next-best option.
After spending a month researching the intricacies of UOC, I finally tried it out with a couple of others who were interested in the issue. And that’s where it all took off. I quickly became one of the most visible and most outspoken advocates of UOC in California. I can’t even remember the number of newspaper of television news interviews that I have done in the past four months. I wanted to educate my fellow citizens about their rights. And if they decided that they wanted to open carry, I wanted to make sure they did so in full compliance with the law.
Sure, there were some who did not like the idea of me open carrying and advocating for UOC. Some gun owners felt that doing so would result in the State Legislature reacting by taking away the right to UOC. To that, I argued that, if we had to refrain from open carrying in order to retain the right to open carry, then we have, in effect already lost the right. Others, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tried to say that open carriers were trying to intimidate people. That made absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to intimidate people? By that logic, what did they think I was trying to accomplish by intimidating people? If anything, I was only trying to deter criminals from looking at law-abiding citizens as easy prey. Some tried to argue that, by the mere fact that I had a gun on my person, I was somehow endangering society. Again, that made no sense. The only time that firearm was going to leave its holster would be if I or someone in my immediate vicinity were facing grave bodily harm. I am not some sort of vigilante who is looking to go out and fight crime. I hope that I will never have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of someone else. I respect firearms, and I know how to properly operate them. So, having a firearm on my person does not endanger society. And some even tried to insist that a criminal would easily be able to take my unloaded firearm away from me and use it against me. Well, I voluntarily agreed to meet up with law enforcement officials to allow them to inspect my firearm before certain open carry meetups. Even while being fully compliant with them, the officers had a difficult time removing my firearm from its holster. Imagine how difficult it would be for a criminal to take my firearm away from me if I were actually resisting.
But there’s even more insanity out there. Some people said that criminals would start open carrying. From a logical standpoint, that makes no sense. Law enforcement officers in California have the right to inspect the firearm of an open carrier to ensure that it is not loaded. By open carrying, an individual draws additional attention to oneself. A criminal would want to maintain the element of surprise, not open themselves to intensified scrutiny. If anything, law enforcement officers should fear the criminal who is illegally carrying a concealed weapon, not the law-abiding citizen who is openly carrying. Then there was the argument that law enforcement officers could not tell whether an openly carried firearm was loaded or not. The mere fact that a weapon is loaded or not does not endanger society; it is the behavior of the person in control of the firearm that matters. Like I said before, law enforcement officers have the authority to inspect a firearm to determine whether it is loaded or not. The argument was made that a person could easily load the firearm within two seconds. That’s exactly the point. Open carriers want to be able to load a firearm quickly in order to be able to defend themselves if need be. That’s not an argument against open carry; it is merely a statement of fact as to how unloaded open carry leaves law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals. I’d rather be at a two second disadvantage than have absolutely no tool as my disposal to defend myself with. (For those who argue that a criminal might decide to shoot me because they see me openly carrying, that is not really an argument that I buy into. Even if I were to get shot preemptively, which I think is highly unlikely, it is my choice to put myself in that position. If anything, that would make everyone else around me safer because they would have extra time to evacuate the scene while the criminal was busy with me. Realistically, though, a criminal would most likely be deterred from committing a crime if they saw an armed person who is clearly interested in protecting themself in the area) But going back to law enforcement’s argument, they should not fear the law-abiding citizen who is open carrying any more than anyone else they might encounter. They should approach all people with caution because they never know who the criminals with illegally concealed loaded weapons are.
Some have also argued that unloaded open carriers are an additional drain on law enforcement resources. Penal code section 12031(e) gives law enforcement officers the authority to inspect a firearm to determine whether it is loaded; however, it is not mandatory to do so. Properly trained police dispatchers should already be asking relevant questions. Is the individual acting in a threatening manner? Is the individual brandishing their firearm? Or is the person simply sipping on some coffee and having a pleasant conversation with a group of friends? Depending on the answers to these questions, law enforcement should be able to determine whether resources should be allocated to deal with an instance of an individual carrying a firearm openly. Keep in mind, open carry is legal in the vast majority of the states. Law enforcement seems to be capable of dealing with open carriers in those other states. Why is it that law enforcement in California cannot do the same?
And so, we finally get to why I have been in a foul mood since this afternoon. A number of weeks ago, Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) introduced AB 1934, which would ban unloaded open carry in California. Since it is virtually impossible for most citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits, passage of AB 1934 would essentially take away any legal option for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms in order to protect themselves. AB 1934 will disarm the good, honest citizens, but it will do nothing to stop criminals to continue to illegally carry concealed firearms and perpetrate heinous acts against the public.
Last week, I became aware of the fact that AB 1934 would be going before the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee today. If four of the seven members of the PSC voted against AB 1934, the bill would be dead. I, as well as many others, have spent the last few days rallying supporters of open carry. We contacted the members of the PSC and voiced our opinion about how they should vote “No” on AB 1934. Earlier today, the PSC voted 4-2 to approve AB1934. As a result, the bill will continue to wind its way through the Assembly. AB 1934 will next go before the Appropriations panel. You can be sure that I, as well as many other supporters of open carry will continue to contact state lawmakers and make our voices heard.
I don’t know how any of this will turn out. It is my hope that sanity will ultimately prevail and the Democratic-controlled Legislature will allow law-abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms in order to protect themselves. But if we are not able to stop AB 1934, I would hope that the people of California will learn from this experience. I want them to see how out of touch many of our elected officials are and how little they respect the rights of the average citizen. We need to thoroughly evaluate our elected officials before they get into office, because once they’re there, they can hurt the people in many different ways.
If AB 1934 continues to move forward, I would hope that the people of California will see how much damage one single Legislator (in this case, Lori Saldana) can do. But it can go the other way as well. One Legislator can bring about good as well. I hope that gun owners, not only in Assembly District 20, but throughout the state and throughout the nation, will support my campaign for State Assembly. I hope that citizens who believe in the right to protect oneself will support my campaign for State Assembly. I hope that people who believe in stopping the government from infringing upon our rights and dictating to us how we should live our lives will support my campaign for State Assembly.
One person can make a huge difference. I truly believe that I can stop the damage that is going on in Sacramento. I won’t be able to do it overnight. California has been descending into madness for decades, and it will take many years to solve all of the problems. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I am asking the responsible members of society to help me take that first step. Help me win my race for California State Assembly in the 20th District.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California’s Traffic Tickets Cost Too Much
Motorists in California who get cited for traffic violations are in for an unpleasant surprise. Fines on traffic tickets have surged in the past five years as the state has added fees and penalties that can raise the cost of most infractions into the hundreds of dollars.
For example, running a red light can cost a motorist $446; driving solo in the carpool lanes, $445; speeding at 81 miles per hour on most freeways, at least $331. If you want to go to traffic school to keep your record clean, that will cost you another $50. And even fix-it tickets, which once cost nothing to resolve (like a broken headlight), now cost $25.
The reason why the fines have risen so much is because lawmakers in the State Legislature are seeing traffic tickets as an easy source of revenue during tough economic times, and add-on fees are being used to fund services that may have nothing to do with traffic violations, like collecting criminals’ DNA. Legislators feel that people who are breaking the law should have to pay for the courts and administration of the system that deals with these issues, so they approve fees that make the tickets so expensive.
Legislators also seem to feel that increased fines will act as a deterrent. The thinking is that, if you have to pay more, then you will be less likely to engage in the prohibited behavior in the first place. For example, there is a current move in the Legislature to increase the fines associated violating the state’s hand-free cell phone law. Yesterday, the state began hearings on a proposal by State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) to increase the base fine to $50 for holding a phone or texting while driving. With fees tacked on, the fine could run up to $255 for a first offense and $445 for a second offense.
What really boosts the costs of the fines are the dozen or so fees and penalties that are tacked on to the base charge. Take a ticket with a $100 base fine. There’s a state penalty of 100 percent, which adds another $100. Then there is a county penalty of 70 percent, adding $70 more. There is also a state criminal surcharge of 20 percent, which is an additional $20. Add on fees for DNA testing, emergency medical services, court construction and security costs, and the final amount is several hundred dollars. (DNA testing has absolutely nothing to do with driving badly, but 2004’s Proposition 69 authorized the state to collect DNA samples from criminals and is paid for by imposing a surcharge on all fines to help fund the program. Emergency medical and other services are funded in the same way.)
Something that most people don’t realize is that most of the money from a traffic fine does not go to the local agency; most of it goes to Sacramento. For example, if a San Jose officer issues a ticket with a base fine of $100, $83 goes to Santa Clara County, $87 to the City of San Jose, and most of the remaining $300-plus in fees and penalties goes to the state.
It’s a bizarre fine structure, to say the least. But we can’t lose sight of the main point here. The State of California should not be using traffic violations to make money. Traffic laws are supposed to be in place to deter bad driving behavior and increase public safety. I have long argued that speed limits are much too low and laws such as the hand-free cell phone law lead to a misplaced allocation of law enforcement resources simply to extract more money from citizens. Many people can drive quite safely above the posted speed limit or while talking on the phone. Others can’t drive safely at all, no matter how slow they are going or how hard they are concentrating. If the goal is to maintain public safety, a better course of action would be to cite drivers who are actually driving erratically or in an unsafe manner, not those who are merely a few miles over the posted limit or talking on a phone without a hand-free device.
Besides all of that, we cannot allow the State of California to continue to rob citizens via traffic fines. For all of those elected officials in Sacramento, who claim to be looking out for the small guy, to continue to approve fee hikes on average citizens is not only hypocritical, but it is downright disgusting. Politicians should be more honest in the way they collect money from the people. It is not right to simply keep raising fees on citizens to pay for new, and often unnecessary, programs. And yet they keep doing so, hoping that the people won’t notice. Well, I have noticed what they are doing, and I don’t like it at all.
If I am elected to the State Assembly, I will work to roll back the outrageous fees that California Legislators have tacked on to traffic fines over the last few years.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California’s Early Release Program Frees Violent Offenders
Despite promises from state Legislators that they would exclude most dangerous prisoners from the program, inmates convicted of violent crimes are among those being freed early from California jails to save money. An Associated Press review of inmate data shows that some of the freed criminals were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, battery, corporal injury to a spouse, inflicting injury on a child, domestic violence, attempting to take a gun from a police officer, displaying a gun in a threatening manner, and many other serious crimes.
The early release program specifically forbids authorities from freeing prisoners convicted of about 150 crimes, such as rape and murder. But any offense that is not specifically listed qualifies for release, and individual counties can then decide who gets out.
Legislators approved the early release program last year as a way to cut costs and reduce crowding in state prisons and county jails. But when the law took effect in January, the release of hundreds of inmates from local jails drew a swift backlash, especially after a Sacramento County inmate freed under the law was arrested within a day on suspicion of attempting to rape a female counselor.
At state prisons, corrections officials expect to save $500 million by granting early release to about 6,500 inmates this year. Most of those releases will not begin until later this year. The law did not provide direction to county jails about how to evaluate inmates who qualify for early release.
Now, after it is evident that violent offenders are being released from county jails early, some Legislators are trying to deal with the issue. After the attempted rape arrest in Sacramento County, the Legislature began considering amendments to the law, including a proposal to exclude county jails entirely from early release. Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-El Segundo), who is running for Attorney General, wants to expand the list of excluded crimes. My local Assemblyman, Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont), who helped write the law and is also running for Attorney General, claims that it was never supposed to apply to counties. When it passed in September, he praised the legislation as “a smart reform package.”
Is anybody actually surprised at how badly this early release program has turned out? I was against it from the very beginning, and my concerns have been borne out. Releasing inmates early from prisons and jails cannot lead to any positive results. If anything, we need to make sure these criminals are locked up for longer periods of time, not shorter periods. These people are a cancer to society. We need to keep these people away from the rest of the population for the greater good of society.
As for those Legislators who actually believed that this early release program was a good idea, this just goes to show that many of our elected officials are complete morons. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was a bad plan, and yet we still had many Legislators in Sacramento who decided that this bill was good enough to vote “Yes” on. We need to remove these idiots from office this year and replace them with Legislators who have some common sense.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am currently a candidate for State Assembly in California’s 20th District. This is the same Assembly District that is currently represented (poorly) by Alberto Torrico.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com