Our legislators should stop ignoring our kids educational choices and blaming the state’s poor academic record on California’s residents. The problem is squarely on Sacramento.
Vote for David Coffin in 2010.
Education, Uncategorized | David Coffin December 27, 2009 | 
Comments (0)
Logic and politics collided head-on when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that “the system worked.”
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) rebuked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Sunday for saying that the botched terrorist attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Friday demonstrated that “the system worked.”
“The fact is the system did not work, and we have to find a bipartisan way to fix it. He made it on the plane with explosives and detonated the explosive,” King said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “If that had been successful, the plane would have come down and we would have had a Christmas Day massacre with almost 300 people murdered.”
The terrorist failed to carry out his mission not because HSS security worked but because alert passengers on Flight 253 subdued him while he tried to detonate the explosive at his seat.
In the same conversation with CNN’s Candy Crowley, Napolitano said “no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened.”
However, six hours after the incident the FBI interviewed two passengers Kurt and Lori Haskell who said that they ”witnessed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab trying to board the plane in Amsterdam without a passport.”
“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’”
Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab’s lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee.
The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn’t see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane
Janet Nepolitano should step down from her post. Clearly she is not qualified to analyze the security needs of this nation fill the post of Security of Homeland Security.
There is an overarching message among today’s state leadership and the people that we keep sending to office and that is there is an acceptable expectation of losses when it comes to high school dropouts.
No one said it better than than former LAUSD boardmember and Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar when he said “Yes, there will be dropouts. But I’m looking at the glass half full.”
These charts show us what a glass half full looks like. An education system that serves only half of our kids.
The chart at the right is what a glass half full looks like in terms of young people who are considered cannon fodder, students who are seen as expendable in a system that has only one path to a diploma.
At Inglewood High School that amounts to about 180 students from each graduating class during the last 10 years.
At Gardena High School (right) and Hawthorne High School a glass half full means accepting the loss of 480 and 200 high school students for each graduating class.
Steve Bradford offers no solution to California’s high school graduation crisis.
Uncategorized | David Coffin November 23, 2009 | Comments (0)
Only 83 days into his term, Assemblyman Steve Bradford is already endorsing bonds that will steer more of our wages towards special interests by setting aside $1 billion of $11 billion towards non-water related funding.
(Los Angeles Times) “1 billion of the money is earmarked for projects that have little or nothing to do with quenching the state’s thirst.
The bond proposal includes funding for bike paths, museums, visitor centers, tree planting, economic development and the purchase of property from land speculators and oil companies — all in the districts of lawmakers whose key votes helped it pass the Legislature.”
Bradford’s endorsements will become debt that will be passed on to our children when they become adults if this bond is passed.
As I wrote in my previous article, Bradford’s endorsement is similar to the arguments made for previous bonds that saddled California’s residents with $16.6 BILLION in bonds that never met their goals.
$16.6 Billion will soon become $27.6 Billion of debt saddled on our children tomorrow if Bradfors bond is passed. And this is just the water!
Uncategorized | David Coffin November 17, 2009 | Comments (0)
Newly elected Steve Bradford (D) is predictably following in the past failures of other 51st Assembly members with his endorsement of a new $11 billion water bond. This bond will be placed on the ballot next year for the public to vote on.
(www.scpr.org) Assemblyman Steve Bradford represents Gardena, Hawthorne, and Inglewood. He said the $40 billion water package serves two major needs for the South Bay, “making sure we have safe reliable water at a reasonable rate, and the infrastructure for the reclaimed water. Many of the urban areas have achieved such a high conservation rate already that if it’s not for the reclaimed water we wouldn’t be able to reach that target, so that’s key for us,” Bradford said
Bradfords endorsement is similar to the arguments made for previous bonds that saddled California’s residents with $16.6 BILLION in bonds that never met their goals. Those include:
1996 – Proposition 204, a $995 million bond that promised to “increase water supplies.” “…drinking water is something most of us take for granted,” proponents wrote in the ballot pamphlet that year. “But the truth is, unless we act now, California’s residents, businesses and farms face a future of chronic water shortages and potentially unsafe supplies.”
2000 – Proposition 12, the “Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000” borrowed $2.1 billion based on proponent’s assurances that “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”
2000 – Proposition 13, the “Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act,” that borrowed $1.97 billion of bonds and argued in language almost identical to the arguments for Prop. 204 that “We can’t take our drinking water for granted. Water officials predict major shortages and say existing programs won’t fix the problem.”
2002 – Proposition 40, the “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002” that borrowed $2.6 billion and promised (in words exactly the same as the empty promise they made in Proposition 12): “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”
2003 – Proposition 50, a $3.44 billion called the “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” This bond promised: “California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water supplies and supporting water conservation programs.”
2006 – Prop 84 that for a $5.4 billion bond. The “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act Of 2006. Supporters promised: “Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water supply.”
14 years after Prop 204, the six bonds that voters approved have never been successful in meeting their promises and Bradford’s $11 billion bond will continue the trend by saddling residents with tens of billions with no chance of success. How often do we keep repeating past failures before we look for new solutions?
Regional Planning, Taxes and Fees, Uncategorized, Water | David Coffin November 12, 2009 | Comments (0)
Today’s state legislators have steered far from the concerns of our residents in the 51st Assembly District and the State. The results have been devastating to our community, our families and our residents.
Solving today’s problems will take a totally different kind of Assembly member than we are seeing in Sacramento today. We need a legislator that is willing to do the homework, think outside of the box and stand up to self-interest groups.
Here are the issues that separate me from others running for the 51st Assembly seat.
Legislators have tinkered with education for 30 years, turning what was once a great system of schools into the worse of fifty states. Generations of California students have dropped-out or underachieved. Today’s legislature has had more than enough opportunities to fix education. It’s time for change!.
Students need choices between dropping out or meeting California’s Vanity Curriculum. Choices must include a vocational path towards a high school diploma.
I will not repeat the tired old campaign rhetoric of other candidates that schools are failing because they don’t have enough money. Don’t send someone else to Sacramento who will simply rubber stamp the policies of today’s Sacramento leaders.
AIRPORT EXPANSION & SAFETY
I will fight against expanding LAX and encourage a regional solution to Southern California’s air travel. Furthermore, I’ll insist that all Metro lines have access to regional airports including LAX.
State and local planning is out of sync with the realities of our regions resources and infrastructure. Southern California cannot be allowed to continue to grow unchecked to the point where growth strangles our quality of life. I will insist that California’s growth plans first consider its available resources.
I will insist that state and local services are more fairly paid for by all of California’s residents.
STOP RUBBER STAMPING DEVELOPMENTS THAT DON’T FIT. No more accepting Sacramento’s gospel that we need housing for another 15 million people that would double our population in Southern California and 30 million in the state when we KNOW that we do not have the infrastructure (water, streets, electricity) or services to sustain that kind of growth.Planning must first consider the state’s resources and it must respect the interests of today’s residents.
I will insist on a balanced budget.
I will insist on planning policies that do not lower the quality of life for Southern Californians.
I will insist on fair elections and boundaries that do not favor one party or another.
Uncategorized | David Coffin April 30, 2009 | Comments (2)
