LACYDlegislative

Press Release: LOS ANGELES COUNTY YOUNG DEMOCRATS APPLAUD APPROVAL OF AB 30

2009-10-12T13:59:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 12, 2009

Contact: Dan Witzling, Vice President of Communications (vpcom@lacyd.org)

or David Graham-Caso, Legislative Director (legislative@lacyd.org)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY YOUNG DEMOCRATS APPLAUD APPROVAL OF AB 30

Measure’s Approval the Result of Two-Year Effort to Increase Young Voter Engagement

Los Angeles, Calif. - Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD), one of the state’s largest young professional political associations, today applauded Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing Assembly Bill 30 into law. AB 30, authored by Senator Curren Price Jr., will increase the number of registered voters in California by allowing 17-year olds to “pre-register” to vote.

“We are thrilled that after two years of hard work by Senator Price’s staff and young Democrats across the state, this bill will become law,” stated Katherine Hennigan, LACYD president. “LACYD is a proud supporter of efforts such as AB 30, which seek to improve our democracy by increasing the number of registered voters in California.”

AB 30 will allow 17-year olds who meet all voter eligibility requirements (other than age) to “pre-register” to vote. When the pre-registered teenagers turn 18, they will be automatically added to the ranks of registered voters in California.

AB 30 was originally introduced by then-Assemblymember Price in 2008 as AB 1819. After the bill was held-up in committee last year, Asm. Price reintroduced the legislation at the beginning of the 2009 session. Both AB 1819 and AB 30 were among the top legislative priorities for LACYD, which resulted in the hundreds of members of the organization being asked to help advocate for the bill by writing and calling legislators and the Governor to urge approval for the measure.

“Senator Price has proven his commitment to the future of California time and time again,” said Hennigan. “LACYD thanks Senator Price for his tireless work to improve civic engagement and political participation among young voters.”

Founded in 1973, LACYD was established to give young Democrats a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state and federal political issues.

BACKGROUND: LACYD is the premiere Young Democratic Club in the greater Los Angeles area. LACYD's founders include: Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Henry Waxman, Los Angeles Controller Rick Tuttle, and many other Democratic leaders. Founded in 1973, LACYD was established to give young Democrats a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state and federal political issues. Katherine Hennigan currently serves as LACYD President. (www.lacyd.org)

- # # # -

LACYD Approves Resolution in Support of Clean CA Gubernatorial Primary Campaign Pledge

2009-10-05T19:21:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) Executive Board unanimously adopted the following resolution on September 30, 2009:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A CLEAN CAMPAIGN PLEDGE

“Whereas, California will suffer irreparable harm to our economy, education, and health care systems, environment, infrastructure and more, unless we elect a Democratic governor in 2010; and,

“Whereas, the Republicans are on track to nominate a candidate for governor who is independently wealthy and who will invest tens of millions of dollars in negative attacks on the Democratic nominee; and,

“Whereas, Democrats cannot afford a negative, bruising primary that leaves our nominee weakened and damaged going into the general election;

“Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Los Angeles County Young Democrats urge Democrats to work together in a way that guarantees a Democratic victory in November by requesting any current and prospective Democratic gubernatorial candidates to sign a Clean Campaign Pledge which includes campaigning in an open and fair manner, without resorting to defamatory attacks or unwarranted invasions of personal privacy issues; and,

“Be It Further Resolved, that the Los Angeles County Young Democrats contact each candidate to make its position known and ask the candidate to sign such a pledge.”

Katherine Hennigan
President
Los Angeles County Young Democrats

AB 30 Goes to the Governor's Desk. LACYD Weighs-In...

2009-09-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

On September 10, the California State Assembly concurred in amendments made to Assembly Bill 30 by the Senate and approved the measure, which would allow 17-year olds to pre-register to vote. LACYD is a strong supporter of this bill and we wasted no time sending Governor Schwarzenegger a letter declaring our position. The text of the letter is below.

September 10, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing you today on behalf of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) to express our organization’s support for Assembly Bill 30, a bill which would strengthen our state’s democracy by increasing the potential number of registered voters in California.

Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressman Henry Waxman, Congressman Howard Berman, Los Angeles Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, LACYD is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues.

LACYD is a proud supporter of efforts such as AB 30, which seek to improve our democracy by increasing the number of registered voters in California. AB 30 will allow 17-year olds who meet all voter eligibility requirements (other than age) to “pre-register” to vote. When the pre-registered teenagers turn 18, they will be automatically added to the ranks of registered voters in California.

Registration is one of the largest barriers to voting. Citizens often become energized by candidates or issue campaigns in the last weeks of an election, only to find they are not registered to vote or are not registered at their current addresses. Lowering the voter registration age would improve civic engagement and political participation. It would additionally help prepare a new generation of Californians to engage in our democracy. Though LACYD is a political organization, we believe that increasing the number of registered voters in California is a non-partisan issue. This bill is a sensible political reform that will strengthen our democracy and help to empower and engage a generation.

We strongly urge you to sign Assembly Bill 30 into law. Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,
Katherine Hennigan
President
Los Angeles County Young Democrats

If you agree the increasing the number of registered voters in California is a good thing, please take a minute to call the Governor's office at 916-445-2841 to let them know why.

You can also e-mail the Governor's staff at http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email. (If you e-mail, select "Other" when it asks you to choose your subject. Then make sure you indicate that you are supporting AB 30 in the subject line of the e-mail. Feel free to borrow as much content from the above letter as you like, but please edit it carefully to make the words your own.)

Next Legislative Committee Meeting: Rewriting California's Constitution

2009-08-07T14:57:00.001-07:00

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats Legislative Committee is pleased to present a special LACYD forum to explore the increasingly popular idea of calling a Constitutional Convention to rewrite parts, or all, of California’s Constitution.

By what process could a Constitution Convention be called?

Who would be allowed to participate?

How can young professionals ensure they are heard throughout the process?

You are invited to join the LACYD Legislative Committee as we welcome a representative from Repair California, the coalition of statewide organizations that is leading the charge to reform how our state is run. We will learn about the campaign to call a Constitutional Convention and we will additionally have the opportunity to ask questions and offer input regarding what we, as young voters, would like to see discussed as the future of our state is debated.

WHAT: LACYD Legislative Committee: Constitutional Convention Forum

WHEN: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 6 pm – 8 pm

WHERE: Breathe California of LA County, 5858 Wilshire Blvd. (corner of Wilshire and Stanley Ave.) Los Angeles, CA 90036

Please RSVP to LACYD Legislative Director David Graham-Caso at LACYDlegislative@gmail.com

(This event is meant to be educational and is in no way intended to indicate an endorsement by the Los Angeles County Young Democrats of the call for a constitutional convention.)

Please click on the image below to see the event flyer.

Updated LACYD Legislative Tracking Matrix

2009-07-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

Below, please find the LACYD Legislative Tracking Matrix, updated on July 12, 2009. Please click on the image below to view a legible version of the matrix.

Next LACYD Legislative Committee Meeting: Thursday, June 18

2009-06-15T10:34:00.000-07:00

What: LACYD Legislative Committee Meeting
When: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7 pm
Where: 1337 S. Bundy Dr. Apt. 201 Los Angeles, CA 90025
Contact: David Graham-Caso, LACYDlegislative@gmail.com

As a result of the May 19 special election, California lawmakers have been forced to return to a bargaining table that must seem all too familiar by now, to hammer out a deal that closes an unfathomable $24.3 billion state budget gap. They are going to have to negotiate a compromise that is tolerable to Republicans who are frequently threatened by their own party if they appear to be amenable to even the slightest rational increase in revenue generating taxes. They are going to have to strike a deal that is tolerable to Democrats, who were sent to Sacramento to protect (and hopefully improve) the services government provides for Californians. They are going to have to agree on a budget, which in the past has proven, shall we say... difficult. They are going to have to do this absent any lucid direction from voters.

In addition to the recent special election kicking our budget crisis from the frying pan directly into the fire, the message sent by the few voters who actually showed up to vote is dangerously ambiguous. Because of the confusing and occasionally counter-intuitive nature of the ballot measures, voters were not able to send a clear message to legislators regarding how they want them to approach the daunting task of resolving this unending budget fiasco. For instance, a voter who voted "no" on the measures because they were displeased with the way the initiatives were placed on the ballot, could have their "no" vote interpreted as a vote against the extension of tax increases. A voter who was voting to protect money set aside for First Five Commissions and Proposition 63 Mental Health services could have their vote interpreted as a vote in favor of cutting state-funded services across the board. The rejection of these convoluted and complex initiatives allows legislators to manipulate the "message" they were supposed to be receiving into whatever mandate they would like, in order to justify the actions they are about to take to deal with the budget deficit. As confusing as the text of the ballot measures was, the unclear message sent by the overwhelming denial of the initiatives is equally baffling. Worse, it is dangerously malleable.

The challenge now confronting organizations such as LACYD is combating this vacuum of a coherent message and informing our representatives in the legislature how we would be best represented as they make the difficult decisions necessary to closing the budget gap. We need to clearly identify not only areas of the budget that our organization strongly believes are necessary to the future of our state and therefore should be spared deep cuts, but also those areas where we would find cuts acceptable. This is a difficult situation, but retreating into fiscal NIMBY-ism would do nothing to solve the problem and is advocacy not worthy of any serious political organization.

This is why I am asking everybody who plans on attending the June LACYD legislative committee meeting to be prepared to debate what areas of the budget our organization should stand up to defend and what areas of the budget LACYD should inform our legislators are expendable, given the current circumstances. I would like each member of the committee to attend the meeting prepared with at least one suggestion for an item in the budget they believe should not be cut and one suggestion of an item in the budget that should be scaled back. We do not need to offer solutions for the entire $24.3 billion deficit, but it would irresponsible to demand programs be saved while offering no simultaneous solutions.

While most Democrats would obviously prefer to close the budget gap by increasing revenues, the political reality of the situation does not effectively allow for the legislature to increase taxes substantially. This is why I would like proposals offered by members of the committee to focus on areas of the budget should be cut. Please also be prepared to defend your suggestion- I will be encouraging members of the committee to debate each proposal so that we can reach a consensus through active participation.

As a result of the debate and collaboration that I hope will take place at this meeting, I would like to be able to draft a letter which clearly identifies our organization’s priorities in the current budget negotiations. With the approval of the committee, I will ask the LACYD Executive Board to approve the submission of the letter to our area's representatives in Sacramento so that our organization’s opinion is a matter of public record. The timing is tight on this- the goal established by the legislative leadership is to have the conference committee finish its work by mid-June and put out proposals to the floor to amend the 2009-10 budget package, and to get those passed and in law prior to the start of the fiscal year (July 1).

If you plan on attending the meeting, please RSVP on this event page and additionally send me an e-mail at LACYDlegislative@gmail.com so I can be sure you receive the meeting agenda and materials when they become available.

Thank you.

Statement from LACYD President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Today's Proposition 8 Ruling

2009-05-26T12:06:00.001-07:00

The following statement was released today by Los Angeles County Young Democrats President, Katherine Hennigan:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2009

Statement from Los Angeles County Young Democrats President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Proposition 8 Ruling

LOS ANGELES- Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) President Katherine Hennigan released the following statement today in reaction to the California Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Proposition 8.

“As a representative of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats, I am extremely disappointed in today's ruling. LACYD is one of California's largest groups of civic-minded young professionals and we stand firm in our belief that it is not the will of the people to uphold laws that violate any basic civil liberties. We are committed to continue our role in the fight to right this wrong and to ensure equality for all.”

Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressmembers Henry Waxman and Howard Berman, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, Los Angeles County Young Democrats is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues. With a membership of more than 500 and dozens of local, state, and federal candidates either members or helped into office by the organization, LACYD remains at the forefront of keeping Young Democrats engaged, informed and heard on issues of importance to young people. For more information, please visit www.lacyd.org.

- # # # -

LA Times Article About Tobacco Tax Raises Questions

2009-05-25T10:05:00.000-07:00

I posted a link to a Los Angeles Times article earlier today because the topic of the article is SB 600 (Padilla), a bill that would increase the tax on tobacco by $1.50. The Los Angeles County Young Democrats support SB 600 because it would raise money for the state at a time when California desperately needs the cash. The bill would raise this money by taxing smoking- something that is literally killing people. If the additional financial burden provides any further incentive for anyone to quit smoking, than the bill is working. This bill will raise money in the short term (through the tax), it will save money in the long term (healthy populations cost the state less money in health care costs and people will be healthier if they are financially forced to choose to quit smoking) and it will save lives. All and all, SB 600 is a good bill that LACYD is proud to support.

Along with shining a spotlight on this important legislation, the Times article was interesting because of the quotes in the piece from representatives of the tobacco industry and other opponents of the bill. The most prevalent message I could see being pushed by the opponents of this bill was that taxing tobacco disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities because these are the people that buy tobacco products.

"There are more smokers among people of color, and they will have to pay the extra tax."

So what opponents of the bill are saying is that cigarettes, which have been repeatedly scientifically proven to kill people, are being disproportionately used by low-income and minority communities. And that this is a reason NOT to create incentive for people to stop using this harmful product? To some degree, I get the Libertarian "it is your right to slowly poison yourself" argument (I don't see the logic in it, but I get that the argument exists) but this is just crazy. Spokespeople for the cancer lobby and their allies in this effort are arguing that we should not tax a (miraculously legal) poison because it may convince a targeted population of low-income and minority groups to stop harming themselves. I am glad to see the spokespeople aren't stupid, they are just Kaiser Soze-level evil.

There was one other part of the article that captured my attention. I was surprised to read the following quote from the piece:

[Frank Lester, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc.] also said California voters are "dubious" about how past tobacco taxes have been spent. He cited media reports about the use of Proposition 10 tobacco proceeds, approved by voters in 1998 for childhood development programs, to pay for political ads promoting another ballot measure.

My question is this- where was this information when we were trying to get 1D passed in the May 19 Special Election? (For those of you with short memories and who have not frequented this blog, Proposition 1D would have allowed the legislature to take money that was raised by Proposition 10 to help reduce the state's budget deficit and prevent cuts to services across the board. Prop. 1D would only have taken surplus money that is not being used and would not have affected any existing programs. The measure failed miserably last Tuesday.)

If this is true, than money raised for First Five Commissions was being spent, not on the programs and children it was intended to be spent on, but on political ads. This would mean that the opponents of 1D that were steadfast in their efforts to block an attempt to use unused Prop. 10 money to help prevent catastrophic cuts to other services, did so with motives not articulated during the public debate. They opposed Prop. 1D in order to ensure that every Prop. 10 dime went to the programs helping children for which the money was intended. Oh, and political ads- you can't forget the political ads that were apparently bought and paid for with Prop. 10 money.

Why did we not hear of this during the campaign? Apparently there were "reports" about this- why were those headlines not appearing in television ads or mailers? Was this done and I missed it entirely or was this an oversight by the strange bedfellows assembled to pitch these doomed measures to the public? I know it doesn't matter now, I am just honestly curious.

Feel free to contribute to the comments section and let me know if you saw any ads or even a single mention of the way Prop. 10 funds were being used during the Prop. 1D campaign.

LACYD Endorses Environmental Legislation, Anti-Tobacco Bills

2009-05-25T09:52:00.000-07:00

At our May Board meeting, the Los Angeles County Young Democrats Executive Board voted to uphold the Legislative Committee’s recommendations and formally support the following bills. All of the following bills are currently moving through the California State Legislature.

SB 17 (Padilla)

Senate Bill 17 would advance California’s clean energy policies by improving reliability and efficiency in power distribution through the deployment of smart grid technology.

SB 31 (Pavley)

The historic greenhouse gas legislation, AB 32, gives the California Air Resources Board (CARB) the authority to collect fees through market mechanisms such as auctions, and through a schedule of fees. CARB must spend the revenue to further the purposes of AB 32. This revenue can be used to invest in energy efficiency, clean energy resources and enabling infrastructure, new technologies and new jobs that will put California on the path to a clean and prosperous future.

SB 31 will give CARB additional guidance on how this revenue should be used. SB 31 will ensure that revenue collected pursuant to AB 32 will be invested in ways that will reduce GHG emissions, protect the health and safety of Californians, and put us on the path to a new green economy.

SB 565 (Pavley)

SB 565 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a plan to ensure that at least 50% of wastewater that is annually discharged into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is recycled and put to beneficial use by the year 2030. The bill would fund the development and implementation of that plan by requiring the state board to impose a fee on each person discharging wastewater into the ocean.

SB 600 (Padilla)

SB 600 advances California’s tobacco prevention and cancer research efforts and generates a significant amount of revenue by increasing the state’s tobacco tax an additional $1.50 per pack. This bill was the subject of a recent Los Angeles Times article.

SB 601 (Padilla)

SB 601 seeks to strengthen existing law governing the issuance of tobacco retail licenses by establishing restrictions on license eligibility and prohibiting tobacco from being sold within 1,000 feet of schools.

SB 602 (Padilla)

SB 602 seeks to strengthen current tobacco laws aimed at reducing illegal sales of tobacco products to minors by requiring the state tobacco licensing authority to revoke or suspend retail tobacco licenses upon a recommendation of tobacco enforcement agencies.

SB 602 also seeks to prevent the proliferation of tobacco retail outlets in California communities by allowing over-concentration to be a condition for license denial.

SB 603 (Padilla)

SB 603 caps the number of new retail tobacco licenses that may be issued annually and requires tobacco retailers to pay an annual license renewal fee.

Press Release: Bass, Steinberg Move Quickly to Head Off Cash Crisis, Make Budget Process More Transparent

2009-05-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

Editor's note: The following press release, distributed yesterday, describes how the legislature will approach the unfortunate task of figuring out exactly which essential services the state can no longer afford in the wake of this week's election results.

SACRAMENTO – Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) held a news conference today to announce measures that will help quicken the process to solve a looming $21 billion state budget deficit and head off a cash shortage for the state expected in July. Additionally, they announced measures to make the process more transparent than in previous years and include more legislators and public input in the process.

“The budget process will be completed quickly to help prevent a potential cash-flow shortage in July and to reassure the federal government and private investors that California is a safe investment,” Bass said. “This conference committee will be different than in the past. It will include more members’ points of view and it will be far more open to the public and transparent than in previous years.”

“Beginning today, the Legislature will work diligently in an open, transparent process to balance our budget and address a looming cash shortage in July,” Steinberg said. “I have great faith in the Senate and Assembly conferees to get this job done in the most responsible way possible.”

Measures to make the budget conference committee process move quickly and be more open include:

The announcement that the budget conference committee will be made up of five legislators from both the Assembly and Senate instead of the usual three. Assemblymembers Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who will chair the Conference Committee, Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) and Senators Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Hills) will sit on the committee. Assembly Republican appointments to the Conference Committee are still being finalized.

Plans in both houses to quickly move a spot budget bill (SB 61) on Thursday morning (May 21) that will be used to establish a budget conference committee

Conference committee hearings on the governor’s May Revise proposal, unlike previous years. The conference committee will essentially be tasked with closing the $21 billion budget gap

May Revision hearings directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee

Conference Committee reconciliation of differences in actions taken by the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees in their hearings since the budget was enacted on February 18. There are not a lot of significant issues (given that the 2009-10 budget was already enacted). Most of the work and actions of the budget subcommittees in each house have been on proposals that were rejected in the February budget deal “without prejudice” (i.e., Gov’s proposals that didn’t actually deal with closing the budget gap), as well as some special fund issues, and oversight issues.

Public and Televised budget conference committee meetings

Conference Committee public testimony, particularly on May Revise proposals, as well as other suggestions on how to close a $21 billion budget gap, unlike past years

Budget conference committee focus on cash shortage issues

The budget conference committee schedule will be as follows…

May 21 - Conference Committee will begin with overview of the budget from the Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office

earlier than usual, and May Revision will be heard directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee

May 22 – Hear from the State Controller and State Treasurer on the state’s cash issues. (and DOF and LAO).

May 25-28 – Conference committee will use its meetings to get public testimony. Each day will be a different subject (i.e., education, HHS, etc.), and the schedule will be published in the Daily File. This will give the public a chance to comment on the Gov’s May Revise proposals, as well as suggestions for how the Legislature and Governor should close the $21 billion budget gap.

June 1 – Traditional Conference Committee action hearings begin to review the specific proposals of the Administration, and getting the LAO critique. Conferees will also consider the suggestions of citizens and groups who provided testimony during the public testimony days (week of May 26).

The goal is to have the conference committee finish its work by mid-June and put out proposals to the floor to amend the 2009-10 budget package, and to get those passed and in law prior to the start of the fiscal year (July 1).

Below are links to audio from today’s news conference.

Speaker Bass’s entire opening statement to the media at today’s post-election/state budget news conference. (4:12)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass.mp3

Speaker Bass says the voters sent a message by defeating the budget related measures on yesterday’s ballot. (:39)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass1.mp3

Speaker Bass says there is no doubt spending cuts will be part of the budget solution. (:24)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass2.mp3

Speaker Bass says there will not be any additional federal money coming to deal with the state’s financial crisis. (:16)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass3.mp3

Speaker Bass says eliminating the two-thirds budget vote requirement is something to consider in the future, after the current budget crisis is resolved. (:10)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass4.mp3

Speaker Bass says the sale of state assets will not happen fast enough to deal with the current budget problem. (:14)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass5.mp3

Speaker Bass says Democrats are also looking for more ways to improve the economic climate, such as the housing and entertainment industry tax credits. (:20)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass6.mp3

Pro Tem Steinberg says the vote shows people want the legislature to do the job and it will be done. (:39)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7B2C5E4B44-1346-4ABA-8B20-669C100AFE2F%7D.MP3

Pro Tem Steinberg says there will be serious cuts but the majority party will try hard to uphold Democratic values. (:41)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7BA2D2C5CB-6EAC-40A7-A433-6B1615CE0E75%7D.MP3

Pro Tem Steinberg says there are three reasons the legislature must act quickly. (:32)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7B0A9A66B5-E25D-4C63-894A-C72D7DB30CF2%7D.MP3

Click onto the following link for pictures of today’s news conference:www.asm.ca.gov/speaker/media

Website of pro Tem Darrell Steinberg: http://dist06.casen.govoffice.com/

Website of Speaker Karen Bass: www.asm.ca.gov/speaker

###

big, BIG trouble

2009-05-20T08:34:00.001-07:00

It appears that irony knows no bounds when it comes to California politics. Yesterday, an electoral landslide was supposed to send a clear message to our state legislators. The only message that got through was that those without something better to do than vote in the election (according to the paltry 22.4% statewide turnout reported by the Secretary of State, there were a lot of better things to do yesterday) are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. As emotional and powerful as that message is supposed to be, it certainly loses its effect when it lacks anything resembling a mandate for legislators to go back and fix this budget mess in a manner of which Californians approve. With the thorough crash and burn of Propositions 1A-1E (none of the measures were able to muster more than 38% of the vote) our legislators should understand that Californians are not happy with how things are being done in Sacramento. Unfortunately, voters failed to send anything close to a clear message about how they would prefer thing be done.

As a result of yesterday's special election, California lawmakers must return to a bargaining table that must seem all too familiar by now, to hammer out a deal that closes an unfathomably unreasonable $21 billion budget gap. They are going to have to negotiate a compromise that is tolerable to Republicans who are frequently threatened by their own party if they appear to be amenable to even the slightest rational increase in revenue generating taxes. They are going to have to strike a deal that is tolerable to Democrats, who were sent to Sacramento to protect (and hopefully improve) the services government provides for Californians. They are going to have to agree on a budget, which in the past has proven, shall we say... difficult. They are going to have to do this absent any lucid direction from voters.

In addition to Tuesday's election kicking our budget crisis from the frying pan, directly into the fire, the message sent by the few voters who actually showed up to vote is dangerously ambiguous. Because of the confusing and occasionally counter-intuitive nature of the ballot measures, voters were not able to send a clear message to legislators regarding how they want them to approach the daunting task of resolving the unending budget fiasco. For instance, a voter who voted "no" on the measures because they were displeased with the way the initiatives were placed on the ballot, could have their "no" vote interpreted as a vote against the extension of tax increases. A voter who was voting to protect money set aside for First Five Commissions and Prop. 63 Mental Health services could have their vote interpreted as a vote in favor of cutting state-funded services across the board. Yesterday's rejection of these convoluted and complex initiatives allows legislators to manipulate the "message" they were supposed to be receiving into whatever mandate they would like, in order to justify the actions they are about to take to deal with the budget deficit. As confusing as the text of the ballot measures was, the unclear message sent by the overwhelming denial of the initiatives is equally baffling. Worse, it is dangerously malleable.

Those that voted yesterday tried to send a message. I am afraid, however, that the only message that will get through will be whatever those that got us into this mess in the first place want it to be. Simple put- we are all in big, big trouble.

Initiatives on May 19 Special Election Ballot May be Imperfect, but they are Also Imperative

2009-04-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

As a political science major in college, an employee of a public affairs firm and a political junkie (read: nerd) I am familiar with the history of scare tactics in political campaigns. I know that in 1964, voters were urged by Lyndon Johnson’s campaign to vote for Johnson because the “stakes were too high.” (Here, “stakes”=a nuclear holocaust rudely interrupting the flower picking of an adorable child). I know that in 1988, voters were encouraged not to vote for Michael Dukakis because doing so risked making them susceptible to horrific scenarios involving African-American convicts, rape and murder. I know that these ads were as successful as they were despicable. Those that have taught me these things that I know have relayed the information as a warning, as the example of how even dedicated and otherwise decent people can stoop to unimaginable lows when a race they care about hangs in the balance. The package of ballot initiatives placed on the May 19 special election ballot raises an interesting question, which got me thinking of these infamous examples of political campaigning: when is it okay to scare people to the polls?

As a young Democrat who was born in California, who went to public schools in California, who drives on California’s roads and who is planning on living in California for the foreseeable future, I am quite frankly terrified of the repercussions of Propositions 1A-1F failing. The likely scenario facing Californians if Prop. 1A-1F do not pass is a genuinely scary thing and I am afraid that those aware of these grave consequences will shy away from communicating the importance of approving these measures because doing so may seem to some like standard scare tactics.

The proposition of facing dramatic further cuts to essential services provided by our state, when we are already seeing the drastic impacts that budget cuts have on each California citizen, simply put, is terrifying! Artificially generating fear in order to win votes is reprehensible, but ignoring and downplaying the truly terrifying scenario that awaits every citizen of California if these initiatives do not pass because you don’t want to be accused of fear-mongering is just as counter-productively misleading.

This is a special election in the middle of a year that has already asked some voters in the state to venture to their polling place multiple times and will continue to hold elections to complete a perpetual game of political musical chairs. It is unfortunate that it virtually requires a team of vaqueros to get voters to the polls in municipal, primary and non-Obama related elections, but that is the state of the democracy in which we live. The expected low turnout for this special statewide election makes every vote all the more important. If 50%+1 of the voters who show up to be counted on May 19 do not understand the gravity of the budget situation in our state, if the majority of those voting do not approve the package of initiatives placed on the ballot as the result of budget negotiations in Sacramento, we are all in a lot of trouble.

The doomsday scenario was laid out in a Los Angeles Times article earlier this month:

“The six ballot measures include several that would combine to pump nearly $6 billion into the state's 2009-10 spending plan. Even with that revenue, the plunging economy has already dug a potential $8-billion hole in next year's budget. If the propositions fail, the state could face a $14-billion deficit that would grow by an additional $16 billion if Proposition 1A doesn't pass, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office.”

Thanks to Prop. 13, the Legislature needs 2/3 majority to approve new taxes, and the cannibalistic fringe Republicans are revenge-by-way-of-recall hungry enough to make the 2/3 vote necessary to close this gap with sensible levies an impossibility. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass put it bluntly in the same Times piece: "If these initiatives do not pass," she said, "we are looking at cutting $14 billion in programs."

$14-billion!?! $14-billion!?! In what world is cutting $14-billion in essential state services not terrifying? Casting a vote which will result in an additional $14-billion in cuts from state programs such as higher education, public schools, transportation, the prisons and healthcare, all programs that are already confronting crises due to insufficient funding, is unconscionable. These essential programs wait blindfolded and smoking cigarettes while a firing squad readies and aims. People voting “no” on May 19 may as well yell “fire” instead.

Those that oppose the package of initiatives seem eager to cut off their collective nose to spite their face. I agree that there are flaws a plenty within each of these measures. There are flaws in the series of events leading up to the slim approval of the initiates in the legislature. There are flaws in how the measures propose to narrow our budget gap. There are legitimate reasons not to be head-over-heels in love with these initiatives. What there is not, however, is sufficient cause to oppose the result of a compromise when the consequences of opposing it would be catastrophic. Propositions 1A-1F may be imperfect, but they are imperative to the future of our state.

This election absolutely cannot be a referendum on the legislature. We should all be upset that the ideological entrenchments of Sacramento legislators got us into this mess in the first place. We should all be mad that gerrymandered districts have allowed the furthest-reaching flanks of each party to elect representatives who will vote without foresight or conscience because term limits encourage them to act as if they are applying for their next job and not as if they were sent to Sacramento to be responsible representatives of their constituents. We should all be upset. What we should not do is vote down these propositions because we don’t like who put them on the ballot. There needs to be systemic change in the way our state operates, but that is not what the May 19 election is about. We will have our opportunity to demonstrate our frustrations when we are asked to vote for our state representatives in 2010, doing so now would be catastrophic.

The Democratic majority in our state needs to make some noise. There is an election on May 19 and if we don’t show up and approve Propositions 1A-1F, we are going to swan dive from the precipice of the frying pan, head-first into a raging inferno from which I am not entirely sure there is a foreseeable escape. If for no other reason than you are scared of what will happen if you don’t, please vote “yes” on Propositions 1A-1F on May 19.

LACYD Endorses Propositions 1A-1F

2009-04-16T23:20:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats voted to endorse Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F at the organization's April 16 general membership meeting in El Serreno.

Each individual measure received the more than 51% of the 115 votes cast necessary to ratify the executive board's recommendation of support.

For more information regarding the initiatives, please visit the campaign's web site.

LACYD Legislative and Political Committees Meet to Discuss Special Election Ballot Initiatives

2009-03-26T10:57:00.001-07:00

On March 25, the LACYD Legislative and Political Committees met to discuss and offer a recommendation regarding what position the organization should take on the ballot initiatives that will appear on the May 19 special election.

In order to help us parse through the confusing set of initiatives placed on the ballot as a result of the recent budget compromise in Sacramento, a representative from the Budget Reform Now campaign took time to present to the committee and explain why these propositions are necessary. (Though there is no formal campaign opposed to the initiatives, an invitation to the meeting was extended to groups that have voiced opposition. The groups never responded to the invitation.)

Video from the presentation follows. Scroll down to read the committee's recommendation.

Budget Reform Now Representative Explains Props. 1A and 1B.

Here is the chart used in the presentation:
Prop. 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F videos coming soon...

Committee Recommendation

After the presentation the committee discussed what we had heard and came to a "begrudgingly unanimous" recommendation of support for the entire package. While parts of the package are not perfectly in line with LACYD's Platform and we of course detest the idea of limiting spending on necessary programs such as education, the consequence of not approving Propositions 1A-1F is too frightening a prospect to ignore. In an ideal world, state revenues would allow education, mental health and first five programs to be fully funded. The perennial Mexican standoff that is our state's budget negotiation process clearly reveals that this is not an ideal world. Propositions 1A-1F will not solve the budget crisis but they will help.

The LACYD Legislative Committee and the LACYD Political Committee recommend a position of support for Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F on the May 19 statewide special election ballot.

LACYD Legislative/Political Committee Meeting This Wednesday

2009-03-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

The next LACYD Legislative Committee meeting will be Wednesday, March 25 at 7 pm. Dante Atkins, the LACYD Political Director has generously offered to host the meeting at Atkins Research Group, (4929 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 102, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Free street parking is availalbe on Highland, north of Wilshire.)

The meeting will be a joint Legislative/Political committee meeting and our primary focus will be discussing the initiatives placed on the ballot for the May 19 statewide special election as a result of the recent budget compromise.

Brendan Huffman, a representative from the Budget Reform Now campaign will be in attendance to speak and answer some questions about the confusing initiatives. Though there is no formal opposition campaign to the package of initiatives yet, invitations to the meeting have been extended to groups that have declared formal opposition.

After hearing from Brendan (and possibly a speaker against the initiatives), we will discuss the ballot and vote on a committee recommendation for an official LACYD position to the Executive Board. Anybody interested in becoming a member of LACYD is encouraged to attend the meeting, though only active, dues-paying members of the organization can vote on the committee recommendation.

This should be a great opportunity to learn about the propositions and sound really smart when your friends ask "what the hell is going on in our state?" I hope to see you there.

Please RSVP to LACYDlegislative@gmail.com or on Facebook if you plan to attend. Thanks you.

LACYD Joins Assembly Member Curren Price Jr. at Press Conference/Rally in Support of AB 30 & AB 106

2009-03-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

Our current and immediate past LACYD presidents shared the dais with Assembly Member Curren Price Jr. at a press conference/rally in support of AB 30/AB 106 today at Loyola Marymount University. The crowd was mostly made up of students from area high schools- most of whom would be able to pre-register to vote if AB 30 becomes law.

I would tell you more about how well the speakers articulated the need for these bills, but then you wouldn't have any reason to check out the videos below... enjoy.

LACYD President Katherine Hennigan address the rally to discuss LACYD's support for AB 30, AB 106 and Asm. Price:

LACYD President Emeritus Becca Doten (here representing LA City Councilmember Richard Alarcon) speaks about the Councilmember's support for the legislation:

LA City Attorney Candidate Jack Weiss Speaks to LACYD

2009-03-13T12:54:00.000-07:00

LACYD-endorsed City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss spoke at the LACYD General Membership meeting in Silver Lake last night. While Weiss' brief comments are not specific to the LACYD legislative committee, I wanted to post the video anyway because, hey, video!

Seriously though, Weiss has the experience as a federal prosecutor and the Democratic ideals necessary to make a great City Attorney for Los Angeles. LACYD is proud to support his candidacy and work to get him elected.

AB 30/AB 106 Rally and Press Conference with Assembly Member Curren Price Jr. @ LMU on Wednesday, March 18

2009-03-11T07:49:00.000-07:00

The title of this post pretty much sums up its purpose- letting you know about the upcoming rally concerning two LACYD-sponsored pieces of legislation.

On Wednesday, March 18 (that is one week from today in the event you are reading this the day it is posted), Assembly Member Price will host a rally/press conference at the St. Roberts Auditorium at Loyola Marymount University to discuss AB 30 and AB 106. Asm. Price will be joined by students from LMU and high schools in Assembly District 51 as well as other elected officials, community members and LACYD Executive Board members. The rally is scheduled from 12:15 - 1:15 pm and the address is 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

LACYD was one of the first sponsors of AB 30, the 2009 version of Price's AB 1819 from 2008 (AB 1819 was vigorously supported by LACYD last year). The bill would allow for 16 and 17 year olds who will be eligible to vote when they turn 18 to pre-register to vote. Their registration would automatically kick-in once they turn 18.

This is a simple and direct way to increase the ranks of registered voters in California. As we saw in the 2008 Presidential election, young people have finally begun to take an active role in shaping the future of our country. When I volunteered out of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley Headquarters in the weeks leading up to the Novermber 2008 election, there were droves of engaged teenagers showing up to walk precincts and distribute information, despite not being able to register to vote themselves. AB 30 would allow these politically active teens to pre-register to vote when they are engaged in a popular political movement, thus increasing the number of registered voters in California.

AB 106 also seeks to increase the number of voters who are registered to participate in the democratic process. If passed, AB 106 will automatically register eligible California citizens to vote when they apply for a California driver's license or identification card or when they file a state personal Income Tax Return.

It is a simple equation:
democracy = good
more opportunities to participate in democracy = more opportunity for good
more registered voters = more opportunities to participate in democracy
AB 30 & AB 106 = more registered voters
AB 30 & AB 106 = good

Agree? Disagree? Comment on this post below.

LACYD Submits Letter of Support for ACA 2

2009-03-10T08:00:00.000-07:00

The following letter declaring LACYD's formal support for ACA 2 was submitted yesterday:

March 9, 2009

Honorable Warren T. Furutani
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055

Dear Assemblymember Furutani:

It is with great pleasure that I write on behalf of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats to express our support for ACA 2, a which will allow 17-year-olds who will be 18-years-old by the time of the general election to vote in interceding primaries, municipal, and special elections.

Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressman Henry Waxman, Congressman Howard Berman, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, Los Angeles County Young Democrats is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues.

Existing law allows 17-year-olds who will turn 18 by the date of the general election to register and vote in that election, but prohibits these same 17-year-olds from voting in the corresponding primary or special elections. Consequently, they are prohibited from voting for the nominees who will appear on the general election ballot.

ACA 2 would bring California up to date with eight other states, Indiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, Maine, Kentucky, Ohio, Nebraska, and Virginia. This practice resulted in a higher voter turnout among the 18-24 year-olds demographic in these states.

We look forward to supporting this measure as it progresses through the Legislature.

Sincerely,

Katherine Hennigan
Preident
Los Angeles County Young Democrats

How You Can Support the LACYD-Endorsed California Dream Act (SB 160)

2009-03-09T18:15:00.000-07:00

The California Dream Act will be heard in the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday, March 18.

Please take a moment to call the members of the committee to let them know that as a member of LACYD, Senator Gil Cedillo's SB 160 has your support and deserves theirs. Phone numbers and a brief script (courtesy of the Power and Unity Coalition) follow:

Senate Education Committee Members:
Sen. Romero (Chair): (916) 651-4024
Sen. Huff (Vice-Chair): (916) 651-4029
Sen. Alquist: (916) 651-4013
Sen. Hancock: (916) 651-4009
Sen. Liu: (916) 651-4021
Sen. Maldonado: (916) 651-4015
Sen. Padilla: (916) 651-4020
Sen. Simitian: (916) 651-4011
Sen. Wyland: (916) 651-4038

Call Script:
Hello, my name is ______________ and I am calling on behalf of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats to urge Senator (Senator's name) to vote "yay" on Senate Bill 160. SB 160 will allow California students to apply and compete for institutional financial aid; funds that AB 540 students contribute to through their tuition.

Thank you for your time, and please urge the Senator to vote YES on SB 160.

- # # # -

Though the fact sheet isn't online yet, the following was forwarded to me along with the request for calls to the Senate Education Committee:

SB 160 (Cedillo) California Dream Act of 2009

Fact Sheet

What is the problem?

Under Assembly Bill 540 (Firebaugh, Chapter 814 Statutes of 2001) California’s undocumented high school students applying to public colleges and universities can receive in-state tuition. However, AB 540 students are not eligible for federal or state financial aid due to their immigration status. Combined with an inability to legally work and the skyrocketing costs of education, the lack of eligibility for financial aid makes higher education virtually unattainable for too many of these talented young Californians.

What does SB 160 do?

The California Dream Act-SB 160 would establish greater access to higher education for undocumented students who have completed high school in California by allowing them to utilize the postsecondary systems’ institutional financial aid program.

SB 160 extends eligibility of undocumented AB 540 California students and U.S. citizens to apply and compete for institutional financial aid administered at California public colleges and universities (i.e. State Universtity Grant, UC Grant, scholarships, work study, and loan programs).
Students would apply without the use of the Federal Application for Student Aid (FAFSA).
SB 160, unlike previous years, does not authorize the Board of Governors Fee Waiver at California Community Colleges.

The measure will help alleviate significant financial challenges many of these talented students face in pursuing a higher education in California. SB 160 would help ensure that many hardworking AB 540 students would be able to realize their dream of attending college. These students have built their lives in California and equipped with a high quality education, will be critical to maintaining the state’s competitive edge in the increasingly global economy.

As U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, author of earlier versions of the federal DREAM Act, has said, "Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As [undocumented] immigrants, they cannot work legally. They are also effectivey barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuin higher education. In short, although these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss for them, and what a tremendous loss to our society."

LACYD Endorsed Legislation

2009-03-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

Since the beginning of the year, the legislative committee and executive board of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats have voted to support the following pieces of legislation:

California State Legislature:

AB 30 (Price)
Assembly Bill 30 is the 2009 version of Assembly Bill 1819, which was introduced by Assemblymember Curren Price Jr. in 2008 and was supported by LACYD. Like its predecessor, AB 30 will allow for 16 and 17 year olds in the State of California to pre-register to vote. Eligible 16 and 17-year old Californians will complete voter registration forms which will be kept on record and automatically enacted when the voter turns 18 and is legally eligible to vote. This bill is an excellent and proactive way to expand the ranks of registered voters in California and LACYD is proud to be one of its first endorsers.

AB 106 (Price)
Assemblymember Price has also introduced AB 106, which will allow for Californians to be automatically registered to vote when they apply for a state issued drivers license or when they file a state tax return. This is the second bill introduced by Assemblymember Price in 2009 that seeks to enable all Californians to participate in our democracy. LACYD supports AB 106.

SB 160 (Cedillo)
SB 160 is the California Dream Act- another bill which has been reintroduced in 2009 that LACYD supported in its previous version. The Dream Act, introduced again by Senator Gil Cedillo, will allow every U.S. citizen and undocumented “AB 540” student to apply for non-competitive student aid at California public colleges and universities. The Dream Act is an absolutely necessary piece of legislation that LACYD resolutely supports. Our state is losing some of its most talented young thinkers to a policy prohibiting financial support for their higher education. SB 160 can stop this unforgivable policy and must be approved.

ACA 2 (Furutani)
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 2 was introduced by Assemblymember Warren Furutani. The simple, direct and necessary amendment to the state constitution will allow 17-year olds who will be 18 and eligible to vote at the time of the next general election, to vote in the corresponding primary or special election. If young voters are going to be able to vote for a candidate in a general election, why shouldn't they be able to help decide what their options will be? If you are noticing a pattern in the first few bills endorsed by LACYD in 2009 (and you should be), you should check out the platform posted below. "LACYD seeks to engage young adults in the political process." Assemblymember Curren Price's AB 30 and AB 106 help achieve this goal and so does ACA 2. LACYD supports ACA 2.

2009 LACYD Platform

2009-03-08T22:14:00.000-07:00

The following platform was approved by the Los Angeles County Young Democrats on February 18, 2009 after input and collaboration by the Legislative Committee and Executive Board.

Mission Statement

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats are dedicated to empowering young people to engage in the democratic process through education, opportunity and action in order to strengthen our influence in politics and policies that affect our lives.

Pursuant with this mission, the Los Angeles County Young Democrats does hereby adopt the following Platform in order to guide our organization as it confronts issues and challenges in the coming year.

Civic Participation

LACYD seeks to engage young adults in the political process. LACYD supports efforts which will increase participation in democracy by encouraging voter registration, participation, legislative and political advocacy, and civic volunteerism. LACYD seeks to share the connections, expertise and idealism of its membership in order to help young adults take ownership of the political process.

Economy

LACYD seeks to foster a strong and stable economy by supporting programs and initiatives that encourage sustainable growth, cooperative partnerships between labor unions and businesses, support and expand opportunities for local businesses, drive technological and environmentally friendly innovation and invest in job training and vocational education that will build a strong, skilled workforce.

Education

LACYD supports measures that will improve the quality of education in California from pre-school through higher education and vocational training programs. We support increased access to colleges and universities, keeping the cost of education to students reasonable and affordable, ensuring that quality teachers are hired to educate California’s youth, and protecting the financial resources of state and local school districts. We further support measures which would increase opportunities for after school programs.

Environment

LACYD supports measures that will lead to a clean and safe environment, which is vital to the sustainability of our society. LACYD will support efforts to reduce pollution, advocate smart growth and development, encourage conservation and the efficient use of our natural resources and pursue the advancement of alternative and renewable fuels and technologies.

Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Civil Rights

LACYD supports the protection of equal opportunities and civil rights for all and seeks to promote equal access to a fair legal system, health care, housing, education and equal marriage rights for everybody. LACYD will promote the rights of all Americans to vote, have their voice heard, and be free from oppression.

Health Care

LACYD supports measures which seek to ensure that necessary health services are provided for everyone. We believe that everyone deserves health care (including medical, mental, dental and vision care) as a fundamental right. LACYD believes it is important to continue to fight for equal quality, affordability and access to health services for all, the protection of patient rights and reproductive choices.

Labor Rights

LACYD supports and promotes the right of workers to form a union free of fear and coercion. LACYD further supports measures which ensure and protect the right of workers to collectively bargain for a contract that meets the needs of both workers and their employers.

National Security and International Relations

LACYD seeks to promote national and international security and engender peace at home and abroad by supporting the protection of democracy and democratic institutions, promoting strong international diplomacy, confronting terrorism and its root causes, and providing access to basic resources and human rights for all. LACYD supports the standards of the Geneva Convention as well as other international laws of war and diplomacy. LACYD supports measures which ensure that communities are free from institutional oppression and intimidation.

Transportation and Infrastructure

LACYD views our transportation network and basic infrastructure as the foundation of a functioning urban society. We support prioritizing and investing in public and alternative transportation, transportation oriented development and to improving basic infrastructure in order to reduce congestion and improve regional mobility.

- # # # -

Welcome

2009-03-08T22:04:00.000-07:00

Thank you for visiting my attempt to publish information about the LACYD Legislative Committee. There will be information about the committee, our meetings and advocacy efforts for LACYD endorsed legislation soon, but for now, I thought this would be a good place to start:

I have always wondered: did the Kool-Aid man steal his "Oh Yeah" catch phrase from the bill in this video or was it the other way around? (pay attention at the 2:02 mark and again at the very end of the video)