Month: July 2017

My wife’s father told her that she needed to have a major in college that would lead to a job at graduation. In those days the cost of college, while not cheap, was not something that was an undue burden on families. Today, however, American families have taken on more than $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, and in 2016 the average college graduate (by a conservative estimate) is $30,000 in debt. In one respect this debt might be worth it if there was a guarantee of future payoffs, but the New York Federal Reserve Bank says that about 40% of recent college graduates are “underemployed”, often for a long time. Even more disturbing is that in 2010 more than 15% of college graduates were taxi drivers! Now I have nothing against taxi drivers, but driving a taxi in order to try to pay off a student loan?!

Strike one!

 

What is wrong with this picture?

Are too many college students getting “useless” degrees?

Are we sending too many kids to college?

The answer is “Yes!” and “Yes!”

 

Obviously the payoff benefit from a college degree is going to depend on the what the degree is in, as electrical engineers will earn significantly more than psychology majors. However some degrees seem to be very close to the precipice of “totally useless-I need to get a job as a bartender” degrees. Would someone please tell me the marketability of a degree in Gender-Studies or Anthropology. . . other than teaching future students Gender-Studies or Anthropology?

Strike two!

 

However, the real losers however are those individuals who start, but do not finish college, as they do not have a degree, but they still have to payoff the loans. A recently released study by National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that of those first-year college students in 2015 only 61% returned to the same school and only 73% returned to any school in 2016. Remember that those who do not return to school are still responsible for paying off what they have borrowed.

Why do they not return? While there are many reasons I surmise that most were ill prepared for college in the first place, and perhaps were encouraged to go to college by well meaning advisors, friends, or family members.

Strike three!

 

Why did they not opt to learn a trade before wasting a year in college and incurring debt? As Marco Rubio has said, “We need more plumbers, and less philosophers.”

It is predicted that there will be a shortage of skilled tradesmen in the next 10 years. At present there are about 13 million Americans enrolled in four year colleges, while only 0.5 million apprentices in training to become skilled tradesmen. According to The Federalist there are millions of unfulfilled jobs for skilled workers across the country at a time that labor participation rates are hovering at a four decade low.

Barack Obama was trying to facilitate sending more people to college, and the only thing he was successful at was piling-up student debt and ensuring an over supply of taxi drivers and baristas. Luckily B.O. is out!

Now batting . . . Donald Trump!

 

Mr. Trump is a good pinch hitter with a much better appreciation for the game. He will aggressively swing the bat and has an experienced knowledge of the strike zone in the Major League of real business – unlike his predecessor who looked like he was playing whiffle-ball.

President Trump thinks that the answer to helping these unemployed or underemployed youth is to make it easier for them to go into vocational trades.

Fulfilling another campaign promise on 6/15/17 President Trump signed an executive order to encourage more apprenticeship programs for workers.

He was quoted by the Washington Examiner as saying, “We will be removing federal restrictions that have prevented many different industries from creating apprenticeship programs.”

Those knowledgeable fans are already cheering – anticipating a Home Run!

 

 

Dear Mom,

Well The Jamboree is almost over, and even though I am tired, I wish that it could last for another few weeks. I do miss you and Mad-Dog, and okay I guess I miss my sisters maybe a little, but being here with Dad, Mr. Rauch, and my Boy Scout friends has been an awesome experience. The food has been crazy good, even tho the cookies are not as good as yours lol. It’s the activities that have been really great. I really liked the white water rafting and the rock climbing, but the Zip-line was savage. Unfortunately, each scout could only do it once, but I am already planning on doing it again the next time I come in a few years.

Tonight I’m in my tent, and writing this letter by flashlight. None of us, including Charlie & Dec, are able to sleep even though it is well past lights out, cuz of what happened this afternoon. The President was here. The President spoke to a huge crowd of us scouts this afternoon. I got to see Donald Trump in person, it was lit. He gave a great speech, and we were standing for the entire thirty-five minutes. The applause almost constant and the chanting (“USA, USA” and “We love Trump”) was hecka loud. He talked about how many of his cabinet members were ex-scouts, including Vice President Pence. He emphasized doing what you love to do, finding your passion, and not giving up. Yes, I know that you and Dad have said the same thing to me, but coming from The President – well that was dope! He also talked about momentum and told a story about some guy that I didn’t know who had lost his momentum and consequently did not do well at the end. He emphasized over and over how the Boy Scouts were the future of this country as we believe in putting America first. He said, “Just like you know you can count on me, we know that we can count on you”. He also said a lot of other stuff, but I was too wired to remember much else.

After the speech I was shaking with excitement for a long time. In fact, I was so fired up that I had a hard time eating supper tonight. At supper our Scout master predicted that the papers and the TV coverage would find fault with the speech, as they always seem to do with anything Trump these days. It will be interesting to see if he is right. Even Dad, never a Trump supporter, said that he loved the speech, and that it was better than both the Bush junior and the Clinton speeches that he had heard at past Jamborees. He also said – are you ready for this – that he would probably vote for Mr. Trump on the next go round! #Trump2020.

I am finally starting to get a bit tired, and so I will stop now. I can’t wait to tell you, Grammie, and Auntie Jill & Uncle Johnny more about the speech on Saturday when Dad & I get home.

Luv,

Your son,

Jake

P.S. We have a bunch of pictures to show you guys.

 

“Now I lay me down to sleep, and pray the lord my soul to keep.” If you listen very hard you may hear this child’s prayer emanating from Sacramento each morning at the opening of the daily Legislative session. Are they sleeping? It often seems like it. Are they praying? I doubt it, but sometimes one wonders if praying is an integral part of their long-term strategy.

The latest boondoggle is $3 billion in rebates for buyers of electric cars. Of course this makes perfect sense to our Democratic Legislators, as the buyers of electric cars are the more affluent, so why not give them more money in the form of rebates?! Their recent new gas tax will be a burden on most Californians, especially the poorest in the state, so why not pile the gasoline taxes on those who cannot afford electric cars.

How much is this going to cost the taxpayers of California? . . . Who knows? – Certainly not those in the legislature who voted “yes.” This lack of foresight is common in Sacramento especially those who cook up the budget. There is often a lack of a long term recipe – just keep adding some of this and more of that to the budget, and hope that the cake turns out okay!

Recently I read about an article in the journal, Science,that was talking about the ability of corvids (ravens, crows, jays, etc.) to plan ahead. Ravens showed they could plan for the future instead of just acting on urges. Furthermore the ravens would pass up an immediate reward if they could get a better one by waiting a while. When I read the summary of this article I wondered, “What if there was a way to get some of that raven DNA into these Democratic California congressmen/congresswomen.”

I fantasized, “What if . . . ?”

What if they thought about the devastating effects on the poorer working class before they raised the gas tax?

What if they considered the effects of their increased regulations before businesses left the state?

What if they ever thought about the deleterious effects on the education of poor inner city children, before they consistently backed the teachers’ unions?

What if they realized the disastrous effects on our public school systems, before they championed California as a sanctuary state?

As I daydreamed, I came up with a possible solution:  What if we were to import a large number of ravens into downtown Sacramento?Maybe this would be a way to get raven DNA into (onto) the California Legislature.

Just think how wonderful life in California could be if those in the legislature could actually think ahead?

What if . . . ?

 

“I’m off to see the wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz . . .”

I would guess that most everybody remembers the Wizard of Oz, the 1939 movie starring Judy Garland as Dorothy, Ray Bolger as the scarecrow, Jack Haley as the tin man, and Bert Lahr as the lion. It probably would have won the Academy Award for the Best Picture, except for the fact that Gone With the Wind was also a 1939 film. To refresh everyone’s memory, Dorothy and her dog, Toto, were just trying to get back to good old Kansas. The scarecrow needed a brain. The lion was searching for courage. The tin man was missing a heart.

As I thought about this movie, I wondered, “Are there similarities to today’s political landscape?”

The Emerald City of Oz could be Washington D.C., and the Wizard could be the president, as was theorized many years ago. Could there be more?

Kansas could represent the good old U.S.A. The tornado that ripped through Kansas in the movie is the 2016 presidential election that took Dorothy (a typical American) into a strange and unknown place. All Dorothy wanted was to get back to good old Kansas (“there’s no place like home”) with Auntie Em and Uncle Henry. In my Wizard of Oz allegory, the Wicked Witch of the East and the Wicked Witch of the West are the coastal elites and their left leaning newspapers and liberal T.V. networks.

So far, so good, but then I began to have a bit of difficulty.

Initially I thought obviously the scarecrow would have to represent the Democratic politicians, as if they have a brain, they rarely use it. But upon further consideration, the way the Republicans have handled this whole health care debacle is certainly indicative of their need of a brain, similar to the scarecrow. Without question the Republicans are the personification of the cowardly lion. They would not recognize courage if they accidentally bumped into it. However, then I was left with the tin man who was missing [a] heart? As was pointed out in The Wall Street Journal by Fred Barnes the Republicans certainly have no heart, as having heart is the sine qua non of teamwork, which seems sadly to be lacking on the Republican side of the aisle.

So after much personal deliberation, I think that the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, deserve the Oz trifecta as they have no brains, no heart, and NO COURAGE!

Let’s say that UCLA and USC were engaged in a tight football game that was coming down to the last play. USC was behind by two points and was going to kick a field goal which, if successful, would give them the win. The kick was . . .

The attempt was wide, and so it appeared that the game was over. However, the officials (coincidentally all USC alumni) huddled up and decided to change the rules, so that now the new rules allowed a second field goal try if the first try was not good! The president of USC called this decision “eminently reasonable”, and so USC got another try. The (second) kick was . . .

Would anyone think that it was ethical to change the rules in the middle of a game?

Would anyone think that the officials vote to change the rules was reasonable?

Would anyone think that the opinion of the president of USC was unbiased?

To any rational person the answer to the above questions would be not only “NO”, but “HELL NO!”

However, welcome to California politics! Here on the left coast questionable ethics in politics are not unusual as the members of the Democratic legislature are able to convince each other that just about anything is permissible . . . as long as it is for the good of the home team (the liberal agenda).

In this fictional football rivalry, USC represents the democrats in California, who were favored to win this home football game being played in the L.A. Coliseum. The game officials represent the California Democratic Legislature, who feel entirely comfortable changing the rules in the middle of the game. In California, the Democrats in the legislature feel that it is okay to pass a bill    that changes the rules involving the recall vote of Josh Neuman      (D-Fullerton), even after the requisite number of recall signatures had been collected. Ethics and what is fair are no longer considered, as the important thing is to try to make sure that USC wins (that the Democratic super majority in the California Legislature be maintained).

The president of USC is being played by non-other than the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, who has long ago abandoned any pretense of understanding what “eminently reasonable” actually means. Although he had promised not to raise taxes without a vote of the people, he and his Democratic underlings did just that with their recent gas tax. And to make his definition of “eminently reasonable” even more unreasonable, he is poo-pooing the recent poll by the Institute of Government Studies at U.C. Berkeley that found that the majority of registered voters in California are opposed to this Democratic tax increase.

Now back to the football game. During the game when the UCLA students in the crowd were complaining about some of the calls being made by the officials, the officials had some of their friends escort the complaining students out of the stadium. Now certainly nothing as ludicrous as this could happen in the real world . . . Could it?

In California the answer is, “Yes, as nothing is too far fetched for the Democratic politicians.” In fact, the California Democratic Party (friends of the officials of the football game) have just sued three Cal State Fullerton students for working on the collection of the signatures for the Josh Neuman recall. Amanda McGuire, Brooke Paz, and Ryan Hoskins (UCLA students in our fictitious football game) have been sued by the California Democratic Party because they “misled” the voters. I suppose that if they feel justified in changing the rules of the game as it is being played, what difference does a lawsuit make? – especially if it involves young students whose only crime seems to be that of not agreeing with the game officials!

Welcome to football (politics) California style!

And the kick was . . .

In California politics it really doesn’t matter, as the rules will just change to benefit the Democratic home team.

 

No, the title is not a misspelling. For those of you who are not in the know, ‘doxing’ is the exposing the personal identity of an internet user for a malicious purpose. That is what CNN threatened to do to the individual credited with the Reddit anti-CNN video tweeted by Donald Trump. After CNN initially said that the President was “inciting violence” against the media, they then threatened to dox the Reddit user who created the video, but not without significant backlash . . . Oops!

So “What’s Up?”

Certainly not CNN ratings, which are tanking. Last week, in prime time CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Don Lemmon fell below ‘Nick at Night’ which was showing Yogi Bear and old sitcom reruns! In fact, CNN fell to #13 in overall cable ratings – behind blockbuster stations such as USA, ESPN, FX, the History Channel, and the Discovery Channel!                                                                                      Of course, Fox News was #1, but CNN at #13! . . . Oops!

Oh how the mighty have fallen! – but why? Well, in my opinion, the answer is twofold. One reason is “Fake News”. Certainly by now everyone has heard this Trumpism, and many may feel that this has been exaggerated. But read on, as I list just some of the Fake News that CNN has tried to push just in the last few weeks.                                                                                                                                              Three of CNN’s top journalists “resigned” after publishing a story that turned out to be untrue. . . Oops!                                                                                                            This was before CNN’s top editor tweeted and then promoted a video that was supposed to show Poland’s First Lady dissing Mr. Trump – but wait,a wider view showed that this was not true. . . Oops!                                                                Again on July 4th CNN came out with a quote (that was directed at President Trump), from Abraham Lincoln, “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.” Only one problem . . . Lincoln did not say it!  . . . Oops!    Also on the same day CNN attributed a quote to Benjamin Franklin,that was said by some Englishman . . . Oops!

Of course, the CNNers will say that these are merely small missteps. However, the dilemma for us T.V. viewers is if there are falsehoods consistently on CNN, how do we know when they are actually telling the truth?

Unfortunately for CNN, it is not only the Fake News that is turning off its viewers, but its programming agenda is getting really old. Even CNN’s Alisyn Camerota is bemoaning CNN’s “Russia fatigue”, as on her 7/12 show 93% of the air-time was Trump-Russia related. An Iowa radio news director emailed CNN media reporter, Brian Stelter, on 7/13/17 to tell him that the conservatives are “very angry” at the legacy press as they are using Russia stories to “oust” and delegitimize Donald Trump. In working class areas of Pa., Oh., Wi., Ky., and Tn there are similar opinions. Likewise a recent Harvard-Harris poll that showed that 2/3 of Americans think that there is a campaign to delegitimize President Trump, and CNN is one of the prominent anti-Trump mainstream media megaphones. . . Oops!

Has CNN made a conscious business decision to be anti-Trump? The Trump people certainly seem to think so. On CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s morning show on 7/10/17 Kellyanne Conway said, “You’ve made a business decision to be anti-Trump” and on 7/11 Sebastian Gorka (Trump National Security aide) told CNN, “You are not in the news business anymore; you’re in the attacking President Trump business.” No one from CNN appears to be refuting such statements!    Is this a business decision? If so, . . . Oops!

As CNN now seems to appeal only to those on both coasts, it makes one think, “does CNN now stand for Coastal Negative (anti-Trump) Network?” (Notice that I did not include the word, News, in my new ‘CNN’.) Even at my gym where you have a true cross section of Californians, no one is any longer using the machines that are in front of the T.V.s that are tuned in to CNN. What’s up? Could there yet be hope for the Golden State?

 

 

Well it’s happened again. Another study demonstrating the downside of the minimum wage increase – this time from a group at the University of Washington.
As I have asked multiple times in the past, “Do Democrats purposely do things that will hurt the poor the most?” . . . or. . . Are Democrats just dumb? Do they purposely embark on crusades that will have the outcomes opposite to what they say that they will have? Lest you think that I am being snarky, recall that the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, was far from affordable – in fact it is the dramatic rise in the cost of health insurance that is leading to its demise.
This leads me to one of the recent liberal crusades, the minimum wage; the increase of which the Democrats say will be beneficial for the poor. Just like the Affordable Care Act is not affordable, the increase in the minimum wage is not beneficial for the poor.

On 6/26/17 The National Bureau of Economic Research, in a new paper, notes that Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance has lowered low-wage employees earnings by $125 per month in 2016, as they are no longer working as many hours as they used to. The Seattle Times reported that there would be 5000 more jobs in the city without the law. The response from low-wage Seattle workers to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

The most noticeable deleterious effects of the increasing minimum wage appear to be in the restaurant industry. New York State has lost approximately 1000 restaurants in the last year due primarily to the increasing minimum wage, and likewise in the winter of 2016-17 sixty-four San Francisco Bay Area restaurants have closed – again due to . . . you guessed it, the increasing minimum wage. The Harvard Business School stated that for every $1.00 increase in the minimum wage, there was a 14% increased likelihood of a medium-priced restaurant closing. They forecast that in the next two years the San Francisco restaurant industry would shrink, and workers thus would lose their jobs. The response from restaurateurs and their employees to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

Not to be left out the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said that with the increasing minimum wage that approximately 500,000 workers across the U.S. would lose their jobs. All of these potentially soon unemployed workers should say to the Democrats, “Thanks for your help, but please butt out!”

The American Enterprise Institute (using stats from the Bureau of Labor) recently said that the rising minimum wage has been disastrous for black male teens. The unemployment rate for this group has gone from 28.1% (May) to 40.1% (June) – the largest monthly increase since 1972. The Foundation for Economic Education’s Mark J. Perry connected this higher jobless rate to hikes in the minimum wage in fifteen states and cities across the U.S. The response from black teens to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

The prominent black economist,Thomas Sewell, has said, “Low income minorities are often hit the hardest by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum wage laws.” Perhaps the low income minorities should say to the Democrats,”Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

What you have to understand is that this is not rocket science!
It is basic economics that the Democrats refuse to try to understand.
N.B. If you artificially increase the cost of labor beyond the market value, businesses must pass this increased operational cost to employees (less hours, less benefits, or less jobs) or to customers (increased prices or decreased quality of goods), and when the prices go up or the quality goes down, the customers don’t come back, and so the restaurant has to close.
Again, not rocket science!

Is it possible that perhaps the Democrats do actually understand economics, but for whatever reason continue to push policies that hurt the poor!? How, when they continue to do the same thing, could they believe that the results would be different?
It seems to me that we are increasingly hearing the Democrats again implying that they know best, and they are, in effect,saying to the economists, “We don’t want your help, butt out!”

Apparently Al Franken (D,MN) has some concerns over the psychological state of President Trump. It is difficult to be sure if Mr. Franken is serious or if this is merely some comic relief from his usually tedious speeches. This astute commentary is from an ex-SNL writer and performer, who has demonstrated that anything is possible in the state of Minnesota. Unlike Franken, I do not have any concerns about Donald Trump’s sanity, however I do have some serious concerns about the mental stability of Governor Jerry Brown of California, because some of what he says and some of what he does appear to run counter to reality.

First, his newest pet project – an increased gas tax. Remember that he has been California’s governor now for six-plus years. Are we supposed to believe that “all of the sudden” the infrastructure is in dire need? How did all the money that was supposed to be allocated for infrastructure disappear? Where did it go? Does he not remember that when he was running for governor, he proclaimed that he would not raise taxes without a vote of the people? Starting in November of this year, it is going to cost Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for gas even though at present they already pay about 30% more for gas than the national average.
Legacy or lunacy?

Speaking of costing more money, housing prices in California are 230% of the national average, and more people are leaving the state than are coming. Those that are leaving are predominately those who earn $100K – 200K, and these are the people that will be needed to sustain the economy and pay the taxes in the future. This, per se, is not Jerry’s fault, but the increased taxes and regulations (lunacy) are all his, and this exit of thousands could be his legacy!

Let’s move on next to Governor Brown’s worshipping at the altar of climate change. As it stands now, by 2030 California will be required to produce 50% of its electricity from renewable sources. Does it make any sense for the state of California to change the way it gets its electricity, if the rest of the U.S., or the world is still using fossil fuels? Remember that this form of Brown’s hero worship is going to costs Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for their electricity.
Legacy or lunacy?

Next on the list is Brown’s “twin tunnels” which at this point appears to be a $17B boondoggle. At this point it still has a long way to go, but in the end, if it goes forward, it is going to cost many Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for their water – this so that environmentalists can save some shrimp!

Finally, the “bullet train to nowhere.” It will cost billions to complete and if it is ever finished, the polls show that few plan to use it. In a state that has so many problems, why would you spend billions on this boondoggle? Some postulate that this could be his legacy project, but I contend that his nickname, “moonbeam”, has already sealed his lunacy legacy!

In my opinion the three best 30 minute TV sit-coms were Seinfeld, Mash, and Friends. I recall an episode of ‘Friends’ in which Chandler was about to marry Monica and thus was moving out of the apartment that he and Joey had shared for a long time. Chandler did not think that Joey could afford to pay the rent and the utilities, etc. and so he tried to give Joey $1000. Joey would not take charity, so Chandler invented a game through which he could ‘slip’ Joey some money without Joey feeling that he was a charity case. It was a card game that Chandler called “Cups”. As you might recall Joey was lovable but dense and Chandler had to ‘teach’ him how to play. On the first hand Chandler dealt himself 2 Queens, while Joey got a 7 and a 3 . . . and Chandler said something like, “Wow, that’s the second best Cups’ hand; you win!” They played for increasing amounts of money, double-or-nothing, etc. As the game progressed, Chandler made up increasingly more ludicrous rules, but he had to in order to be sure that what Chandler wanted to happen, would happen.

Alas, there another Chandler-esque card game, called “Pea-Knuckle” that is also played with some bizarre rules:
the deck had 48 cards instead of the usual 52 ,
you deal 3 or 4 cards to each player at once instead of one at a time
there is “Trump”, “marriages” (K-Q), and “Royal Marriages” (K-Q of Trump)
the highest card is an Ace, but then the second highest card is 10
a “pea-knuckle” is Jack of diamonds-Queen of spades , while the  9 of Trump is called a Dix.

Interesting and perhaps nostalgic, especially if you had watched Friends, but what does Pea-knuckle and Cups have to do with anything?
Both appear to be games with very “unusual” rules, but while Cups  was a fiction of Chandler’s imagination, Pea-Knuckle (Pinochle) is a real game.

Follow me with this analogy:
Let’s compare Chandler to ex-President Obama, who in essence, made up the rules as he went along. He appointed czars – many more than any other past president . . . a czar for this, a czar for that, etc. He made up what in essence were like laws that he did not submit to Congress (guidelines for who could use which bathroom; guidelines for how to handle illegal immigrants; guidelines on how to handle perceived sexual misconduct on college campuses). He entered into obvious treaties (The Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal) that he said did not have to be ratified by the Senate, because they were not treaties!?
In essence he made up his own rules, and all of the Joeys did not know any better.
He ‘knew what was best’, and if he had to invent stuff . . . so be it, as the rules  were never written down.

Pea-knuckle (Pinochle), however, is a real card game with its rules written down. In fact the rules are explained in detail in many books, including Bicycle Official Rules of Card Games which is analogous to the Constitution in real life. Though the rules appear complicated, the Constitution (the book of official rules) can be read at any time so that anyone should be able to ascertain exactly what the rules are. There is no “making it up as we go along”, as there was with Cups. The present president had not played pinochle before January of this year, but his advisors are very familiar with the rules of the game, and he appears to be a quick learner!
Unfortunately there are people out there (liberal judges) who are supposed to be familiar with the real rules according to Hoyle or Bicycle, but who seem to be intent on making up their own rules.
However at tournament time (there actually is a “World Series of Pinochle”), the Supreme [Court] judges will be familiar with the real rules and the Constitution will prevail.
Too bad for Joey, but good for America, and the rule of law!

I presume that you are getting bored with my recurrent theme that “Democrats seem intent on doing things and passing laws that harm the poor the most”.
Well here we go again!

First a little background. In 2010 the Parent Empowerment Act (aka Parent Trigger Law) was passed in California. This allows parents of students in low performing public schools to change the administration typically by changing the school to a charter school. Actually with at least 50% of the school’s parent’s signatures, the parents can opt for a replacement of the school’s administration, replacement of the entire staff, or conversion to a charter school. Actually this is one of the few good laws that every so often come out of Sacramento, as it attempts to insure that the state does what is best for the children.

Palm Lane Elementary School in Anaheim, Ca. has approximately 700 students, mostly Latino, with >50% “English learning” students, and it qualified as an academically low performing school. In 2015, Cecilia Ochoa and 67% of the parents at Palm Lane Elementary voted to petition to have the school converted to a charter school because of its poor performance. To a novice, this would seem to be the perfect situation for the Democrats to stand behind the poor Latino immigrants, their ‘compadres’.

But wait!! . . . as now begins the all-to-familiar saga of the progressives doing all they can to actually keep the poor and the down-trodden . . . poor and down-trodden.

The Anaheim School District denied their petition, and in 2015 Orange County Superior Court Judge, Andrew Banks, found that the district’s rejection of the parent’s petition
“procedurally unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious”, and he ruled in favor of the parents. The attorney for the parents summed it up nicely when he said, “[this is about] low income parents who wanted to do something about a chronically failing school, but instead they found a hostile school district trying to find every way to stop them”.
Interestingly, the “progressive activists” in Orange County were either apparently silent or voiced active opposition to the parents, while local Anaheim elected officials, Kris Murray and Lucille Kring (both Republican), championed the parent’s cause.

As you would expect, the Anaheim School District appealed, and on 2/23/2017 the case went before California Court of Appeals. Perhaps with the long delay before the Appeals Court trial, the Anaheim School District figured that the original parent litigants would have given up as their children possibly would have moved on to middle school.
In late April, 2017 the three judge panel on the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Palm Lane Elementary School parents, however, after the verdict, Supt. Linda Wagner said that she did not “anticipate any changes for the 2017-2018 school year”. WTF!!
Is it over?
Is it possible that the Democrat-controlled Teachers Union . . . er . . . The Anaheim School District will next appeal the verdict to the California Supreme Court?
Perhaps the Anaheim School District is still intent on going against the spirit of The Parent Empowerment Act, and will still try to do what is best for the Teachers Union rather than what is best for the children.
Keep in mind that cost of a continuing litigation is seemingly no object to the Anaheim School District as thus far the school district has spent $778,176 on this case in order to insure that the poorly educated Latino students at Palm Lane Elementary continue to remain poorly educated!
Stay tuned!