| Click the button below to search for articles... View News Items from prior months... June 2021 July 2020 June 2016 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 July 2013 June 2013 March 2013 February 2013 November 2012 October 2012 August 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 November 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 February 2010 January 2010 | The Conservative Corner By Gail M. Ellingwood Made in the U.S.A. On the heels of celebrating our nation's birth, it seems fitting to visit a topic that has concerned me of late. If you talk to my friends and relatives, they might even tell you that I am a bit obsessed with this particular subject: how difficult it is to find things made in the U.S.A. While this is probably not news to any of you, I would love to hear from you on this topic, particularly if you have found solutions. An email I received recently only fueled this obsession for me. It advocated a one month boycott of goods made in China, stating, “…simply choose another product, or none at all”. This is easier said than done. Once you start reading labels which I have only recently begun to do, the “none at all” option is often the only solution, there being no alternatives. After a little research, I found that this is not a newly circulating email. In May of 2011, Snopes.com posted that this email has been circulating “since early 2009 without gaining much traction or interest with the dates of the proposed boycott being continually pushed into the future, so it does not so far appear to have been a particularly effective call to arms.” However, on February 28th 2011, Diane Sawyer launched ABC World News' “Made in America” Challenge and reported that “Economists say if every one of us spent an extra $3.33 on U.S.-made goods every year, it would create nearly 10,000 new jobs in this country.” The downside is that you must spend much more than that if you make a concerted effort to buy American. There is a Catch-22 or vicious circle built into the system, thanks in large part to American unions pricing their labor out of competition. Add to this that some opine that “the Chinese manipulate their currency, called the Yuan. They peg their currency to the dollar. It is estimated that the Yuan is under-valued by 40%. This makes Chinese goods less expensive than what they should be and more difficult for American manufacturers to compete with China and actually costs us jobs.” These people also believe that there are “quality and safety issues with Chinese products”, something borne out by the recent outcry associated with lead paint on children's toys. I am not an economist and can't personally validate any of the above claims, but recently downloaded a report updated by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 for members of Congress entitled “Is China a Threat to the U.S. Economy?” to try to understand some of these issues on an intellectual level, rather than a knee jerk reaction level. Obviously, conditions have changed with our current debt crisis and China owning so much of our debt, and I am still looking for something more recent that addresses these changes. On a personal level, the practical side of trying to buy American is frustrating. At a recent visit to a large, popular sporting goods store, I systematically canvassed the women's clothing department and found only two blouses that were not made in China; they were made in Vietnam. In some cases, I have had to refine my desire to buy American to buying non-Chinese made. As long as quality and price are in line, I have found that I don't feel as bad about buying from developing countries that don't have the stranglehold on our economy that I perceive China to have. On a trip to Ft. Bragg last month, I found a women's clothing store that sported an “all U.S.A. made” sign in the window. The quality was high and so were the prices, supporting my earlier theory that American labor may not doing itself any favors. At the dawn of the industrial age, unions were valuable protectors of the health and safety of workers. My personal opinion is that in many cases, they are now protectors of unsupportable salaries and bad politics. (Reread the part where I said, In my opinion and in many cases…) Nevertheless, I bought about $300 worth of clothes because I believe it is time to put my money where my mouth is. If I don't take advantage of buying American when and where I can, I am forced into the uncomfortable position of needing an article that I buy against my conscience and it doesn't feel good. To reflect back on the ABC story mentioned above, I just paid 10 times my $3.33 share towards 10,000 new jobs. I hope those clothes last a long time. In a valley in the Ouachita Mountains in eastern Oklahoma. On my walk today, I saw cranes, snapping turtles, puppies, butterflies, horses, burros, new born calves, wild daffodils, and scissor-tailed flycatchers (state bird of Oklahoma). Sunny, breezy and in the 70’s this picturesque place definitely qualifies as a retreat. Today’s column is going to be a bit longer than usual as I have provided some text from the California Election Codes at the end for reference. Please bear with us as this is a discussion that is likely to cover several issues. Please email us at conservativecorner@yahoo.com or blog us at SierraBooster.com. Please maintain civil discourse. Redistricting I wonder how many of you know how important this word is to your life here in Sierra County. According to 21500 of the California Election Codes cited below, redistricting is the process used after a census, in this case the 2010 census, to “adjust the boundaries of any or all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be…” Gerrymandering “is the unfair practice of drawing district lines to achieve political gain for legislators. Districts are drawn every ten years based on population counts collected by the United States Census. The practice of gerrymandering involves the manipulation of district drawing in aims to leave out, or include, specific populations in a legislator's district to ensure his/her reelection.” (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In a puzzling move at the last Sierra County Board of Supervisors meeting, the Supervisors appointed a group of County employees with respect to the redistricting effort consisting of the Assessor, the County Clerk and the head of the Dept. of Planning and Transportation. The vote was 3 (Chairman Adams, Supervisors Goicoechea and Huebner,) to 2 (Supervisors Nunes and Schlefstein). The committee, according to an email from Supervisor Huebner to one of his constituents, is “The first round of looking at the district[s]…getting all the information is done by staff, the Accessor, (his spelling) the Clerk Recorder and the Director of Public works, it has nothing to do with where their (his spelling) live, only what the job is. Once this information is available it will be presented to the board, and two Supervisor[s] will be with the commission (author’s emphasis) to finish the job.” Well, folks, there may be some problems here. If this is a commission, which Supervisor Huebner states in no uncertain terms that it is (see emphasis above), it violates 21502 below which specifically constitutes the commission as “the district attorney, who shall be chairman, the county assessor, and the county elections official if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the county superintendent of schools if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the sheriff.” (The only stated involvement of the county planning department in the Code is the preparation of population estimates.) In a conversation with the DA, he reported that he had neither been asked nor declined an offer to head a “redistricting commission”. If, on the other hand, this is a residents’ committee (see 21505 below), then Supervisor Huebner’s constituent is correct in asserting: “the east side of Sierra county is being mis-represented, this time in the case of not having anybody from the east side on the redistricting commission.” If Supervisor Huebner misspoke and it is not a commission, but a staff committee composed of some of the members who would normally be on a commission and some who wouldn’t, then it is extralegal. Extralegal is defined as “outside of legal control or authority; not regulated by law” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2010), and we, the citizens, don’t know what the heck the purpose is. At the risk of beating a dead horse, some say that there were issues with the last redistricting effort. Anyone looking at a map of the current Sierra County supervisorial districts might agree. In order to assure the citizens of the County that the upcoming attempt has value and is fully compliant with state law, we need answers to some questions that are already being asked. If you agree that there is some uncertainty in what your Supervisors are doing and you want to understand this very important process, call them, particularly the ones that voted in favor of this “committee”, “commission”, or whatever it is. Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE; SECTION 21500-21506 21500. Following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, the board shall adjust the boundaries of any or all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be and shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 1973 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as amended. In establishing the boundaries of the districts the board may give consideration to the following factors: (a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory, and (d) community of interests of the districts. 21500.1. The board shall hold at least one public hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of a district, prior to a public hearing at which the board votes to approve or defeat the proposal. 21501. The boundaries of the supervisorial districts shall be adjusted by the board before the first day of November of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken. If the board fails to adjust the boundaries before the first day of November following the year in which the federal census is taken, a supervisorial redistricting commission shall do so before the 31st day of December of the same year. The adjustment of the district boundaries shall be immediately effective the same as if the act of the supervisorial redistricting commission were an ordinance of the board, subject, however, to the same provisions of referendum as apply to ordinances of the board. 21502. The supervisorial redistricting commission shall be composed of the district attorney, who shall be chairman, the county assessor, and the county elections official if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the county superintendent of schools if he or she is elected by the qualified electors of the county, or, if not, the sheriff. 21503. At any time between the decennial adjustments of district boundaries, the board may cause a census of the county to be taken as provided in Section 26203 of the Government Code, and may adjust the boundaries of the supervisorial districts on the basis of that census, or on the basis of population estimates prepared by the State Department of Finance or the county planning department or planning commission, pursuant to Section 21500. 21504. Any person claiming that the estimates of population used in the redistricting pursuant to Section 21503 do not reflect the current population within the district boundaries more accurately than the most recent census data, may commence an action in the superior court in declaratory relief to determine that fact. The action shall be brought within 30 days after the adoption of the redistricting ordinance. 21505. The board may appoint a committee composed of residents of the county to study the matter of changing the boundaries of the supervisorial districts. The committee shall make its report to the board of its findings on the need for change of boundaries, and the recommended changes, within six months after the final population figures determined in each federal decennial census have been released, but in any event not later than August 1st of the year following the year in which the census is taken. Recommendations Published: 04/08/11 |