Thanks to Republicans in the state legislature who shut down budget negotiations with a last-minute ransom list of 53 demands - including ideas which will worsen the situation by $4 billion – schools across California may have no choice but to start massive layoffs of teachers.

This doesn’t have to happen.

Revenues already in place could’ve saved these jobs and other devastating cuts to critical social services, public safety and important state infrastructure. A June special election brought to the voters could’ve extended these temporary revenues in time for our schools to put their funding in place for the fall.

But time is running out and it may be too late already. Reasonable voices need to prevail.

Take time to write a letter to the editor today!

Our schools can’t wait for power plays by GOP politicians in Sacramento who are seeking, among other things, “a $1 billion tax break for giant companies that keep jobs out of California,” according to Governor Jerry Brown.

Even more Republican obstructionism:

• A small group of zealots, led by State Sen. Tony Strickland (SD-19), has vowed to keep voters from deciding for themselves whether or not they want to save public education and other essential services.
• Radio ads, funded by a group associated with billionaire polluters the Koch brothers, and voiced by Ventura County Supervisor Peter Foy, have castigated Republicans who dared to negotiate with the governor.

Please take the time TODAY by going here to write a letter to your local newspapers announcing your strong opposition to these devastating cuts. Place the blame exactly where it belongs: in the lap of GOP legislators.

We’ve made it easy for you to write a letter with our online tool.

Baloney, Tony. Let the people vote.

There’s been a lot of speculation around the Capitol over exactly what motivated the 30 Republican lawmakers to form a new “taxpayers caucus” last month led by state Senator Tony Strickland (R – Moorpark).  The group is dedicated to fighting Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to put taxes on a June ballot unless there’s an accompanying ballot measure that would let voters choose to lower taxes by the same amount.

Every one of those legislators had already signed the Grover Norquist “taxpayer protection pledge” where they promised to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” So why did they need another, new pledge?

This move on the part of Strickland, coupled with close ties to Meg Whitman (who was soundly rejected by Californians) and his loss in last year’s state Controller’s race, are beginning to lose him support with local & influential Republicans.

Read more in the San Francisco Chronicle –

This week the legislature is poised to make critical decisions which will affect the very fiber of the state’s ability to educate our children and provide critical and life-saving services. Without extensions of current revenues, the state’s deficit will need to be closed with an additional $13.5 billion in cuts, on top of the nearly $13 billion in cuts already proposed.

A gang of 30 Republican legislators, headed by State Sen. Tony Strickland (SD-19), has turned its back on the state’s most vulnerable citizens, who will be most affected by these devastating cuts. Strickland and his pals have formed a group dedicated solely to keeping the voters from deciding for themselves on extending the revenues. They have sworn allegiance to anti-government crusader Grover Norquist and his irresponsible organization over the people of California.

“Legislators beholden to Norquist’s pledge don’t deserve their jobs,” the Arizona Daily Star wrote.

The loss of this funding which is already in place will force the state’s K-12 schools, colleges and universities to make even more painful cuts after years of decimation. School districts are preparing for the worst with thousands of layoff notices going out to teachers. Social services to the elderly, poor and disabled will be slashed even further.

This doesn’t have to happen. Take action today and contact your legislators by clicking here.

From the Sacramento Bee:

“…The Taxpayers Caucus is the brainchild of Sen. Tony Strickland, a Ventura County Republican. Strickland and the 29 other Republican legislators who joined the caucus vow that they won’t vote to place Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to extend or raise about $11 billion in taxes unless Brown agrees to place a competing measure to cut taxes by a like amount.

Strickland figures voters would vote to cut their taxes. He’s probably right. He also is being irresponsible. His vision would require billions more in cuts, and he offers no clue how he would make such reductions. …

…Strickland is in his first Senate term, having served six years in the Assembly, after having worked for Tom McClintock. McClintock, now a member of Congress and similarly anti-taxation, lives in Elk Grove, but represented the same Southern California district as Strickland when McClintock was a state legislator.

Republican leaders praise Strickland for opposing taxes, though he cannot seem to survive without the taxpayers’ largesse.”

Experts have estimated that without current revenues which could be extended by the voters in June, California’s schools stand to lose between $300 and $1,000 per pupil, depending on various budget scenarios.

Already state and local funding for schools has been cut by more than $18 billion in the past few years, almost $2,000 per student. More than 30,000 teachers have been laid off. Higher education has also taken intolerable hits.

Republican legislators in Sacramento, headed by Ventura County’s State Senator Tony Strickland (SD-19), have launched an effort to keep a ballot measure away from voters that would keep these devastating cuts from our classrooms and other important state services. These legislators must vote to place the extensions on the ballot.

Tell your legislator NOW that you want the chance to decide for yourself on the future of California’s public schools.

What would these cuts look like? Here’s a possible scenario:

Shortened school years, massive teacher layoffs, elimination of class-size reduction programs, bus transportation, school counselors, art programs, sports programs … and the list goes on. These losses are very real and imminent as our governor has promised an all-cuts budget if revenues are not extended.

“They might as well shut down the schools in April,” Superintendent John Porter of the Franklin-McKinley School District in San Jose told the Mercury News.

Public polling has shown that the voters don’t want our children’s future taken away by these devastating cuts. These voters deserve the opportunity to make this decision.

Please contact your state legislator NOW by following this link. Our children’s future is in your hands.

Yesterday we reported that Tony Strickland will pay a $3,000 fine for violation of state campaign law.  Today we hear that Audra Strickland, soon to be ex-assemblywoman, appears to be in violation of the city ordinance prohibiting campaign signs earlier than 45 days prior to an election [TOMC 9-4.2304(d)].  Yesterday an Audra Strickland for Supervisor sign was spotted at the ExxonMobil gas station at 45 N Reino in the Newbury Park neighborhood of Thousand Oaks.

We’re sure that it is just a coincidence that the first sign to appear is on the property of one of her campaign donors, but careless disregard of the law seems to be a recurring theme with Audra and Tony.  Candidates need to keep in mind the best interests of the community and not on what will leverage a degree of political advantage in a contentious campaign.

Republican Tony Strickland will be fined $3,000 for violating state campaign law.  The fine stems from a negative attack mailer against then-opponent Hannah-Beth Jackson in 2008.  Strickland, a career politician, failed to disclose the source of the mailer.  According to the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Strickland should have known better stating the omission was, “at worst intentional, at best negligent.”

Strickland, who has been fund raising for former Goldman Sachs board member Meg Whitman, wants to trade in his senate seat for a run for State Controller.  Given his history of reckless, even illegal campaign practices, some would question his suitability for higher office.

On Tuesday, Meg Whitman issued MEG 2010: Building a New California, and she laid it on the line about taxes: “We simply cannot afford a big, across-the-board tax cut that would irresponsibly grow the state’s already over-sized debt level and drop our bond rating to junk status.”  Instead, we should totally eliminate the state tax on capital gains.

We should do so because “California is one of a few states in the country that doesn’t tax capital gains at a lower rate than traditional income. This is double taxation at its worst. California’s tax treatment of capital gains is a major impediment to capital formation and investment in new jobs. We should align California’s tax treatment of capital gains with other competing states.”

Her statement has a nice read, but in actuality forty-one states tax capital gains at the exact same rate as “traditional income.” Only nine tax capital gains at a lower rate.

Meg’s statement in not only misleading, but is an outright deception on her part.  Sounds like Meg is already taking advice from her pick for Controller – Tony Strickland.

“Because we all love California too much to let it fail.” Something Meg Whitman likes to say every few minutes on TV.  She spends her millions trying to convince Californians to trust her better judgment and believe that she can bridge the divide.  Then she goes and taps Moorpark’s own Tony Strickland to run for State Controller on her slate.

State Controller, you say?  I know I want someone in that job who has a track record of being owned by big tobacco, indian gaming, and health insurance companies. Someone who literally has taken his party’s lead on halting bi-partisanship in Sacramento and who is ready to give up his state Senate seat after just completing his first year.  A career politician who has virtually no record of accomplishment.

Doesn’t that make you feel a lot better about her choice?  What on earth was Meg Whitman thinking when she made this decision?