Occupy movement forms in San Bernardino

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer

Posted: 11/12/2011 04:12:09 PM PST

SAN BERNARDINO - The Occupy Wall Street movement has officially spread into San Bernardino.

Occupy San Bernardino held its first protest and general meeting Saturday outside City Hall in solidarity with members from other movements in the Inland Empire.

"This is not only a political movement as some would put it. It's a social movement in how we think and how we treat each other," said Hector Guzman, one of the founders of Occupy San Bernardino.

As its first movement action, Guzman and other activists closed their bank accounts with Bank of  America.

Members then marched around downtown, specifically in front of the three banks that sit adjacent to each other outside City Hall, chanting "we are the 99 percent."

Guzman, who is a college student, wanted to use the movement as a way to help his city, which has one of the highest unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in the nation.

"Every time I go to other area they're always talking about San Bernardino being one of the worse cities in the country," he said. "That right there is a big responsibility as an activist, for me as a citizen of this country to take action on that and try to make it better city and take it off the radar as one of the worse in the country."

Before getting started with the protest, founders of the San Bernardino movement, held their first general assembly and adopted a resolution of non-violence, similar to one adopted by Occupy Redlands.

Eleven activists in Riverside were arrested Nov. 5 after a clash with police.

"We feel it was important that everybody from the beginning was in consensus that we are a non-violent movement,"Guzman said. "That's in solidarity with all the movements around the globe. They are non-violent and to keep it non-violent because that is the power of this movement."

Mary Valdemar of San Bernardino, a member of Occupy Riverside, participated in the joint protest Saturday in support for Inland Empire's newest movement.

In San Bernardino, "most people are falling into the 99 percent category to the extreme where we have been impacted much more by foreclosures and so many businesses closed," said Valdemar, outside City Hall which is surrounded by vacant buildings, offices and a desolate Carousel Mall.

Valdemar, who works at a community college, said she personally hopes the movement will help open up higher education to students who are getting shut out.

But, the overall theme among movement activists is "change."

"Folks have a hard time kind of grasping that we don't have a campaign platform and we don't have a sound bite," she said. "But it's everyone whether they're conservative or liberal, old or young, tall or short, people of color or not - they all have one thing in common which is they see a huge need for change."

Kristie Sepulveda-Burchit of Ontario also joined the movement and looks for change in education.
"There needs to be change on a mass level," Sepulveda-Burchit said. "In this city along there is bloated bureaucracy of governmental agencies. I kind of sound like a tea partier talking like that."

As the mother of a special needs child, Sepulveda-Burchit said she is greatly impacted by the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Superintendent of Schools.

"I'm not talking about the teachers. I'm talking about the administrators," she said. "It's a bloated bureaucracy at both Inland Regional Center and the superintendent of schools, so I'm for changing that. I don't want to see teachers blamed for anything. They're used as a scape goat. That's not what I'm about."

Reach Sandra via email, call her at 909-483-8555, or find her on Twitter @UplandNow .

California Needs to Fund Public Education and Social Service

*California Progress Report*

Posted on 14 November 2011
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/printmail/9557

*By Amy Vanderwarker*, Critical Resistance *and* *Matt Haney*, University
of California Students Association

Last Wednesday night, more than one thousand students and campus workers at
University of California Berkeley held a day of action protesting budget
cuts and fee increases to build momentum toward a state-wide demonstration
at the UC Regents meeting on November 17th. Like other Occupy movements
around the country, the crowd was cleared with police violence and mass
arrests. The irony was not lost on one professor, who noted that the sharp
rise in student debt has occurred during a period where prison funding has
consistently been prioritized over funding for higher education.

Indeed, California is now a leader on two counts that don’t make any
resident proud: we have the largest prison population in the country, and
our public universities have hiked tuition the most of any state in the
country, 21% in the past year alone.[1] We now spend nearly equivalent
amounts of money on locking people in cages as we do providing
opportunities for higher education – 10.5 % of total state spending versus
12.7 %.[2]

There is a disturbing, inverse relationship to public education and the
number of people locked up in cages: our prison population and budget has
skyrocketed, while the amount of spending on public education has
plummeted. Spending on prisons has grown 1500% since 1980, while higher
education spending has dropped. Since 1980, our state built 1 university
and 20 prisons. K-12 faced a 10.5% cut in 2009-2010, and per pupil spending
has steadily decreased since 1980.[3]

Despite these deep cuts to public education, on top of similar cuts to
Health and Human Services and our social safety net, the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Governor Brown and County
Boards of Supervisors are pushing forward the largest prison building
project in the history of the world. In 2007, as the economic crisis was
starting to unfold in the boardrooms and trading floors of the 1%, and
predatory lending schemes were about to hit millions of Californians, the
state authorized AB 900, which called for $12.4 billion to build 53,000
more prison and jail cells, which will cost taxpayers roughly $1.5 billion
per year to operate. Our state prisons currently hold around 156,000
people,[4] and conditions are so atrocious that in May the US Supreme Court
ordered the population to be reduced.

Just over two weeks ago, as schools and universities across the state brace
for the possibility of devastating trigger cuts, CDCR asked for counties to
submit proposals to disperse $603 million in funds to build new jail
cells. The funding is part of Phase II of AB 900 and directly linked to
“realignment,” where the state is transferring the responsibility for
low-level prisoners to counties But instead of giving counties incentives
to provide alternatives to imprisonment or re-entry services, such as
educational opportunities that could strengthen entire communities in
crisis, the state is making it easier for counties to access AB 900 money
and only providing counties financial incentives to build more cells.

Where is our state getting money to build cages? Slashing the social safety
net and the budget for public education and tuition hikes. Budget cuts
figuratively, and literally, make students pay. Tuition at UC schools has
increased 200% since 2008.[5] UC President Yudoff has proposed increasing
tuition as much as 81%, in the face of a potential $2.5 billion dollar cut
to education this winter.[6] California Community Colleges faced a tuition
increase of 37% in 2011.

Let’s not forget the dollars that are often left out of the estimated costs
of public education: student debt. About 56% of students who earned
bachelor's degrees at public colleges in 2009-10 graduated with debt, with
an average burden of $22,000. In 2011, this number grew 5 percent, to over
$25,000.[7]

We spend a whooping $46,000 a year on keeping people confined, away from
loved ones and in atrocious conditions, while we spend a mere $8,908 a year
per youth in our elementary, middle and high schools. California leads the
nation in prison spending, but we rank 46th in terms of K-12 per pupil
spending. What would it look like if those numbers were reversed?

On November 9th and 16th, despite police repression, thousands of students
in California are drawing attention to the slashing of public education
funds through the ReFund Public Education Week of Action. Mobilizations are
happening on 16 campuses across the State including in Fresno, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Riverside which are also some of
the counties seeking AB 900 funding to expand their jails.

As part of the Occupy movement, in mobilizations and school walk-outs
across the state, people are saying no to public education austerity
measures, and identifying solutions for generating progressive revenue
streams in a time of economic recession: tax the rich and corporations, and
use public money to bail out residents, not banks and Wall Street firms.
The Occupy movement has mobilized tens of thousands of people to protest
the consolidation of wealth among a small group of people, the obscene
profits that corporations are making while everyday residents watch their
social services cut on a daily basis, and the use of public funds to prop
up these corrupt institutions.

Our list of demands needs to include cutting prison spending first, not
last, and making those cuts by sending people home with strong re-entry
services, not making conditions inside even worse. California needs a
prison and jail construction moratorium now, or we will never have free
higher education. Just as the 99 percent says that it is time for banks and
corporations to pay, it is time for California to get our priorities
straight: fund public education and social services, not prisons.

For more information, check: Berkeleycuts.org http://berkeleycuts.org/
utotherescue.blogspot.com, reclamationsjournal.org,
www.makebankspaycalifornia.org, www.curbprisonspending.org

Riverside County: Inmates to be charged for incarceration

Full article here

A proposal requiring inmates in county detention facilities to reimburse the county for the cost of their incarceration was unanimously approved this week by the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance requires a final approval from the board before going into effect and county officials said inmates could see charges in the next few months.

“We’d like to see them have it tomorrow,” said Vern Lauritzen, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone’s chief of staff, about the charges.

“As far as Riverside County is concerned, gone are the days where you can commit a crime and get a free ride,” he said. “It’s also going to cost you to stay at our hotel.”

The ordinance comes as part of Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone’s June proposal to have inmates repay the county for a number of expenses. RECORCE, or Require Every Convict Occupant Reimburse County Expenses, would bill criminals who spend a day or more in jail the $142.42-per day cost of incarceration, Lauritzen.

“This is not a stop the bleeding program and not a revenue generator,” Lauritzen said. “The justice and court systems are very expensive unrecoverable costs and we’re just trying to recoup those costs.”
Lauritzen said if the county is able to recoup from 25 percent of those booked, in a year’s time, there would be the neighboring of about $7 million recovered.

He added that the county is seeing the effects of Governor Jerry Brown’s realignment program, AB 109, which went into effect Oct. 1 and shifted state responsibility for low-level offenders to counties.
But RECORCE would serve as the recouping method to it, Laritzen said.

Lauritzen described how a Riverside County judge recently sentenced a man on drug charges to 14 years in county jail instead of prison due to the program.

“Because of the realignment program, it’s costing us $700,000 to house him,” he said. “That’s just one guy. It’s a significant amount of funding and we are going to attempt to charge the criminal.”

The courts would decide if a convicted criminal would have the funds to repay the county and the jail reimbursement fee would be among the last on the priority list of other fines required to be repaid, Lauritzen said.

Anyone jailed but not convicted of a crime also would not be liable for the cost of their detention, county officials said.

The probation department would be responsible for the collections, which would be deposited into the county’s general fund, Lauritzen said. The department will study the effectiveness of the program after one year.

The ordinance is expected to be formally adopted by the board after a final hearing next week.

Sacramento County Supervisors OK $13 million realignment plan for inmates

Sacramento County supervisors approved a $13 million plan Tuesday aimed at handling criminal offenders diverted from the state. 

Supervisors voted 4-1 to endorse the plan completed by a committee of county law enforcement and social service officials. The committee approved a mix of incarceration and rehabilitation programs but was narrowly divided on the plan's inclusion of reopening part of the county jail at a cost of $6 million for almost nine months.  Supervisor Phil Serna was the only board member to oppose the plan. He said he couldn't support it because too much funding was directed toward the jail.

The plan calling for the shift was created by Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and approved by the Legislature. The action came after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in May requiring that California reduce the population in its 33 prisons from about 142,750 to 110,000 by June 2013.

Counties started receiving offenders Oct. 1. The counties are receiving two types of new offenders – parolees who previously would have been supervised by the state, and inmates who previously would have been sentenced to state prison.

No current state inmates will be transferred to the counties for incarceration.  The Probation Department gets responsibility for parolees. The department received $4.2 million for a day reporting center, which will provide services including counseling.

The Sheriff's Department gets responsibility for the inmates. The department received $8.5 million for the jail expansion, a home detention program, and a pretrial release program. Sheriff Scott Jones said he anticipates having nearly $500,000 available because of opening part of the jail later than originally expected.  That money will go to a contract for inmate programs aimed at rehabilitation, Jones said.

The department is opening 275 beds at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center.  Reopening the facility is expensive because its old design requires more personnel than more modern facilities, such as the downtown jail, officials said.

Hands Off the 99%

Today a group of 12 Members of Congress known as the "Super Committee" is holding an invitation-only public hearing in Washington, D.C., about deficit reduction. On the table are big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Click here and send a message to each member of the Super Committee: Don't cut the 99% - tax the 1%.

Republican right-wingers are trying to use the deficit reduction talks to further their extremist agenda to end Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know them. The best way to reduce the deficit is to close corporate loopholes and tax the 1%, and polls show this has the overwhelming support of the public - even including millionaires. But Republicans aren't interested in doing what's right - we have to make them.

America's middle-class didn't cause this economic meltdown, and we shouldn't be the ones to foot the bill for getting us out of it. It's time for Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and Big Oil to pay their fair share. Send a message to the Congressional Super Committee today: Hands off the 99%, and no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The GOP leaders and their cronies on the Super Committee are trying to hold the deficit talks hostage in an attempt to destroy the American Dream for the rest of us. Fight back and send a message today.

P.S. Join us in Washington DC on November 4th for the Occupy the Kochs: Guerrilla Drive-In.

Disappointing Reports of Deficit Plans from Super Committee Democrats and Republicans

After weeks of behind-closed-doors discussions among the dozen members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, last week reports began to emerge about a proposal unveiled by a majority of the panel’s Democrats and another plan put forward by its Republicans. Neither plan has been made public and reports are that both were discussed without benefit of details in writing. But this much seems reliable: the Democratic proposal offered $1.3 trillion in revenue increases, far less than the earlier bipartisan Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six plans, and Republicans were quick to reject even that much revenue.

Both plans would reduce the deficit by much more than the minimum $1.2 trillion called for in the Budget Control Act (the deficit reduction law passed in August). The plan offered by a majority of the Democrats on the Committee would save about $3 trillion over 10 years in addition to the $900 billion in appropriations cuts already scheduled. The Republican plan would save $2.2 trillion, with almost no tax increases but including $640 billion described as new revenues (some seeming much more like benefit reductions – see below).

Spending Cuts in the Democrats’ Plan: The plan presented by Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) on behalf of a majority of the Democrats on the Joint Select Committee [although publicly opposed by one of its members, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC)] included $1.3 trillion in spending cuts in addition to the $900 billion in appropriations cuts already agreed to. The $1.3 trillion in cuts include $475 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, $425 billion from other mandatory programs, and $400 billion from other discretionary programs (annual appropriations), according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As reported, the nature of the proposed spending cuts is causing anger and disappointment among many advocates. The cuts to Medicare are said to include $200 billion in beneficiary cuts. Since most Medicare beneficiaries have relatively low incomes (half have incomes below $21,000), higher payments or reduced services will compromise older people’s ability to cover their health care and other needs.

A big part of the other mandatory spending cuts comes from cutting Social Security benefits over time by reducing the cost of living increases based on inflation calculations. This change (a proposal called the “chained Consumer Price Index (CPI)”) would shrink Social Security payments more and more over the coming decades; someone now 65 would receive $1,400 a year less when they reached age 95 than they would if the calculation did not change. Reducing inflation adjustments is opposed by many groups concerned about seniors, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The chained CPI would also affect other spending and revenues determined by inflation calculations. Other savings in this category are likely to include reductions in farm subsidies and cuts to federal employee retirement benefits, but the full details are not known.

Little is known about the additional $400 billion in discretionary programs, although some accounts reported that it includes additional military savings beyond what will be achieved in the $900 billion in appropriations cuts already scheduled over the next decade.

Republican Proposals to Cut Spending: Republicans on the Joint Select Committee countered with their own plan, at least 70 percent of which were spending cuts. CQ reported that the Republicans also included the chained CPI, estimated to save $185 billion by reducing Social Security benefits. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid cuts, the Republican plan also is likely to cut food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and other nutrition programs.

The Democrats’ Revenues Plan: As noted, the plan included $1.3 trillion in revenues. However, not all the sources of the revenues would be specified. It was reported in CQ that several hundred billion dollars in new revenues would be listed as a first step, but that the rest would come in a second step as tax-writing committees came up with a tax reform plan. Some Democrats had discussed forcing Congress to act on the second stage by triggering automatic tax increases affecting the highest earners if no agreement on tax reform generating the required new revenue were accomplished. It is not known whether the plan included such triggers. Without such a mechanism, the ultimate amount of revenues could of course be far less than the $1.3 trillion called for.

In addition, the proposal includes job creation initiatives. These are almost certain to include tax reductions (extending employee payroll tax cuts that would otherwise expire and certain incentives for businesses). These tax reductions will make the net increase in revenues smaller.

The Republican Revenue Proposals: Almost none of the $640 billion in new revenues discussed by the Republicans on the super committee come from new taxes. Some would come from higher co-payments and premiums for Medicare, which would increase the negative impact on Medicare beneficiaries of modest means. There would be higher user fees and revenues from sales of broadband spectrum.

What’s Ahead: The Joint Select Committee must propose a plan to Congress by November 23. If Congress can vote on it by December 23, debate will be limited, with no filibuster or amendments possible. Getting to such a vote seems very difficult right now. Coalitions of advocates including the SAVE for All Campaign have urged Congress to walk away from any deal that hurts low-income and vulnerable people and that does not include substantial revenues and military savings. They are very disheartened by Democrats putting cuts that will hurt low-income people on the table, only to see their package rejected by the Republicans, who are likely to adopt every spending cut proposal but little or none of the revenues.

There will be another public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on November 1 at 1:00 p.m. EST. This hearing will focus on previous deficit reduction proposals, with testimony from Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson and Alice Rivlin and former Senator Pete Domenici, whose proposals each recommended far more revenue than the $1.3 trillion included in the Democrats’ draft. Bowles and Simpson, co-chairs of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, included $2.2 trillion in new revenues in their plan.

Also expected soon, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, is a letter to the Joint Select Committee by about 100 Members of Congress from both parties, calling for deficit reduction of $4 trillion by 2021. Whether those hundred or the dozen on the super committee can agree to anything specific is anyone’s guess.

Alameda Central Labor Council endorses Nov 2 General Strike (Occupy Oakland)

Dear allies,


Excitement is continuing to build nationally and worldwide for the “Occupy Movement”! Workers, students, unemployed, homeless, seniors, those who have lost their homes to foreclosures and those who have lost their jobs — the 99% — are standing up and fighting back against the 1%!

We are experiencing the results of a failed economy and inability of the richest nation in the world to provide for the 99%. We know that the 1% is only getting greedier and richer. But, things are changing and this movement is catching fire.

Inspired by the spirit of the fight against Wall Street, the Alameda Labor Council urges all union members and your families to join us as we stand in solidarity with Occupy Oakland on Wednesday, November 2. This Day of Action on November 2 will be a public demonstration of support for the right to peaceably assemble without interference, and against the growing wealth and income inequality created by Wall Street and the actions of the richest 1%.

Individual unions and your members are encouraged to express solidarity in whatever form you find appropriate. These are some options for Nov. 2:

1. At your worksite. Before work or during lunch, come together to talk about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wear We are the 99% stickers.

2. Noon Bank action. Meet at Oakland City Hall and join a Wells Fargo Bank action.

3. Mobilization at 5 pm. Labor’s focus will be to turn out for this mobilization. We will converge at the Frank Ogawa Plaza at City Hall to join with Occupy Oakland.

Wear your union shirts and be visible so Occupy Oakland knows that labor is standing with them.

At 7 pm the Alameda Labor Council with our affiliates will be hosting a “cook out” and serving dinner to all in attendance.