Amid rising concerns about crime and recent criminal justice reforms, California’s law enforcement groups are spending big this year in several high-profile races.

So far in the 2022 election cycle, these groups have contributed more than $1 million to campaigns for the state Legislature and several statewide offices, slightly less than the $1.2 million contributed at the same point in 2020 and significantly more than the roughly $305,000 in 2018, according to a CalMatters analysis.

As of Monday, nearly $1 out of every $6 donated by law enforcement groups has gone into the attorney general’s race, specifically to Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert . The $176,900 in cop cash given to Schubert is about 10% of her total contributions.

She is a Republican turned independent who is the preferred pick of these groups looking to unseat Attorney General Rob Bonta , a Democrat who was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021.

Schubert is endorsed by one of the largest contributors: the Peace Officers Research Association of California , an advocacy and lobbying group. The organization has given Schubert $16,200, the maximum allowed for the June 7 primary, while none of her opponents have reported any law enforcement contributions so far – not Bonta, who has raised $6.4 million total so far, and not Republican challengers Nathan Hochman or Eric Early .

This is the first time since at least 1999 the organization has not contributed to the coffers of the incumbent in the attorney general’s race, according to Secretary of State records. The Peace Officers Research Association sees it differently. Brian Marvel, president of the association, told CalMatters that “PORAC doesn’t consider there to be an incumbent in this race” because Bonta was appointed and not elected.

The other major sources of law enforcement cash are unions: the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the L.A. Police Protective League . The CHP union has contributed $112,800 in 38 races so far, with $11,000 going to Schubert’s campaign, its first donation to a candidate for attorney general since 2007. The protective league has donated $146,600 in 25 races so far, but nothing to Schubert.

As the attorney general is the state’s top law enforcement officer, agencies can be directly impacted by decisions, including investigations of police officers.

Bonta and Schubert have different priorities about what they would do in office. Though both their campaigns discuss gun violence and prosecuting polluters, Bonta’s website highlights “fighting hate and protecting civil rights” and Schubert’s promises to “aggressively [prosecute] violent criminals.” Both candidates support the law Bonta wrote while he was a legislator that directs the attorney general’s office to investigate when law enforcement officers kill unarmed civilians.

The attorney general’s race isn’t the only statewide election where law enforcement groups are giving money. For the primary, they are limited to giving $16,200 for statewide offices, other than governor ($32,400), and $9,700 in legislative races.

Fiona Ma , who is running for reelection as state treasurer, has received the second most so far. Why do law enforcement officers care who is treasurer? The treasurer can affect their pensions as a board member of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Ma’s campaign has taken in $55,200, with ​$​47,100 coming from two of the three big police groups: the Peace Officers Research Association and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Ma’s relationship with law enforcement unions isn’t new. According to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets, the Peace Officers Research Association is the fifth largest contributor to Ma over her career.

So far in the 2022 election, law enforcement groups have also placed bets in 42 of the 80 Assembly races and in seven of the 20 state Senate campaigns, after redistricting dramatically changed many of the legislative districts and after a rash of resignations and decisions not to seek reelection created open seats.

Assemblymember Phillip Chen, a Republican who is running in the 59th District near Los Angeles, has raised the most from law enforcement groups of all legislative candidates, $47,400 so far, even though he’s unopposed.

While accepting cop cash might be a contentious issue within the California Democratic Party , some Democratic candidates for Assembly aren’t shy. Assemblymember James Ramos from Rancho Cucamonga has taken $37,200, while his foe in the 45th District, Republican Joe Martinez, has received no cop money.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris of Laguna Beach has raised $27,100, while her opponent, Republican Assemblymember Steven Choi, hasn’t taken any as they compete to represent the new 73rd District centered around Irvine. And Democratic Assemblymember Evan Low of Cupertino has received $26,900, while his opponents in the 26th District, Democrat Long Jiao and Republican Tim Gorsulowsky, haven’t reported any law enforcement contributions.

In the state Senate, the top four recipients of law enforcement money are also Democrats, including three sitting senators: Tom Umberg from Garden Grove who got $26,200, Bob Archuleta from Pico Rivera took $22,700, and Anna Caballero from Salinas accepted $16,700.

Democrat Angelique Ashby, a Sacramento City Council member, is one of the few top recipients of law enforcement money who isn’t already in the Legislature. She has taken $14,900 while Democrat Dave Jones – her most prominent opponent, a former legislator and state insurance commissioner – hasn’t reported any contributions from law enforcement. The fifth largest recipient so far is Republican Sen. Brian Jones of El Cajon, who has pulled in $6,000 in his campaign for the 40th District, while his opponents have reported no police donations.

Law enforcement unions invested about $2.7 million during the 2019-20 election cycle and more than $2.1 million in 2021 when Newsom faced a recall. With $1 million already contributed more than two months before the June 7 primary, it’s possible law enforcement groups will be even more generous in 2022.

Jeremia Kimelman | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Cop cash: California law enforcement gives big to campaigns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

And he has a book out, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, that according to Amazon’s “look inside,” digs into critiques of capitalism and the western social order in Rousseau, Marx, Locke, Schumpeter, and also Hayek’s critique of the modern conceit that “empirical science has the answers to all social problems.”

Devine asks how we can create a framework to understand and regulate capitalism and yet provide “the moral restraints needed for social order, but still consistent with pluralist capitalism”? For Devine, it all comes down to a “moral legitimizing ideal” to legitimize the political order and the economic order.

And how are we going to do that?

I say that in the modern world there are three kinds of people, and they genuinely want and expect different things out of their lives and the world — and different moral legitimizing ideals.

First of all is the elite: political, religious, economic: what I call Creatives. They are essential to any society: the political to protect against enemies, the religious to protect against evil, and the economic to direct production and exchange. Boy, are they trouble.

Then there is the middling sort of person, what I call Responsibles. These are ordinary competent people — yeomen, commoners — that take the world as they find it and live to make the most of what God has provided them within the given political, religious, and economic parameters.

Finally, there is the Subordinate person, who believes him or herself at the mercy of events, and looks to a powerful patron to protect them from the merciless forces of this world.

Each of these kinds of people have a profoundly different relationship with capitalism and with the moral framework. In the Creative class, the politically minded elitists see capitalism as something to be controlled and tamed; the religious minded elitists see their job as developing a resonant moral critique of capitalism. Economically minded elitists are looking for a start-up opportunity to build into the biggest thing ever.

In the Responsible class, people see capitalism as something that a person has to grapple with and live with so that they can live a decent prosperous life with marriage and children. They accept the existing moral framework and try to live their lives by it.

In the Subordinate class, people see capitalism as an incomprehensible monster that demands skills they do not have, and puts them at the mercy of bosses that mistreat and misunderstand them. They cling desperately to any patron that offers to protect them, and experience any setback as an injustice deliberately visited on them by cruel overlords.

Now, in my worldview you see that ordinary Responsibles are the good guys, just getting on with life. The Creatives are problematic because their lives depend on directing traffic and/or changing things. And the Subordinates insist on someone — employer, government, labor union — babysitting them. But our present ruling class has another worldview, the Ally narrative that the educated class of Allies is fighting to defend the helpless Subordinate “oppressed peoples” from the patriarchal Responsible “white oppressors.” As you can see, this worldview is completely upside down from my worldview, and it is a replay of Marx’s narrative of noble Communists rescuing the proletarians from the exploiting grasp of the bourgeoisie and capitalists. Obviously, Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are variants of the Ally narrative. They all advertise that the noble and educated and evolved elite are Saviors without which the Subordinates are doomed to racial exclusion and oppression.

Can we all agree, finally, that this is a Big Lie? A Big Lie that simply empowers the educated elite to wield political and moral power and order everyone around.

And can we agree that the rule of the Creatives has Made Things Worse for the supposed “oppressed peoples,” whether a despairing white working class or black “aspiring rappers?” But the Creatives have the power.

So the only way we get to the future is for the Creative elite of Allies to make such a mess of things that everyone agrees that it is Time for a Change, and we kick the Allies out of power.

Then we can invent a moral framework that teaches the Woke a lesson, provides a sensible framework for the Responsible middle class and helps the Subordinates get a clue.

So, new fusionism be damned. We Post-Woke humans will have to make it up as we go along.

Christopher Chantrill | Columnist

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Would a New Conservative ‘Fusionism’ Help? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A teacher shortage of epic proportion is raging across California, creating even more challenges for our already overwhelmed schools. Though the teacher shortage is a complex issue, Congress has a powerful tool that can attract second-career teachers: eliminating Social Security penalties.

For years California has recruited professionals from the private sector, particularly in science, engineering, technology and math, to serve as second-career teachers in high-need areas. While our schools have benefited, there is a cost, and it’s not to our students or schools. The federal government is penalizing second-career teachers by reducing the earned Social Security benefits they paid into during their time in the private sector. And forget survivor benefits. When a teacher’s spouse passes, instead of receiving her partner’s Social Security benefits like everyone else, those benefits will be either reduced or eliminated simply because she chose to become a teacher.

Both retired and active teachers have spent years urging Congress to eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

While Congress acts on numerous stimulus packages for different groups, retired teachers have been left out. Inflation has been eroding purchasing power, while gaps in Medicare coverage have eroded savings. Many retired teachers no longer have a financial cushion and are forced to choose between paying for rent or paying for medication.

Many younger generations are watching how we are being treated. Is it any wonder the teacher shortage is growing? Why would anyone choose teaching when they know they will be penalized?

The good news is that Congress can remove the WEP and GPO penalties and ensure retired teachers receive the Social Security benefits they earned and paid into. This would not only benefit retired teachers, but it would also have a stimulating impact on the economy because retirees spend their money locally and create jobs.

Retired teachers, who are disproportionately women, have been waiting for our turn for a long time. We call on Congress to take action NOW to eliminate these unjust penalties and help ensure qualified professionals are eager to enter the classroom.

Ron Breyer, CalRTA President; Suzie Dixon, CalRTA President-Elect

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Who Will Teach Our Kids? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will issue an order this week about how migrant children are treated under a public health order that has prevented people from seeking asylum at the nation’s borders, a Justice Department attorney said Tuesday.

The comment by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Stoltz at a court hearing in Fort Worth, Texas, comes as the Biden administration faces pressure from pro-immigration allies to lift the last major Trump-era restrictions on asylum at the border.

Stoltz told a federal judge that the CDC will release “a new order on the subject of the children” by the end of the week. It will revise a Biden administration policy announced in February that exempts children crossing alone from the ban on asylum.

Stoltz did not offer additional details on the changes during a hearing on a lawsuit that Texas brought to compel enforcement of the public health order that former President Donald Trump’s administration used to quickly expel people from the country during the coronavirus pandemic.

The government attorney said the CDC order this week will largely render Texas’ arguments moot. He did not elaborate, and CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said the agency had “nothing more to add right now.”

The CDC, in a three-paragraph order signed by its director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, on Feb. 11, exempted unaccompanied children from being expelled to Mexico until “a forthcoming public health reassessment,” which has yet to be published. Texas argues in its lawsuit that the administration’s justification was insufficient.

Higher COVID-19 vaccination rates have brought increasing pressure on the Biden administration to lift the public health order that was always intended as a temporary measure during the pandemic. While the administration has exempted unaccompanied children, some families and nearly all adults traveling alone are expelled from the United States — often to Mexico within two hours — without a chance to seek asylum.

The Associated Press reported last year that then-Vice President Mike Pence directed the CDC to use emergency powers to effectively seal America’s borders, overruling agency scientists who said there was no evidence the action would slow COVID-19.

Lifting the ban could encourage more people to come to the border to seek asylum at a time when the U.S. is under mounting strain. The U.N. refugee agency reported last month that the U.S. was once again the top destination for asylum-seekers in 2020, with about 250,000 new claims filed, more than twice as high as second-place Germany.

Texas, which has the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings, is seeking a court order forcing the federal government to cease what state Deputy Attorney General Aaron Reitz called “de facto non-enforcement” of the asylum ban. Reitz argued that the Biden administration’s posture “threatens the health and safety of all Texans.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee, questioned Stoltz about the timing of the new order and asked that the government inform him as soon as it is issued. Pittman did not rule on the request for an injunction but said he will put out a decision “as quickly as I can.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post US says order coming this week on border asylum restrictions appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With so much at stake, the agency that manages the tax revenue generated from these transactions has started to examine the effects of the population’s net migration. At times, the research may prompt more questions than answers.

California Controller Betty Yee released a report last month using 2019 data, titled “The Impact of Migration on California Income Tax Revenues.” The agency surmised it’s too soon to tell whether those moving out of the state during a pandemic year have upset the balance of government financial coffers, even if a steady flow of migrants have moved in.

From 2015 to 2018, the data showed a net reduction in tax revenue from those coming in compared to residents departing by 0.2% of California’s personal income tax revenue. The state stands to gain or lose at least $1 billion in personal income tax revenue from residents in flux because of the gap between the departing residents paying in the previous year and migrants handing over payments the year after arrival, the Controller’s Office reported. In that respect, the shift represents a strain on state coffers.

The state’s income tax ranges from 1% to 12.3% — with an additional 1% surcharge on taxable incomes of more than $1 million.

When a business wanders

Since California first adopted a corporate income tax in 1929 and a personal income tax six years later, finance stakeholders have asserted high tax rates would squash the state’s economy.

Nevada jumped on that opportunity in 1937 by mailing out brochures to thousands of millionaires across the nation suggesting they relocate to low-tax Nevada. The Silver State boasted no corporation, state income and inheritance taxes.

A top-of-mind issue with rising costs causing many to flee California, businesses leaving the state totaled 18,000 between 2008 and 2016, according to data analyzed by CNBC.

“We are not aware of any popular reports on the number of businesses moving to California, so it is not clear what the net movement of businesses is,” the report reads.

The comings and goings of companies out of the state are hard to measure from tax data because a business may simply cease to exist and therefore not pay. The issue becomes more complicated when only part of the business moves. There, the state sets the tax bill as a “single sales apportionment,” which accounts for the percentage of sales made in that state.

Another consideration to resident and business migration is a lesser-known feature of California tax law called “source taxation.” California imposes tax bills on all business income earned in the state regardless of where the owner lives. So if an owner flees the state but continues to operate a business in California, the income is still taxed.

What happens when property tax revenue during a state exodus or home sell-off is reduced — especially since many local governments allowed residents to delay tax bills due to COVID-19 hardships?

“It’s too early to tell,” said Barbara Green, who works as the change-in-ownership supervisor in the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office. At this point, the local government’s tax management division is too busy to make that assessment because of the multitude of applications to transfer taxes from one property to another within the state’s boundaries for the over age 55 subset, she said.

The basis for Proposition 19, approved by voters last fall and effective at year-end, may account for a massive reduction in property tax revenue for each jurisdiction, especially if a resident is migrating in from a less expensive locale.

To Napa County Assessor John Tuteur, migration may hinge on the generation that’s moving. “It depends on what age we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the (age) over 55, they’re taking advantage of the tax transfers. But I would guess that more than half the homebuyers are under 55,” Tuteur said. “What in-state migration we’ve had has helped.”

SUSAN WOOD | NB BUSINESS JOURNAL

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California worries it could lose $1B in taxes from exiting residents, businesses appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of child care providers in California marched and chanted Thursday outside the state Capitol demanding higher wages, a topic that appears to be the final sticking point in budget negotiations between lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“We are essential workers and it’s about time that we’re treated like it,” Miren Algorri, a child care provider in San Diego, declared to the crowd. She said Newsom is treating such workers like they are “disposable.”

Millions of California children are eligible for state-subsidized child care programs, but the workers who take care of them them say they are often paid less than minimum wage after expenses.

The state sets provider rates through the budget, and the workers haven’t seen an increase in their pay in four years. This year, providers are also negotiating their first contract after Newsom signed legislation in 2019 allowing them to unionize.

How much to raise the rates is the last unresolved budget issue between Newsom and lawmakers, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said. They have only a few days left to reach an agreement, because the budget must be signed by Newsom by June 30. Rendon, a Democrat who worked in the child care industry before entering politics, said raising provider rates is the chamber’s “No. 1 priority.”

Newsom has proposed creating 100,000 new subsidized child care slots, while lawmakers want to create 200,000 new slots. They’ve proposed $1.1 billion more in spending than Newsom for “child care rate reform.” Most child care workers are women, and many are women of color.

Child Care Providers United, the new union, organized the rally at the Capitol grounds, which featured hundreds of workers in yellow shirts that said “raise the rates” as they chanted “no contract, no peace.” They were also joined by state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and two national union presidents — Lee Saunders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Mary Kay Henry of the Service Employees International Union.

It’s not unusual for unions to publicly rally for higher wages. But this year’s dispute comes as Newsom tries to keep Democrats united behind him in the face of an expected recall election. Since his first months in office, Newsom has said he’s committed to advancing equity for children and their caregivers. But where his administration comes down on pay could prompt some providers to rethink their political support.

“I’ve always supported him, however now I’m reconsidering,” said Justine Flores, a provider from Los Angeles and member of the bargaining committee.

Amanda Kidd, a union member who cares for her mother with disabilities, felt similarly.

“If he doesn’t sit here and actually bargain with us, actually sit there and raise our rates and actually treat us like the essential workers he said we are, then what’s the point in supporting him?” she said.

Ella Taylor of Sacramento, a child care provider for 20 years, now alongside her daughter, says she will support Newsom but hopes he’ll step up and raise wages.

Pay rates for child care providers vary based on a number of factors. Union leaders say Newsom’s administration is offering them lower raises than what they’re seeking and has been difficult to get to the bargaining table.

The governor’s office directed questions to the California Department of Human Resources.

“The Administration is working hard on a collective bargaining agreement that offers fair reimbursement rates to child care providers,” Amy Palmer, acting spokesperson for the department, said in a statement.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California child care providers push governor for higher pay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government watchdog says the Trump administration, under its practice of separating families at the border, forced migrant parents to leave the U.S. without their children, contradicting claims by officials that parents were willingly leaving them behind.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General said in a report released Monday that it found at least 348 cases in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no records showing migrants wanted to leave their children in the U.S. It also found “some” cases in which agency officials deported parents even while knowing they wanted to take their children with them.

That contradicted assertions by senior DHS officials that parents were choosing to leave their children in the U.S. to stay with family or for other reasons while they were deported in 2017 and 2018 as the administration sought to enforce a hard-line approach to immigration enforcement.

The findings, issued by Trump-appointed Inspector General Joseph Cuffari, provide new insight into a policy that became a significant political crisis for the previous administration and a continuing challenge for the current one, which is working to reunite children who remain separated even now.

“Those who conceived of this travesty will have to live with the memory of their cruelty for the rest of their lives,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who is chair of the Judiciary Committee and requested the report.

The Trump administration separated thousands of migrant parents from their children since the summer of 2017 as it moved to criminally prosecute people for illegally crossing the southwest border. Minors could not be held in criminal custody with their parents and were transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The mass separation of families sparked public outrage and a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, which also collected reports of parents being deported without the opportunity to take their children with them.

“Throughout the litigation, we learned that some parents were even told their child would join them on the plane only to have the plane take off without the child,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said.

That contradicts what DHS officials were telling the public.

Then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, according to the report, testified to Congress in December 2018 that “every parent” had a choice to take their child back to their country and those who did not “made the choice not to have the child accompany them.”

Nielsen told Congress in March 2019 that there has been “no parent who has been deported, to my knowledge, without multiple opportunities to take their children with them.”

Nielsen did not immediately respond to a request for comment. She has said previously that her agency did not set out to intentionally separate families but had no choice because the administration was criminally prosecuting border-crossers.

Trump issued an executive order halting the practice of family separations in June 2018, days before a federal judge’s ruling that did the same and demanded that separated families be reunited.

In response to the report, ICE said it concurred with the findings and is working to address the issues around recordkeeping raised in the report.

Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden set up a task force to reunite hundreds of children who remain separated. It announced the first four reunifications this month.

That effort is going on as the Biden administration confronts an increase in the number of migrants under 18 attempting to cross the southwest border by themselves.

The administration has transferred about 19,000 to facilities overseen by HHS. Those children are being allowed to remain in the U.S. while the government decides whether they have a legal claim to residency through a citizen parent or for some other reason.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration continues to turn back adult migrants, including asylum-seekers, and many families crossing together under a public health order issued at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Watchdog: US forced deported parents to leave kids behind appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

There’s a wild card in the push to return to pre-pandemic life: Many workers don’t want to go back to the jobs they once had.

Layoffs and lockdowns, combined with enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus checks, gave many Americans the time and the financial cushion to rethink their careers. Their former employers are hiring again — and some, like Uber and McDonald’s, are offering higher pay — but workers remain hesitant.

In March, U.S. job openings rose 8% to a record 8.1 million, but overall hiring rose less than 4%, according to government data.

Nate Mullins quit his job as a bartender last November after clashing with managers over mask rules and worrying that he would spread the coronavirus to his immune-compromised sister.

Mullins’ unemployment checks don’t match what he was making at his Oak Harbor, Washington bar, but they’re enough to get by while he looks for jobs that would provide health care and retirement benefits.

“This opportunity to take a step back and really think about what you’re doing really changed my mind,” said Mullins, 36. “(It) made me think long-term for the first time.”

Workers like Mullins are one reason U.S. hiring slowed in April. Employers and business groups argue that the $300-per-week federal unemployment supplement gives recipients less incentive to look for work. Several states have begun requiring those receiving the benefits to show they are actively searching for work, and a few will stop providing the supplement.

But Heidi Shierholz, a senior economist who researches low- and middle-income workers with the Economic Policy Institute, said health concerns and child care responsibilities seem to be the main reasons holding workers back.

In April, she said, at least 25% of U.S. schools weren’t offering in-person learning, forcing many parents to stay home. And health concerns could gain new urgency for some workers now that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said fully vaccinated people can stop wearing masks in most settings.

Shierholz added that unemployment benefits are designed to give workers the time to find jobs that are better suited to their abilities.

“We want people well-matched to their skills and experience,” she said. “That’s what helps the economy run better.”

Higher pay for workers can push up inflation, which jumped in April as the economy struggled with widespread shortages of raw materials and parts amid a faster-than-expected reopening. If companies are forced to raise prices to cover the cost of higher wages, that could slow the recovery and reduce Americans’ purchasing power.

For now, most economists see labor shortages as likely to be temporary. As more Americans are vaccinated, fewer will worry about getting sick at work. Schools should reopen in September, freeing more parents to return to work, and the extra $300 in unemployment aid is also set to expire in early September. Those steps should bring more people into the job market.

Sarah Weitzel gave birth to her second child in February 2020. She was on leave from her job at a Victoria’s Secret store in St. Louis when the pandemic threw her life into chaos.

She got a text telling her she was furloughed. Then her husband lost his restaurant job. In financial straits, they sold their home, moved in with friends, survived on unemployment insurance and fell deeper into debt.

In the fall, Victoria’s Secret offered Weitzel part-time work that would pay $12 an hour, but she declined. She and her husband, who now works long hours at a new restaurant job, can’t afford child care.

“Something just kind of broke, where I thought about how hard I was working for this job that paid about $32,000 a year,” Weitzel said.

Weitzel, 31, got accepted to Rung for Women, a St. Louis program that offers career coaching and training for jobs in high demand, including banking, health care, customer service and technology. In the fall, when her oldest daughter starts preschool, Weitzel hopes to get part-time work in a new career.

Mark Smithivas drove for Uber and Lyft for four years before he abruptly quit last spring out of concern for his health. He has spent the last year taking technology classes in a federal worker training program.

Smithivas, 52, just got his second vaccination, but he doesn’t want to go back to ride-hailing. He worries about carjackings and other crimes targeting drivers in Chicago, where he lives.

“I always viewed this job as temporary, and I really do want to find something that fits my career and background better,” he said.

Some workers say the pandemic helped them prioritize their mental and physical health.

After a lifelong career as a bartender, 57-year-old Ellen Booth was in constant pain from lifting ice buckets and beer kegs. But without a college degree, she felt she had limited options.

When the restaurant she worked for closed last year, she said it gave her “the kick I needed.” Booth, of Coventry, Rhode Island, started a year-long class to learn to be a medical coder. When her unemployment benefits ran out two months ago, she started drawing on her retirement funds. Booth will take an exam in the coming weeks to get certified, after which she will hit the job market.

Shelly Ortiz, 25, used to love her career as a restaurant server. But things changed last June, when her Phoenix restaurant reopened its dining room. She wore two masks and glasses to protect herself, but still felt anxiety in a restaurant full of unmasked diners.

Sexual harassment also got worse, she said. Patrons would ask her to pull down her mask so they could see how cute she was before tipping her.

Ortiz quit in July after she learned that the restaurant didn’t deep-clean the bar after a bartender was potentially exposed. She and her partner, a teacher, curtailed their spending, and Ortiz returned to school full time. This month, she is graduating from Glendale Community College with a degree in film and a certificate in documentary directing.

Ortiz stopped getting unemployment benefits in November, when she did some part-time film work. Money is tight, she said, but she’s never been happier. And she doesn’t think she’ll ever be a restaurant server again.

“I don’t know if I could do it with a smile anymore,” she said. “I don’t think it should be an option for anyone to treat any worker the way that service industry workers are treated in America.”

In a tight labor market, some workers are also finding that if they hold out, they might get a better job than the one they left.

Taryn Henderson spent six years working at Best Buy before she was unexpectedly let go in February.

“They didn’t value the work I put in, the time I put in, because I got laid off,” said Henderson, 24, a college student who lives in Austin, Texas. “It was just really discouraging.”

At first she focused on her schoolwork, living on her unemployment checks and a severance payment that gave her 10 weeks’ worth of pay. But soon she was anxious to work again, and thought a new job that valued her more would make her feel better.

After a few months of searching, she found another job with a music streaming service. She’ll start later this month and will make $10 more per hour than the $17 she made at Best Buy.

“As long as I’m making enough money that I can support myself, the people that I love and I can get to travel every once in a while, I’m good,” said Henderson. “I think this job will afford me the opportunities to do that.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Changed by pandemic, many workers won’t return to old jobs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Caitlyn Jenner wants to be governor of California but she took a pass on voting on some of the state’s most critical issues last year, from worker rights to taxes and affordable housing to affirmative action. Or did she?

In the latest example of muddled messaging in Jenner’s nascent campaign, she told CNN in an interview broadcast Tuesday that she did not vote in 2020 — for president or down ballot measures.

But Los Angeles County election records, first reported by Politico, show she did vote.

“It was voting day and I thought the only thing out here in California that I worry about, which affects people, is the propositions that were out there,” Jenner said. “And I didn’t see any propositions that I really had one side or the other. And so it was Election Day and I just couldn’t get excited about it.”

Jenner said she want golfing instead.

A campaign adviser said Wednesday that Jenner voted by mail on “some local issues.” The campaign did not respond to follow up questions about whether that meant she voted on any state propositions.

Malibu, where Jenner lives, held elections for city council, school board and a ballot measure to increase hotel taxes. Those questions were on the same ballot as the state propositions and presidential race, and all Californians received a mail ballot.

Jenner’s seeming confusion about whether she voted and admission that she had no leanings on any propositions — even those dealing with taxes, one of her signature issues — come as the political neophyte is trying to convince people she’s ready to be governor.

Jenner is among candidates seeking to unseat Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in an expected recall election this fall.

The 71-year-old former Olympian and reality TV star announced her candidacy last month. The first weeks have been rocky, with Jenner appearing to have limited knowledge of state issues in interviews and lacking specific policy plans. She suggested in a late April tweet that the governor appoints district attorneys, who are actually elected by voters, which drew mockery from California Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu.

“She’s at the stage in her campaign where she really needs to make some inroads and get folks on board with the idea of her being a legitimate candidate, and showing this kind of ignorance of the process doesn’t help with that,” said Kim Nalder, a professor of political science and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at California State University, Sacramento.

Last fall, Californians were asked to vote on a slew of important ballot measures touching on criminal justice reform, jobs and the economy, housing and other critical issues a governor must engage on.

Propositions are often among the most expensive campaigns, and one measure to exempt companies like Uber and Lyft from classifying their workers of employees generated more than $100 million in spending.

“Voters, for the most part, take that very seriously and do their homework,” Nalder said.

Less consequential may be Jenner’s assertion that she did not vote in the presidential contest between former President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Jenner previously supported Trump but broke with him over his administration’s position on transgender issues. Jenner came out publicly as a woman in 2015. She has hired several former Trump aides as campaign advisers.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Jenner’s claim she didn’t vote at odds with LA county record appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s critics almost certainly have qualified a recall election for the ballot, a remarkable feat in the heavily Democratic state.

Now the real work begins.

The chance to recapture the governorship in the most populous state is an energizing prospect for Republicans who have been locked out of statewide office for more than a decade. That was when Arnold Schwarzenegger was ending a governorship that began when he ousted Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in a 2003 recall, the only successful recall of a governor in state history.

But the GOP constitutes just a quarter of voters in California and with no Schwarzenegger-like candidate who is immediately recognizable to voters, it’s an uphill climb to attract the independents and Democrats needed to recall Newsom all while keeping Republicans united. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found just 40% of Californians support recalling the first-term governor.

“If this is simply branded as a Republican effort the likelihood of success is very slim,” said Tim Rosales, a Republican consultant who was a senior adviser to the campaign of John Cox, a businessman who lost to Newsom in 2018 and is running again. His firm recently stopped working with Cox.

Beyond Cox, the top Republicans in the race so far are former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and ex-U.S. Rep. Doug Ose, who last held office in 2005. Neither is close to a household name, though Faulconer has been barnstorming the state to raise his profile.

The closest thing to Schwarzenegger this time may be reality TV star and former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner, who has said she may enter the race. She is a longtime Republican but has never sought elected office.

Stephen Puetz, the campaign manager for Faulconer, said if people are waiting for another Schwarzenegger, “they’re going to be waiting for a long time.”

Faulconer’s team says he fits the mold of a Republican who can win in a Democratic state, like Gov. Larry Hogan in Maryland or Charlie Baker in Massachusetts. He was elected mayor twice in San Diego, the eighth-largest city in the country by population and a place where Democrats outnumber Republicans.

“It’s a long race. Everyone thinks of it as short, but it’s not that short,” Puetz said, arguing that Faulconer has plenty of time to boost name recognition and energize voters.

The California Republican Party hasn’t chosen a favorite yet but Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said an endorsement will come before the election, expected in the fall.

“If we can all get in agreement on a single candidate I think it works better for all of us,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m hopeful that we find that candidate that can unite us all and say: ‘This is the best chance we have at winning.'”

But recall organizers, including the leader of the grassroots group that led the signature gathering effort, as well as the Republican Governors Association, plan to stay out of the candidate fight. Instead, they’ll focus solely on trying to convince voters to oust Newsom.

“We’re opening the door, that’s all we’re doing,” said Anne Dunsmore, a consultant for Rescue California, a committee that plans to raise money, run TV ads and conduct polling for the pro-recall campaign. “And if we don’t succeed it doesn’t matter what anybody else does.”

Recall supporters gathered 2.1 million signatures in about nine months. Next week, it’s expected enough will be verified by election officials to qualify the recall for a ballot that will ask voters two questions: Should Newsom be recalled? Who should replace him?

The votes on the second question will only be counted if a simple majority wants to remove Newsom. Then the candidate with the most votes becomes governor regardless of whether they top 50%.

Dunsmore said she envisions Rescue California and the partner committee run by Orrin Heatlie, the retired county sheriff’s sergeant who launched the recall petition, appealing to independent voters and others who may be skeptical of party structures, while the parties focus on turning out the Republican base.

Heatlie, meanwhile, is skeptical of any national party involvement, calling the Republican Governors Association’s creation of a political committee a “money grab.” And any endorsement of a candidate by the official party could serve to alienate grassroots activists.

But Republicans will be in a stronger position to get voters to say “yes” on the first if there is a compelling choice to replace him, Patterson said. The state GOP hopes to pick a candidate in the next few months, and she is looking for someone that can build a statewide organization, raise lots of money and has support from other Republican elected officials throughout the state. The majority of Republican state lawmakers already endorsed Faulconer.

“What I think California’s don’t want is Gavin Newsom Lite, they want true, bold, different leadership and that’s what we’ll be focusing on,” she said.

Much of the voter anger at Newsom was fueled by his handling of the coronavirus. But conditions in the state are vastly improved from the start of the year when California was the epicenter for the country and most of the state was locked down.

One of the biggest threats to Newsom would be if another Democrat enters the race, something he and his advisers are working hard to prevent. Many believe the decision by Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to enter the 2003 recall hurt Davis.

For now, Democrats are strongly united behind Newsom. In recent weeks, leaders from Black, Latino, Jewish and LGBTQ political groups have held news conferences supporting Newsom, and many prominent Democrats have said they will not run against him.

Republicans’ best hope may be that Newsom makes another blunder like his November decision to attend a lobbyist’s birthday party while urging residents to stay home, said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. Photos of a maskless Newsom sitting close to others at the party infuriated Californians and spurred people to sign recall petitions.

“The Republicans can’t win it,” Pitney said. “But Gavin Newsom can lose it.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post As California recall looks likely, hard work begins for GOP appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.