....LMB: "Huh?"....

December 02, 2003

Can someone explain this to me?

According to the Sacramento Bee (a legitimate newspaper despite its funny name), Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing a repeal of recently passed bill AB 231 (aka the "Save Money, Fight Hunger Act") in order to save the state money.

Near as I can figure, the SMFHA simply makes it easier for poor Californians to get food stamps. Since the food stamp program is a federal program, that money won't be coming out of the state's pocket. Basically, the SMFHA removes several rules which make it harder for folks to receive food stamps. This relaxation of the rules would hopefully increase the number of Californians who use the service (only 49% of Californians eligible for the program use it).

Apparently there is some cost to the state to enroll people into the federal program, but the state Department of of Social Services says that the cost to enroll these new folks woud be "modest." And some of this cost would be made up by the rules eliminated by SMFHA (e.g. the former rules demanded that Californians applying for food stamps needed to be fingerprinted. Estimated cost per year: $10 million). And even with its limited participation, the food stamp program brought $1.7 billion in federal aid to California; surely AB 231 would raise that number.

So what's going on here? Are the costs of enrollilng new folks into the program that high? Is Schwarzenegger uninformed? Is the new governor so set on cutting items out of the budget that he'll keep a few million of his hungry constituents from getting fed? These aren't rhetorical questions, I actually want to understand.

Posted by Jake at 08:07 AM | TrackBack (0)

I think Arnies antipathy to the food stamp program is an attempt to keep the rif-raf out of Sunny California. Especially the rif-raf from the south with funny accents(not Austria).
There are a lot of people in Calif. who feel the same as they did in Sinclair Lewis's Grapes of Wrath. Only this time it isn't Oakies they are afraid of.
Water is scarce, land is scarce, the climate is great, the rich want to keep it to themselves. They don't want Calif to be known as a (GASP) Welfare State! They only want hard working poor people to clean their pools and maintain their gardens.
Arnie realizes that his election was an anti-Bustamanti, anti-Davis giving licenses to the illegals which would make them able to apply for social services vote. He is from Austria and recognizes racism when he sees it. Nobody dare say the ugly words outloud that is why this is confusing to those outside Calif.

Posted by: at December 3, 2003 09:14 PM

The Dead Kennedys should update "California Uber Alles."

"I remember Arnold Reagan, born again with fascist cravings...Soon he will be President..."

Posted by: Eric at December 4, 2003 04:55 PM

Every act by a Republican to decrease spending is seen as racism by the left. Get a new line, that one is old and tired.

Posted by: savrx at December 9, 2003 06:54 AM

Every act by a Republican to decrease spending is seen as racism by the left. Get a new line, that one is old and tired.

Posted by: savrx at December 9, 2003 06:54 AM

When the right talks about decreasing spending and reducing government, it's usually along crude, reactionary lines. If the left is to be faulted, it is for their acceptance of the system that produces inequalities in the first place. Their spending is for reforms that won't even begin to address social problems.

Posted by: Eric at December 11, 2003 08:24 PM


I work at a nonprofit called California Food Policy Advocates, and we worked to sponsor AB 231. As far as I can tell, the attempt not to enforce AB 231 is purely ideological. AB 231 would actually help California draw down additional $200 million in federal funds.

Plus, the Department of Finance says that AB 231 will create more ongoing general fund revenue ($3.8 million) than would be saved by its repeal ($3.5 million).

So AB 231 isn't just good for poor people; it's good for the economy (especially since it helps people get to work). It's totally non-partisan because even Bush has said he's in favor of the kind of reforms AB 231 enacts.

-Kami Kruckenberg
Policy Advocate
California Food Policy Advocates

Posted by: Kami at December 19, 2003 03:55 PM

Just look at his life track record. Itís pretty obvious he is out for his own benefit and as some seem to feel a future president of what ever will be left of this country by then. Iíve worked downtown for years and what I see now is the reemergence of the Wilson machine and all the grief and sorrow it brought.
And note:
ďEvery act by a RepublicanĒ you ever notice how Republican faze has to be repeated a few timesÖ? Itís like trying to convince themselves and others.. (sorry savrx)

Posted by: Larry at December 22, 2003 10:32 AM


Posted by: link- at August 18, 2004 09:40 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Lying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on KillRadio.org, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it.

Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters.

All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ģ.

contact: jake+at+lyingmediabastards.com

Media News

December 01, 2004

Media Mambo

The Great Indecency Hoax- last week, we wrote about how the "massive outcry" to the FCC about a racy Fox TV segment amounted to letters from 20 people. This week, we look at the newest media scandal, the infamous "naked back" commercial. On Monday Night Football, last week, ABC aired an ad for it's popular "Desperate Housewives" TV show, in which one of the actresses from the show attempted to seduce a football player by removing the towel she was wearing to bare her body to him. All the audience saw, however, was her back. No tits, no ass, no crotch, just her back.

No one complained.

The next Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh told his shocked viewers how the woman had appeard in the commercial "buck naked".

Then, the FCC received 50,000 complaints. How many of them actually saw this commercial is anyone's guess.

The article also shows the amazing statistics that although the Right is pretending that the "22% of Americans voted based on 'moral values'" statistic shows the return of the Moral Majority, this is actually a huge drop from the 35% who said that in the 2000 election or the 40% who said that in 1996 (when alleged pervert Bill Clinton was re-elected). This fact is so important I'm going to mention it over in the main news section too.

Brian Williams may surprise America- Tom Brokaw's replacement anchor, Brian Williams, dismissed the impact of blogs by saying that bloggers are "on an equal footing with someone in a bathroom with a modem." Which is really funny, coming out of the mouth of a dude who's idea of journalism is to read words out loud off a teleprompter. Seriously, if parrots were literate, Brian Williams would be reporting live from the line outside the soup kitchen.

In related news, Tom Brokaw has quit NBC Nightly News, and it appears that unlike his predecessor, the new guy can speak without slurring words like a drunk.

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror- in February of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence, a new department that would fight the war on terror through misinformation, especially by lying to journalists. Journalists were so up in arms about this that the Pentagon agreed to scrap the program.

Don't you think that an agency designed to lie to the public might lie about being shut down, too?

This article gives some examples about the US military lying to the press for propaganda and disinformation purposes.

Tavis Smiley leaving NPR in December- African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley is opting to not renew his daily talk show on National Public Radio. He criticized his former employers for failing to: "meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio but simply donít know it exists or what it offers ... In the most multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial America ever, I believe that NPR can and must do better in the future." He's 100% correct. NPR is white. Polar bear eating a marshmallow at the mayonaise factory white. And the reason it's so white is that it is trying to maintain an affluent listener base (premoniantly older white folks) who will donate money to their stations. This is a great paradox of American public broadcasting, that they have a mandate to express neglected viewpoints and serve marginalized communities, but those folks can't donate money in the amounts that the stations would like to see.

U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges- it sounds more positive than it is "Bridges TV" seems to simultaneously be a cable channel pursuing an affluent American Muslim demographic, and a way of building understanding and tolerance among American non-Muslims who might happen to watch the channel's programming. I was hoping it would be aimed more at Muslim's worldwide, but it ain't. Still, I'd be interested in seeing how their news programs cover the issues.

Every Damned Weblog Post Ever- it's funny cuz it's true.

Wikipedia Creators Move Into News- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created collectively by thousands of contributors. It's one of those non-profit, decentralized, collective, public projects that show how good the internet can be. Now, the Wikipedia founders are working on a similar project to create a collaborative news portal, with original content. Honestly, it's quite similar to IndyMedia sites (which reminds me, happy 5th birthday, IndyMedia!). I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical about the Wikinews project, though. IndyMedia sites work because they're local, focused on certain lefty issues, and they're run by activists invested in their beliefs. I'm not sure what would drive Wikinews or how it would hang together.

CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays- the United Church of Christ created a TV ad which touts the church's inclusion, even implying that they accept homosexuals into their congregation. Both CBS and NBC are refusing to air the ad. This is not too surprising, as many Americans are uncomfortable about homosexuality, and because TV networks are utter cowards. But CBS' explanation for the ban was odd:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Whoa, what? First of all, the ad does not mention marriage at all. Second, since when do positions opposite of the Executive Branch constitute "unacceptable"? This doesn't sound like "we're not airing this because it's controversial", this sounds like "we're afraid of what the President might say."

Posted by Jake at 10:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
More Media News

Jake Jake Jake


Fake "Ha-Ha" News




"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

-Jonathan Swift

More Quotes

Media News


Obligatory Blog Links



Damn. That joke would have been much funnier if I'd said "apprentice" instead of "intern".

More Snapshots

Columnists Of Note



Sonic Resistance


Dead Trees


Heavy Rotation



Squiggles of Insight



Design and Layout by Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang
LMB Logo by Quang Tang

Alt "One Hell of a Leader" logo largely stolen from Obey Giant.
All other material by Jake Sexton (unless otherwise cited)

hosted by nice dream