Orange County Republican Mayor’s Racist Email — “You Gotta Laugh”

Los Alamitos’ Republican Mayor Dean Grose recently sent an email to friends that showed a picture of the White House with a watermelon patch imposed as the White House garden under the title “No Easter egg hunt this year.”

Image sent in email by Los Alamitos' Republican Mayor Dean Grose

One of the people who received the email was local business woman Keyanus Price, an African American.  She said she was horrified and appalled.

I won’t pretend that I’m appalled.

In fact, I’m delighted.

Once again, Orange County’s Republican officials have exposed themselves as among the most racist, and moronic, politicians in the country.

If I were a Republican, I’d be deeply embarrassed.

But I’m not.

Grose said that he didn’t think the email was racist.  “The way things are today, you gotta laugh every now and then,” Grose said when the email was made public.

Now Grose has said that he’ll resign.

No doubt the Orange County Republican Party will find another brilliant public servant to take his place.

UPDATE

It now appears that Dean Grose is planning to resign only from his ceremonial job as mayor, not from his seat on the Los Alamitos City Council.

Grose is also not planning to resign as a director of the League of California Cities Orange County Division and the Southern California Association of Governments (where he represents the communities of Cypress, La Palma and Los Alamitos).

You can tell Grose what you think of his email by sending him an email of your own:

dgrose@ci.los-alamitos.ca.us

Four Obama Inspired Lessons for California Democrats – Part Two

Last week I wrote that the Obama campaign should serve as a master class in winning elections for Democrats, but, unfortunately, not enough California Democrats are playing attention to the Obama campaign’s most important lessons.

These Obama inspired lessons are:
1. Blame Republicans and Present a Democratic Solution
2. Use the Internet
3. Expand the Electorate
4. Champion the Middle Class

I’ve already discussed the first two of these lessons, pointing out that during the state budget fiasco, the Democratic leadership failed to place the blame for the crisis squarely on the Republicans, and failed to present a clear Democratic solution to the state’s budget and economic problems.

I also pointed out that although the Internet is a potential game changer for California Democrats – as a less expensive and far more effective alternative to the Republicans’ expertise in direct mail – we have failed to capitalize on this advantage by building effective, informative and user-friendly websites, as well as building membership in Democratic groups on social networking sites such as facebook.

The importance of the Internet and its related technologies was underscored last week when the California Republican convention made improvement in their use of technology a primary objective.  The California Republican Party website now promises that their “Technology Leadership Committee is racing ahead bringing together leaders in California’s tech community to help make our state party the national leader in the use of new and emerging technologies in our operations and communications. The initiative is chaired by David Kralik of Newt Gingrich’s organization.”

This means that California’s Republicans are well aware of the devastating effect that Obama’s edge in technology and Internet use had in the last election, and are racing — and spending money — to catch-up.  Democrats cannot let this happen.

The remaining two Obama inspired lessons are:

3. Expand the Electorate
4. Champion the Middle Class

Let’s tackle them now.

3. Expand the Electorate

The Obama campaign succeeded in large part because it expanded the Democratic electorate by bringing far larger numbers of young people, students, and immigrant groups into the process than ever before.  Obama specifically targeted these groups and the result was millions of additional votes.

The California Young Democrats movement is doing a terrific job of maintaining the momentum of the Obama campaign and getting young people involved in the state Democratic Party.

Where we are falling short is in regard to immigrant groups.

Amazingly, here in Southern California, few election campaigns outside of Los Angeles and Santa Ana provided literature, emails, or websites in Spanish.

The website of the California Democratic Party has nothing in Spanish.  The website of the Democratic Party of Orange County has only a single half-page in Spanish.

Neither website has anything in Farsi, Vietnamese, or any of the other languages of California’s immigrants.

This must change.  We need to create Democratic Party literature and web materials in Spanish, Farsi, Vietnamese, and other languages.

We also need to campaign in predominantly immigrant and less affluent neighborhoods.

Despite the fact that so many Mexican immigrants in Southern California live in apartments, our Democratic candidates have tended to campaign only in areas of private homes, entirely ignoring apartment complexes.

While I’m aware of the problem of scarce resources, it seems to me that we cannot continue to fail to campaign directly to hundreds of thousands of potential voters, especially those who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

4. Champion the Middle Class

Throughout the presidential election, Obama positioned himself as the champion of the middle-class and painted his Republican opponent as the champion of the very rich.

Obama also made middle-class tax cuts a centerpiece of his campaign promises.  The result was millions of votes from the suburban middle-class -– and electoral vote victories in states that had long gone Republican.

The suburban middle-class that tipped the electoral scales for Obama is probably the single most important voting group in California – especially in Southern California.

Yet despite Obama’s lesson, our local Democrats continue largely to ignore the middle-class, and related groups such as homeowners and small business owners.

In fact, I could not find the word “middle-class” anywhere on the websites of either the California Democratic Party or the Democratic Party of Orange County.

How can we expect to win in districts where self-identified middle-class, homeownering voters form the majority of the electorate without talking specifically to them and about their needs?

End California’s Hostage Crisis

On this morning’s radio talk shows, following the early morning passage of California’s budget, Democratic legislators have finally taken up the political fight against the Republicans and are urging revision of the state’s dysfunctional budget process.

In addition, Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced today that signatures may begin to be collected for petitions calling for two measures designed to lower the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget and spending bills related to the budget from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent.

The proposed measures would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for property tax increases.

In order to be placed on the ballot, the measures need the petition signatures of 694,354 registered voters – the number equal to 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 election. These petition signatures must be collected within 150 days (by July 20).

There is also a Facebook group dedicated to the passage of these measures called “Stop the Insanity: Majority Rule for California!”

The group is dedicated to “ending the rule that forces the California Legislature to have a 2/3rds vote to pass a budget. This rule has allowed a minority party–in this case, the Republicans–to hijack the process and hold the state hostage until they get their way.”

The group’s website points out that “California is one of only 3 states that requires a supermajority to pass a budget, and the consequences have been severe. It’s time for a return to the democratic principles of majority rule for budgets in California.”

I urge you to join this group and invite your friends to join.

As blogger Dave Dayen noted this morning in a scathing article on the budget agreement, “this is a budget the GOP can be proud of, because it’s a profoundly conservative budget. Because they hold a conservative veto over it. And they get the best of both worlds – they don’t have to vote for the budget en masse so they don’t have to own it. In short, the hijacking worked.”

This is the most important issue facing California – and it’s time for a change.

Let California Fail

I’ve received several emails today asking me to call Republican legislators and beg them to vote for the currently proposed California budget.

But since the proposed budget is bad (too many cuts in the wrong places, plus regressive tax increases), why should I or other Democrats support it?

Why isn’t the state Democratic Party telling the voters that this disaster has been caused by the Republicans?

Why are the Democrats not seizing the ideological moment by calling this budget disaster a Republican disaster?

We Democrats have done a terrible job of fashioning the debate on the budget crisis.

Now we’re fighting for a budget that cuts jobs, cuts services to the poor and the vulnerable, undermines unions, trashes environmental safeguards, relies on increases in the most regressive kind of taxes (sales, gasoline and income), and gives billions in tax cuts to the wealthy.

If we win on this budget, we lose, both ideologically and in regard to the future of California. As it is, the current proposed budget rewards Republicans, the wealthy, and the tax-cut lobby for their intransigence.

They have played us as fools, and we’ve allowed them to get away with it.

When I suggested that we shouldn’t fight for this terrible budget, a friend said, “It’s so easy for us to sit here and say ‘let California fail’ because it won’t really affect us that much. We have jobs that aren’t dependent of State government. We don’t collect disability, we’re not on welfare, we don’t depend on vouchers to get us another night in an SRO. But there are millions of Californians who do, and I’m not willing to insist on anything at the moment except to get this flawed budget passed. Then [we will] fix what is wrong with this system so that we do get budgets that are fair.”

I am sympathetic to her concerns, but I am not convinced.

My friend’s plea for support for this budget reminds me of the phrase “beggars can’t be choosers.”

But we’re not beggars. We are the majority of California’s citizens and voters.

We ought to insist now on a budget that is fair — and if that fails, we ought to go to the voters and tell them that the Republicans have caused their state government to fail.

Only then will we have the chance to get real change in California.

Gunfight at the OC Corral

There’s a gunfight brewing in Orange County, California, that would make a great John Wayne movie.

But the plot of the movie depends on your political perspective and your view on gun control.

Here’s plot number one:

In a corrupt town run by a few rich families, a crooked sheriff hands out guns and badges to those who pay him bribes and help him intimidate the poorer townspeople.

Then the U.S. Marshall comes to town, arrests the crooked sheriff, and takes him away to jail.

The rich and powerful families who still run the town get together and appoint a new sheriff – one who they think will continue to play by their corrupt rules and continue to supply them with guns and badges.

But the new sheriff in town isn’t as crooked as they thought.

Not only won’t the new sheriff hand out guns and badges to the rich and powerful – but also demands they give their illegal guns back.

They refuse.

Now the new sheriff has a choice: stand up for the law or give in to the rich and powerful who still run the town and risk a gunfight with them and their henchmen on the steps of the town hall.

Here’s plot number two:

In a dangerous border town, the sheriff gives guns and badges to the few good citizens who are struggling to keep their families safe from lawlessness and rising crime.

Then the U.S. Marshall comes to town, arrests the sheriff on trumped up charges, and takes him away to jail.

The good cirizens get together and appoint a new sheriff – one who they think will continue to help them fight crime by supporting them with guns and badges.

But the new sheriff isn’t as interested in fighting crime as they thought.

Not only won’t the new sheriff hand out guns and badges to the good citizens so they can protect themselves – but also demands that the good citizens hand in the guns that they have, exposing them and their families to attack by the criminals.

The good citizens decide to fight the sheriff and stand firm for the safety of their families and their right to protect themselves.  They refuse to give up their guns.

Now the new sheriff has a choice: allow the good citizens to their to keep their guns or  risk a gunfight with them and their law abiding supporters on the steps of the town hall.

Orange County Sheriff  Sandra Hutchins and most of the county’s liberals would probably pick plot number one as the more accurate version of what’s going on in Orange County regarding the sheriff’s decision to review and reevaluate all of the 1,024 concealed weapons permits (CCWs) issued by former sheriff (and now convicted felon) Mike Corona, revoke a substantial number of those permits, and institute a much more restrictive CCW policy in the future.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors (and especially Supervisors John Moorlach, Chris Norby, and Pat Bates), the gun-owners lobby, and most conservatives would pick plot number two.

Both sides would probably agree, however, that there’s no guarantee about who will be left standing once the shooting starts.

But whatever version of the plot you pick for The Gunfight at the OC Corral, the order of battle doesn’t favor the sheriff.

At least not in real life.

On the side of the sheriff, there is the California concealed weapons law (California Penal Code Section 12050), which gives authority to the sheriff to issue CCWs to persons who are of “good moral character,” who have completed “a course of training,” and where “good cause” exists for the issuance of a CCW license.

On the side of the Board of Supervisors are Orange County gun owners and a well-funded and highly motivated gun-owners lobby with close ties to the Republican Party.

And, perhaps most importantly, the Board of Supervisors will have the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in their arsenal.

In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved (for the moment) the great debate on whether the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — protects individual rights to own weapons or the collective rights of the states to establish militias.

Heller came down squarely favor of individual rights, holding that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

The Supreme Court’s declaration in Heller that the right of individuals to own and carry guns is protected by the Constitution also probably means that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens”) also applies to any attempt by the states to regulate or limit that right.

And while Heller noted that gun licensing requirements and concealed weapons prohibitions had long been upheld by the lower federal courts, it significantly stopped short of stating that such requirements and prohibitions would be sustained in the future.

Two states (Alaska and Vermont) do not require a permit to carry concealed weapons, and three states (Illinois, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) prohibit concealed weapons under all circumstances and do not issue concealed carry permits.  The remaining states are divided among the “shall issue” states that require the issuing of a concealed carry permit when certain conditions are met and “may issue” states – including California – that permit, but do not require, that a concealed carry permit be issued when good cause is shown.

After Heller, the constitutionality of the more restrictive state regulations of concealed weapons, including California’s, is (at the very least) in question.

Heller also raises the question whether the due process and equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment governs state and local decisions on whether to issue a particular concealed weapons permit.

If, as I would expect, the due process and equal protection requirements apply, then Sheriff Hutchins would be constitutionally required not to arbitrarily refuse to issue CCWs and to make CCW decisions on (at least) at rational basis.

No doubt lawsuits will be soon be filed in federal court raising these issues.

Orange County is gun country – but not because we hunt (I don’t think anyone’s shot a bear in Orange County in a very long time).

Orange County is gun country because it is homeowner country.

Homeowners in Orange County, or at least a great many of them, believe that they need guns, including concealed guns, to protect themselves, and that they have that right under the Constitution.

It seems that the Supreme Court agrees with them.

For both political and legal reasons, my guess is that if Sheriff Hutchins insists on turning the current stand-off into a real shooting war, she won’t be the one left standing.

Five Ways that Obama Should NOT Emulate Lincoln

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s identification with Abraham Lincoln.  Obama choose a line from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address – “A New Birth of Freedom” — as the theme for his own inauguration speech.  He took his oath of office on Lincoln’s personal bible.

And like Lincoln, Obama has attempted to create a “team of rivals,” placing former opponents from within his party, such as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as well as Republicans, at the center of power in his administration.

Of course, Lincoln makes a powerful role model for any president, especially in troubled times.

But there are at least five ways in which Obama should not follow Lincoln’s example, and five corresponding ways in which Lincoln should serve Obama as an example of what not to do.

First, do not believe that you can succeed by compromising with those who are set to destroy you.

Like most moderates on the issue of slavery, and unlike the radicals and abolitionists, Lincoln believed that his enemies in the slave-holding South were reasonable men and that he could hold the Union together by compromise.  Although he abhorred slavery, he promised not to emancipate the slaves by force.

Instead, Lincoln held to a policy of gradually ending slavery by containing it within the slave states (and prohibiting it within the new federal territories) and by offering compensated emancipation (along with the removal of freed slaves to Africa) over a period of many years.

The South didn’t buy it – they saw Lincoln as a far more radical and dangerous opponent of slavery than he was – and were unwilling to engage in any compromise themselves.  They had prepared for war and attacked the Union as soon as Lincoln was elected.

Second,  do not fail to prepare for all-out war with your opponents.

Because Lincoln believed that he could win over the slave-holders with a policy of gradualism and compromise, he failed to prepare, as his enemies had, for all-out war  As a result, the first years of the Civil War were a near disaster for Lincoln and the Union.

Third, do not allow yourself to be pressured into making a bad appointment to the Supreme Court.

Lincoln’s first appointment to the Court was Noah Haynes Swayne.  Swayne was a close friend of Supreme Court justice John McLean, who had issued a stirring dissent in the Dred Scott case and was a powerful force in the new Republican Party.  McLean had tried twice for the party’s presidential nomination and was probably instrumental in rallying Republican support for Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election.  When McLean died in April 1861, Lincoln appointed Swayne to take his place, largely on McLean’s recommendation, as well as intense lobbying by Republican members of Congress, railroads, and banks. Swanye wrote little for the Court and is remembered today mostly for his support for the broad expansion of legal privileges for corporations.

Fourth, don’t change vice-presidents.

Lincoln’s first vice-president was Hannibal Hamlin, a senator from Maine.  Hamlin was a staunch opponent of slavery and was supported by the more radical Republicans and abolitionists. For his second presidential election campaign, Lincoln picked a new running mate, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.  While little is known for certain about the reason Lincoln decided to replace Hamlin with Johnson, the decision was probably made with the hope that a Southern vice-president would help unify the nation at the conclusion of the war.  Johnson, of course, went on to allow the slave-holders and racists in the defeated South to regain power and effectively re-enslave Black people for another hundred years.

Fifth, do not grow a beard.

It worked for Lincoln.  It won’t work for Barack Obama.

Turn! Turn! Turn!: School Board Apologizes to Pete Seeger!

“To everything (turn, turn, turn)
To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time for peace, I swear its not too late”
Turn! Turn! Turn! by Peter Seeger, adapted from the Book of Ecclesiastes.

This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender
Inscription on Pete Seeger’s banjo.

The Obama inauguration had an unexpected consequence this week as the San Diego School Board formally apologized to folk-singer Pete Seeger for attempting to force him to sign a loyalty oath nearly fifty years ago.

In May 1960, Seeger was scheduled to perform at Herbert Hoover High School. Already a controversial figure as a supporter of unions, civil rights, and racial justice, Seeger was anathema to the right-wingers on the San Diego School Board.

In addition, Seeger was facing federal charges for his 1957 refusal to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee: “I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs.” Seeger told the committee. “I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this.” (Seeger was convicted of contempt in March 1961 and sentenced to 10 years in jail; an appeals court overturned his conviction a year later.)

The local chapter of the American Legion heard about the concert that Seeger was scheduled to give at Hoover High School and told the School Board to stop it.

The San Diego School Board then told Seeger that the concert would be cancelled unless he signed a statement saying that it would not promote communism or an overthrow of the government.

When Seeger refused to sign the statement on First Amendment grounds, the School Board cancelled the concert. Seeger then got a court order allowing the concert to proceed.

Last month, San Diego School Board member Katherine Nakamura watched Pete Seeger perform Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land” at the Lincoln Memorial during the Obama inauguration and decided to right the wrong that her predecessors had done to Seeger (and the Constitution) so many years ago.

On Tuesday, Nakamura introduced a resolution declaring that the San Diego School Board “deeply regrets its predecessors’ actions” and offering an apology to Seeger, whom it described as “one of our dearest national treasures.”

The apology resolution passed 5-0.

“It just seemed to me to be the right thing to do, and I had an opportunity to do it,” Nakamura said. “You don’t always get a chance to reflect on these things and the way they might have been or should have been.”

Nakamura and her colleagues on the San Diego School Board certainly deserve our praise for being inspired by Barack Obama’s inauguration to make amends to Pete Seeger.

Even more praise should go to the brave students of Hoover Senior High School’s Class of 1960 — who invited Seeger to perform at a time when an African-American President of the United States did not seem possible and people went to prison for insisting on racial equality, workers’ rights, social justice, and the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Who’s the Girlie-Man Now?

Back in July 2004, when the California legislature was 17 days late in voting on the state budget, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger mocked Democratic legislators by calling them“girlie-men.”

The Democrats, Schwarzenegger said, were “part of a bureaucracy that is out of shape, that is out of date, that is out of touch and that is definitely out of control in Sacramento… They cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, ‘I don’t want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers.’ … I call them girlie-men. They should get back to the table and they should finish the budget.”

With his political muscles still pumped from his 1.3 million vote margin of victory in the October 2003 recall election, Schwarzenegger made a series of highly publicized appearances across the state, threatening the Democratic legislators who had not approved his budget in language taken from his Hollywood persona: “I want each and every one of you to go the polls on Nov. 2nd,” he told the voters. “That will be judgment day. I want you to go to the polls. … You are the terminators, yes!”

All that now seems as long ago and far away as Schwarzeneggar’s epic Hercules in New York.

With a $42 billion budget short-fall, the worst credit rating in the nation, schools and social services on the verge of collapse, infrastructure crumbling, state offices closed, more than 200,000 state workers on forced unpaid furlough, and no new budget in sight, our Action Hero Governor has gone into hiding.

The blustering larger-than-life Hollywood hero riding across the state with his machismo exploding and his political guns blazing has turned into a pathetically meek mendicant, crouching under his desk and writing letters to Washington begging the president for federal charity.

When Arnold The Terminator arrogantly (and homophobicly) called Democratic legislators “girlie-men” in 2004, he meant to say that they were weak, impotent cowards, incapable of standing up to the special interests in their party for the good of the state.

Now it is the Republicans who are making it impossible for state to pass a budget, throwing a tantrum and holding their breath until the state turns blue.

And it is Arnold, the has-been hero, who clearly lacks the political cojones to stand up to the special interests in his party.

Who’s the girlie-man now?

Happy National Weatherman’s Day!

Happy National Weatherman’s Day!

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “February 5 is National Weatherman’s Day, commemorating the birth of John Jeffries in 1744. Jeffries, one of America’s first weather observers, began taking daily weather observations in Boston in 1774 and he took the first balloon observation in 1784. This is a day to recognize the men and women who collectively provide Americans with the best weather, water, and climate forecasts and warning services of any nation.”

Dr. Jeffries is an odd person to honor with a national holiday.  Although he was born in Boston and educated at Harvard, Jeffries was notorious for serving as an officer in the British army during the American Revolution and for appearing as the chief witness for the defense in the trial of British soldiers following the Boston Massacre.  He fled to London after the American victory and did not return to the United States until 1789, when a hostile mob of Revolutionary War veterans forced him to cancel a series of lectures on anatomy.

I’m celebrating National Weatherman’s Day by watching a major storm gather force in Southern California (yes, we have weather here, just not much of the nasty kind).

I also plan to read the weather descriptions in Mark Twain’s The American Claimant, in which he explains that although “weather is necessary to a narrative of human experience,” he prefers not to break up the pace of the story with it, and so provides a preface containing various weather descriptions that readers can insert into the novel if and when they choose.

NOAA tells us to celebrate National Weatherman’s Day by appreciating the people who forecast our weather: “Many of us take weather information for granted. Turn on a light switch, you get light. Turn on your television or radio, or check a web site and you get the weather forecast. It’s easy to forget that around the clock, dedicated meteorologists and weathercasters are vigilantly creating forecasts to help you plan your day, and issuing warnings to help keep you safe.”

In that spirit, I plan to call my cousin Geoff, meteorologist for WTNH-TV in New Haven, Connecticut, where the temperature is 23 degrees and will go down to zero tonight, and tell him how beautiful the weather is in Orange County.

He loves me for that.

As Economy Crashes, We’re Killing Our Pets

As Americans are being forced to choose between buying food for their children or keeping their pets, or between paying for pet food or for their utilities bills, the economic crisis means death for thousands — perhaps millions — of abandoned dogs and cats.

And as the foreclosure crisis spreads and homeowners are being forced to become renters, millions of pets are being left behind to fend for themselves.

Most of them will die.

USA Today has reported that across the country, areas with high foreclosures are seeing increased rates of pet abandonment, and shelters are worried that even more could be coming as unemployment rates rise.

The Humane Society of the United States, which has initiated a program called the Foreclosure Pets Fund to help families keep their pets even in the event of financial hardship, points out that “Pets have been among the voiceless victims of the current economic downturn. Animals have been left behind in foreclosed homes, and shelters are reporting that families are struggling to keep and feed pets… Abandoned pets face a grim future. Many pets trapped inside abandoned homes aren’t found until they’re on the brink of starvation. Those lucky enough to reach a shelter have about a 50 percent chance of being adopted.”

A recent poll found that one in seven owners nationwide reported reduced spending on their pets and of those cutting back, more than a quarter said they considered giving up their pet.

The average annual cost of owning a dog is about $1,400, while the average annual cost of a cat is about $1,000, according to a survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association. The survey suggests there are some 231 million pets — excluding fish — in more than 71 million homes in America.

Here in Orange County, California, the number of abandoned dogs and cats euthanized at the county animal shelter hit a five-year high in 2008. There were 31,492 dogs and cats taken in by the shelter last year – a 13 percent jump from 2007.  Of those, nearly half – 15,265 – were killed, a 31 percent increase.

These lethal numbers are going to increase dramatically in 2009.

The Orange County Register also reports that “The grim picture is not Orange County’s alone. ‘We believe that the increases we’re seeing are a result of the economic crisis, and many shelters across the nation are facing many of the same issues,’ said Ryan Drabek, spokesman for Orange County Animal Care Services. ‘It would be a very easy cop out for us to say it’s the economy if it didn’t seem to be effecting anyone else, but everyone in the animal care world is being affected by this.’”

The New York Times has reported that at New York City’s main animal shelter, for example, monthly calls to the volunteers who can help people keep their pets through tough financial times doubled between January and September 2008.

The Times also quotes the animal control officer in Bridgeport, Connecticut, saying “People are coming out and saying that they’re losing their homes and can’t keep the pet. It’s such a big problem now, they seem to feel able to tell you the exact reason, beyond a simple ‘I’m moving.’ ”

At the Henry County Animal Care and Control in McDonough, Georgia, the number of abandoned pets was up 71 percent for the first four months of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007.

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society, told the Times that “In terms of relinquishment, I’d say this is the most serious circumstance that I can recall.  And as more pets are being turned in, he noted, cash donations to animal rescue groups have declined and fewer people are adopting pets. It’s a bit of a triple whammy.”

According to the Associated Press, “The population growth at animal shelters in Connecticut, Nebraska, Texas, Utah and other states shows how the weak economy is also shrinking the pool of potential adopters. And it coincides with a drop-off in government funding and charitable donations. The effect has been cramped quarters for dogs and cats, a faster rate of shelters euthanizing animals and some shelters turning away people looking to surrender pets, according to interviews with several shelters and animal advocates.”

Of the estimated 6 million to 8 million dogs and cats sent to animal shelters in the United States every year, half are now euthanized.

That number will increase drastically as the economic crisis forces more and more families to choose between feeding themselves and their children or feeding their pets.