FLASHREPORT

Lots of newspapers and publications are sending out questionnaires for candidates to fill out.  That comes with this time of year. I get it.

Every one of these newspapers would immediately point out the conflict of a legislator that were to include a copy of a piece of legislation they had introduced with a third house fund raising request.

What I don't understand is how a newspaper looking for answers to questions that will help enlighten their editorial process can possible include a "political advertising rate sheet" with those questions.

This is just wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong to include a copy of the vote on AB XXX with a fund raising request to a group concerned with AB XXX.

Tonight’s debate between Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer was probably the worst debate I’ve ever seen in all my years of watching political debates.  Not on Fiorina’s part—she did a great job for her first general election, televised debate.  But Randy Shandobil, KTVU Channel 2 and the panel of journalists should collectively be ashamed of themselves.
 
Now, because this is a right-of-center blog, I’m sure that they may easily dismiss my observations as simply partisan, but they would be wrong.  Like most people, I want to see a fair, balanced exchange between the two major candidates running for one of the state’s most powerful jobs.  But what I saw was not a fair and balanced debate.  It was Shandobil, the SF Chronicle's Carla Marinucci, KQED's Scott Shafer & La Opinion's Pilar Marrero piling on Fiorina while throwing generalized, softball questions to Boxer.  And not once, not twice, but over and over again. 

Take Marinucci’s first question -- a tough question about supporting tax cut legislation but not “a teachers job bill,” questioning Fiorina: “How do you justify immediate health for the wealthiest of Americans but not for average Americans who might be out of a job and listening to this debate tonight?”
 
But when it was Marinucci’s turn to question Boxer, she made an anemic attempt to show how out of touch Boxer is by questioning why she told Brigadier General Michael Walsh of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to call her “senator” instead of ma’am during a senate hearing last June.  Really, that’s the best question one of the toughest political reporters in the state can ask?  Turns out, that was about the toughest question Boxer got all night.
 
All night long, Fiorina faced hard questions on wedge issues, designed to paint her as extreme.  She answered directly and well.  All night long, Boxer was lobbed softballs, made out of kittens and puppies.  One reporter/panelist asked her “was the cost of the war too much?  When is it time to say enough is enough?”  Another panelist asked her, “name a time you’ve ever disagreed with President Obama."  Are you kidding?
 
And Shandobil—one of the “most respected journalists in broadcast journalism” according to his KTVU bio—did his upmost to pile on to Fiorina at every opportunity.  Twice he asked Fiorina impromptu follow-up questions on wedge issues – guns and abortion, in what could only be explained as an effort to highlight issues where he must feel she is vulnerable.  She handled both very well.  His only impromptu question for Boxer was a softball, a joke:  “If the president doesn't come up with a written time line [to get out of Afghanistan] as you've suggested he do, will you call him out on that?” 

The one time he cajoled the candidates to only answer the question posed, not to rebut previous issues, (a time-honored technique both were using), he did so immediately after a Fiorina answer, putting her on the spot.  He then allowed Boxer to go back to doing exactly the same thing, on her very next answer.  I’m not making this up. His greatest sin was the way he finished the debate, with his “let me just ask something real quick” question, which was to put Fiorina on the spot with an assault weapons question which he allowed Boxer to rebut but then never threw Boxer a tough “real quick” question to equal things out.  

Personally, if I were running for statewide office these days, I’d refuse to participate in these reporter-run debates.   Reporters have proven they are not very good at doing this, and tonight they reminded us how biased they can be. 

What does having reporters add to the value of the event?  If we are going to continue with this panel style, it should be a moderate reporter partnered with a left-leaning and right-leaning blogger, and the questions should be screened by a true bipartisan panel, because history has shown panelists generally don’t rise to the occasion, they sink to their bias. 

Better yet, I went back and found the question and answer session that Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama participated in with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.  If you remember, each candidate answered the same question but did so in a personal one-on-one with Warren, filmed separately and aired back-to-back. It really gave each candidate an opportunity to relax, be themselves and answer questions about what they believe, rather use the time to attack their opponent.
 
I could go on and on about how poorly this debate was handled.  Carly Fiorina should be proud of her performance tonight—she did an excellent job while being piled on from all directions.  Shandobil and company cannot truly feel good about their performance.  Deep down, they must know that they gave Boxer a huge pass on her record (where were the tough questions on her out-of-touch-with-California’s-mainstream record, the failure of the stimulus package, on job creation during her party’s time in leadership, etc) and sold the voter’s short in their efforts to help Boxer.  “No,” they’ll scoff, “we were just doing our job.”  No, you weren’t.  If you had done your job, you would have schooled yourself in the Fiorina campaign’s opposition research on Boxer as much as you did in Boxer’s on Fiorina.  No, tonight you simply proved to those watching that in fact the media is nearly incapable of truly being thoughtful, objective and non-partisan.  Fiorina did a great job, far better than expected for a citizen candidate, against a stacked deck.  It was a disappointing performance on the journalist’s part. 

Here at the press room at the Fiorina Boxer debate, I asked CalBuzz blogger Jerry Roberts to critique the food spread...



I will certainly say that the food spread here doesn't come close to the one from the Orange County Whitman-Poizner debate.  Here is the video critique from that night...

Check out my live-tweeting from the U.S. Senate debate...

Here's an inspiring story about an elementary school teacher who almost single-handedly turned a school's math scores from dismal to great.
 
Denise Maimone applied logic when she stealthily went into Georgetown Elementary School, located in a remote region of El Dorado County, and rejected the notion that every single 8th grader is somehow magically prepared for algebra, when in fact most aren't. Instead, she parsed out those kids who were ill-prepared for the rigors of higher math and those who had the skills and brought the school's math test scores up by 88 percentage points – the highest, by far, in the state.
 
As a founder of a private Christian school, I have always supported and protected funding for education. It's really a no-brainer to support the education of our future generation of kids. That being said, I don't think California leaders achieve academic greatness simply by dumping lots of money into the system and hoping for the best.  I have always said the quality of our education investment dollar outweighs the quantity – Ms. Maimone is a shining example of my belief. 

She is a model for the rest of the 1,000+ California school districts to follow.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America's fifth largest county, San Diego, once more has a Republican plurality. In the last month or so the county has gone from a 4,850 Democrat advantage to a 891 Republican advantage. Cheers to San Diego County Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric and his team.

Yesterday one of the leading conservatives in America, United States Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, stopped into the International Headquarters of the FlashReport (located in the heart of Orange County).  Price is the Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee -- which to the uninitiated -- is the conservative caucus within the House Republican Conference. 

We whipped out the handy Flash FlipCam and conducted an on-the-spot interview with Representative Price...  It runs just under five minutes.  Hope you enjoy it as much as he and I enjoyed taping it!

Embattled Democrat Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez continues to duck debates with her GOP challenger, popular Assemblyman Van Tran.  One can presume, I suppose, that the important responsibilities of an important Member of Congress like Sanchez have her too busy for such "luxuries" as debating an opponent before a competitive election.

So what exactly is keeping Representative Sanchez busy?

You need look no farther than the Twitter feed of none other than Playboy Magazine founder and owner Hugh Hefner.  Yesterday afternoon Hef tweeted, "Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is having lunch at the Mansion. I'm a long time supporter."



One has to wonder if the choices that Loretta Sanchez makes in who she hangs with and where she hangs out are in-tune with the blue collar district she represents.  Who can forget her infamous "pussycat" holiday card of a few years ago where this image of Sanchez, with a cat in her lap, was mailed out with a bold headline, "Pet The Cat..."

The sad thing is that while Sanchez is "hanging out at the mansion" and sharing photos of her favorite feline, she is also voting in unison with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her radical left-wing agenda... 

One has to wonder if the Congresswoman will perhaps include a photo of her with Hef and Crystal in her holiday card this year...  Of course, she may be too busy looking for a new job to be worrying about that...

Well, for those of you who have not had an opportunity to take your own trip to the Playboy Mansion, I thought I would include a brief video tour so that in case you run into Congresswoman Sanchez, you can tell her that you, too, know where to find the grotto...

While I have some general concerns about becoming nauseous in the mere presence of ultra-shrill, ultra-left wing, and ultra-annoying Senator Barbara Boxer, I am going to take some Pepto and suck it up -- because tonight I am going to be at the United States Senate debate between Boxer and Carly Fiorina taking place at St. Mary's College in Moraga in the East Bay Area. 

This should be an excellent show -- and frankly my expectations for this debate are high, at least in terms of drama, and presentation.  Both Boxer and Fiorina are articulate, forceful people and that should make for good show -- important for bloggers covering the event!

As always, our coverage will be fair -- and biased.  As a matter of fact, we're calling the debate for Fiorina now.  Details to come later...

The debate will apparently be carried live on C-SPAN -- which means you can tune into C-SPAN via your cable or satellite provider -- or you can go to C-SPAN's website and catch their live feed there.  The action starts at 7pm and goes for one action-packed (we hope) hour.

Anyways, I have to sign off -- my flight to Sacramento is about to leave from Orange County.  Former Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle -- now Anaheim Mayor -- is ahead of me in line, and he may doze off mid-flight (can you say "loud snoring") -- so I need to stake out a spot far from him.

After a short speech this afternoon (I am jousting with Steve Maviglio before a group of innocent victims), I am then headed off to St. Mary's for the debate (a shout out to Jon Coupal with HJTA and Jennifer Kerns -- with whom I am hitching a ride).

Update:
Apparently the OCBC did communicate their support for this bill to its proponents.  We're still waiting for the full story, but if there is an issue here, it would be internal to the OCBC, and not the fault of the social-engineers who want to ban plastic bags.  As Drudge would say... developing...

630am - Original Post
I penned a commentary on the defeat of AB 1998, the ban on plastic grocery bags, which you can see below this post.  In my original draft, I hammered the Orange County Business Council pretty hard for supporting the bill.  I made an assumption that because Senator Cedillo mentioned the organization twice as being supporters, that they were.

Here is what I wrote:

I will throw out a “raspberry” award to my friends at the Orange County Business Council.  I nearly jumped out of my chair when liberal Democrat Senator Gil Cedillo proudly announced that the OCBC had endorsed this measure.  How shameful and unfortunate.  I don’t think that this kind of bag ban and a new tax on consumers is something that Orange County business owners support.  Fortunately the entire Orange County Senate delegation either voted against the bill (Republicans and the endanged Democrat) – and so the OCBC’s influence was clearly minimal.  Nevertheless, the Board of the OCBC should seriously reconsider supporting big-government bills like this one.  This particular endorsement has severely damaged OCBC’s credibility with a lot of key players.

That said, I also fired off an email to the OCBC's President Lucy Dunn last night.  Dunn wrote back to me this morning saying that this was simply not true...

So it may be that the "raspberry" belongs to someone else -- either Senator Cedillo or to whomever gave him false information.  I am sure this will all be sorted out today...

The entire membership of the Assembly Republican Caucus in the California State Assembly yesterday signed a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him and state Attorney General Jerry Brown to file a federal appeal of the Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, according to John C. Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and former Dean of Chapman University School of Law, who helped draft up a very articulate letter.

“This is a significant statement of principle coming from the entirety of the Assembly Republican Caucus,” Eastman said. “It reflects respect for the established rule of law that no matter one’s personal opinion, a validly enacted state initiative must be defended in the courts by the elected officials charged with this responsibility. The Governor and Attorney General have a constitutional duty to appeal the Prop 8 ruling, and it is high time for them to fulfill their oath of office in this regard.”

Proposition 8 was passed by over seven million voters in 2008, gaining 52% of the vote. Its constitutionality was upheld the California Supreme Court in 2009. Earlier this month, a single federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Proposition 8 violates the US constitution. Neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown mounted a defense of Prop 8 in federal court, and Brown has said that he will not appeal the trial court ruling. Though the proponents of Proposition 8 have filed an appeal, the trial court ruling questions their legal standing to do so, suggesting that only the state itself may appeal.

“As a constitutional scholar, I believe that the proponents of Proposition 8 do have legal standing to appeal the trial court’s ruling,” said Eastman. “Nonetheless, this issue is too important to turn on such a narrow procedural issue. It would be truly outrageous for a state constitutional amendment that was passed by over seven million Californians and already determined by the California Supreme Court to have been validly enacted to be overturned by one federal judge, and the People of California have no access to our appellate courts. The Governor can make sure that both sides have access to the courts by filing an appeal. He should do so immediately.”

Here is the letter...

Dear Governor:

We write to urge you to use your constitutional authority as Governor, and more specifically the authority provided to you under Government Code Section 12013, to direct the Attorney General to file a notice of appeal on behalf of the people of the State of California in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. 

As you know, this is the recently concluded District Court decision on the legality of Proposition 8, and the institution of traditional marriage.  We further ask that, failing immediate action by the Attorney General, you act to file the notice of appeal yourself.
 
It does not matter whether we, the Attorney General, or you supported or opposed Proposition 8, or whether we believe it should or should not be the law of California. The people of the state of California themselves decided this issue on November 4, 2008. 

More than seven million Californians voted to approve that measure, and to reaffirm centuries of case and common law that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  The initiative was upheld by the California Supreme Court as a valid exercise of the people’s initiative authority under our state Constitution.  One unelected federal court judge cannot be allowed to void such a decision, let alone do so without recourse to appeal. 

More importantly, however, our own duly elected Attorney General cannot be allowed to decide which laws he will and will not enforce and defend.  To allow such would be to substitute the rule of law for the law of rulers, and to render our democratic processes entirely meaningless. 
 
The importance of this court case to millions of Californians and indeed to countless other Americans cannot be overstated.  What we do wish to impress upon you, however, is the importance to our entire system of governance -- legislative, judicial and the reserve right of the people to amend the Constitution of California via the initiative process -- that the rule of law prevail.  Both plaintiffs and defendants in this case must be afforded full and unfettered access to the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States. 

No one's individual opinion or belief, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, should be allowed to substitute for the rule of law or the processes by which we govern our state and nation.
 
Article V, Section 13 of the California Constitution clearly states that "It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced."  In the current federal court case respecting Proposition 8, the Attorney General has conspicuously and intentionally failed to defend -- let alone enforce -- the supreme law of our state as provided for in Art. I, Sec. 7.5 of the Constitution.  He has instead substituted his own personal beliefs and political preferences for the rule of law, and as such failed to uphold his oath of office.
 
Upon review of relevant case and statutory law, it is our belief that the proponents of the initiative, who long ago were granted intervenor status in the current federal litigation -- possess the proper standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but Judge Walker has strongly suggested otherwise, and we simply cannot risk allowing that erroneous view to thwart full appellate review of this important case

Failure to allow for such standing would have the ruinous effect of allowing any Attorney General to refuse to defend any voter-approved initiative statute or constitutional amendment, and allow any judge to deny standing to any proponent of such a measure.  However, California Government Code Section 12013 renders any such speculation meaningless, and provides a clear and certain alternative.  G.C. 12013 expressly provides:
 
12013.  The Governor may direct the Attorney General to appear on behalf of the State and may employ such additional counsel as he deems expedient whenever any suit or legal proceeding is pending:
   (a) Against the State.
   (b) Which may affect the title of the State to any property.
   (c) Which may result in a claim against the State.
 
If the Attorney General once again fails to respect and obey the laws which he has taken an oath to uphold as "the chief law officer of the state", we respectfully ask that you exercise the similar grant of authority you possess pursuant to Government Code Section 12013 -- whereby "The Governor...may employ such additional counsel as he deems expedient whenever any suit or legal proceeding is pending against the State" to file a notice of appeal.
 
In making this request, we are well aware that you already have taken an outspoken position on the final disposition of this matter.  Although we may profoundly disagree with your personal views on this matter, that is your right as a private citizen and a public figure.  Like you -- and like the Attorney General -- we all took an oath of office that began with the following words:
 
"I...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California...."
 
If both you and the Attorney General fail to file a notice of appeal respecting Judge Walker's decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fails to grant standing to the proponents of Proposition 8, California's constitutional and reserve right of initiative will be permanently and irreparably harmed.  More than seven million California voters will be denied the opportunity to appeal the decision to void a duly qualified and approved amendment to the Constitution of California.  Furthermore, the precedent shall exist in the case of all future initiatives, all future Attorneys General, and all Governors that our elected officials may pick and choose the laws which they will and will not enforce and defend.  In no way should such be part of your legacy as Governor.
 
Even setting aside the fact that this initiative deals with the fundamental institution of civil society -- marriage and family -- the failure of the state's Chief Executive and chief law officer to file an appeal, and thereby denying the proponents of Proposition 8 to pursue this litigation to its full and complete conclusion, will have a devastating effect upon public confidence in our institutions of representative government.  Politics and personal belief will have been substituted for the sworn duty of our state's highest ranking elected officials.
 
We do not ask you to change your views respecting this highly contentious social issue, but instead ask you to compel the Attorney General to act in accordance with his express duties as provided for in the state Constitution, and to uphold the oath of office and the Constitution he swore to support and defend.  Failing such action by the Attorney General, we ask that you exercise your authority pursuant to Government Code Section 12013 to file the notice of appeal yourself, by means of alternative counsel authorized to you under law.  The People of the State of California deserve to have all their laws fully, adequately and vigorously defended in court.

We therefore call upon you to afford the more than seven million Californians who cast votes in support of Proposition 8 "their day in court," to allow our legal system to properly decide this monumental decision in a manner that honors and upholds our state's constitutional processes, and to direct the Attorney General to immediately file a formal notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

We urge your immediate action in this case, and thank you for your consideration of our views.

/s/  EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY

Click the link below to pull up a printable .pdf of the above letter, complete with the names and signatures of all of the Assembly Republicans.

Today was the final day of the legislative session.  For those brave enough, like me, to watch much of the shameful legislation being pushed through by the Democrats – it was almost too much to take.  I truly think that we all need to chip in to provide for each Republican legislator to get professional counseling for having had to live through it in person.  Mid-day yesterday, Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee in Congress, stopped by my office (we did an interview which you can see on the blog later today).  When he came in, I pointed out to him that the State Assembly was debating legislation introduced by Democrats to prohibit employers from using the credit history of a perspective employee as a factor in the hiring decision.   He was as outraged as I was.

I did want to share a piece of good news.  Much has been written about here on the FlashReport about Assembly Bill 1998 – legislation pushed by an evil coalition of eco-whack legislators and greedy grocers, that sought to both ban the use of plastic bags at grocery and drug stores – and also apply a new state-mandated fee on the sale of paper grocery bags.  I am pleased to report that this legislation, despite support and alleged back-room lobbying by the Governor’s office, died in the State Senate, falling well below the necessary 21 votes needed for passage.  This legislation represented such an over-reach that a handful of Democrat Senators either voted against the bill, or refrained from voting for the bill.  But full credit goes to Senate Republicans who totally rallied against this bill (not one GOP Senator voted for it).  Extra kudos to those GOP Senators who performed so admirably on the floor, including Senator Denham and Senator Walters.

I want to express my personal admiration to Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Peter Foy and Americans for Prosperity/California, Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, Tim Shestek and the Chemistry Council, all of the legislators who voted no on this bill, and all of the other patriots out there who stood up publicly against this bad bill.

All of that said, I have no doubt that this stupid bill will resurface next year.  I, for one, will be interested to see if any of the major grocery store chains that supported this plastic bag ban will go ahead of their own volition, free of government coercion, and stop carrying plastic bags…

In closing, there are tons of terrible bills on their way to the Governor (including that job-killer one I referenced in the opening paragraph) that are on the way to Governor Schwarzenegger.  Senator Walters, Assemblyman DeVore and I will be cranking out the FlashReport’s Top 20 Bills To Veto pretty quickly.  But the reality is that we’d be better off if the Governor just vetoed everything on his desk...

It's the final hours of the 2009-2010 legislative session here in California and legislators are furiously passing bills left and right to beat the constitutional deadline. Legislators did take the time today to vote down two budget proposals, but as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said, "I feel an urgency, but not an urgency at any price, and that's really what this has come down to."

And that's the problem. Legislators seem to have no incentive to pass a budget this year. This is the second longest period the state has gone without passing a budget (In 2008, it was 85 days past due.). Some have even speculated Governor Schwarzenegger would like to hand the unpleasant responsibility of trying to hammer out a budget to the next occupant of the horseshoe. 

But just because it's hard work doesn't mean politicians can be let off the hook that easily. It's time for legislators and the governor to declare a moratorium on any legislation that isn't related to the budget process. Americans for Prosperity California is calling on the legislature to do just that:

Americans for Prosperity California Urges Legislators to Pass Responsible Budget

On last day of legislative session, AFP California urges legislators to focus on budget issues

Camarillo—Americans for Prosperity California called on legislators to reprioritize their legislative activities on the last day of the 2009-2010 session. With the state budget 62 days overdue, the Assembly and Senate are engaged in a marathon bill-passing spree. But the vast majority of the thousands of bills debated during the current session have nothing to do with California’s budget problems—other than spending more money that the state doesn’t have.

“We’re just hours away from the deadline for passing legislation, and almost two months past the constitutional deadline for passing a budget,” commented David Spady, State Director for AFP California. “If legislators want to show that they are truly serious about addressing the state’s fiscal problems, they will set aside any bills that don’t cut spending or contribute to a balanced budget.”

“One example of legislation that is actually addressing the budget crisis and its impact on taxpayers is AB 1506 by Assemblyman Joel Anderson,” stated Spady. “AB 1506 will require the state of California to accept as payments the very IOUs it issues to taxpayers. In other words, if a private company contracts with the state, and the government can’t pay that company for services rendered, then turns around and issues an IOU because there is no state budget, the company can then use that IOU to pay taxes or other debts it owes the state. This bill makes the state accountable for its irresponsible behavior in not passing a budget and expecting taxpayers to bail it out by essentially floating the government a loan. AFP California encourages Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB 1506.”

To learn more about Americans for Prosperity California, visit www.AmericansforProsperity.org/California

Yesterday, showed exactly why it is hard to get things done in Sacramento . Senate Bill 399 would overturn a voter approved initiative and allow the state to re-sentence violent juveniles that have been sentenced to life without parole. Needless to say this has been controversial. As it came to the floor of the Assembly, it was clear the bill didn’t have the votes to pass.

This particular piece of bad legislation has had so many lives I have nearly lost count.  I first encountered this public safety nightmare in 2009 when it came before the Assembly Public Safety Committee of which I am vice chair.  At that time the committee believed SB 399 was a bad idea and it did not garner the votes to pass.

Fast forward to January 2010 during a month when the legislature is focused on getting two year bills out of their house of origin and anomaly appeared on the Assembly Public Safety agenda, SB 399, a Senate bill.  Apparently the make up of the committee suited the author better and he didn’t what to risk another shake up in such favorable membership. 

We took our first floor vote on SB 399 on August 16, 2010 the final tally 34 Ayes to 30 Noes with two Democrats and one Independent voting no.  Reconsideration is granted.

The second time the full Assembly votes on SB 399, August 24, 2010, the bill managed to pull in and additional eight no votes, failing 34-38.  Reconsideration is granted.

Yesterday was the third and, thankfully, final time SB 399 came up for a vote before our house.  The roll is held open for a full forty-five minutes while the author and his allies attempt to beg, plead, cajole and strong arm support for a bill that will give convicted first degree murderers a chance at to walk out of prison early.  Finally, after all this high drama the bill failed at 9:45 pm on the second to the last day of session with 33 votes in support and 38 votes in opposition.  

In Sacramento , somehow, this is considered a good use of legislative time and resources. 

SB 399 had a fair hearing, in fact it had several, and the members of this house said, “No,” to this terrible and dangerous idea.  Now it needs to stay dead.    

 

 

 

 

 

People and businesses make economic decisions every day. To spend or not to spend; to borrow or not to borrow; to lend or not to lend; to invest or not to invest. In making these, and arguably almost any decision, we weigh whether the benefits and return from taking that action outweigh the costs and risks. If you believe that your potential return on an investment is greater than the risks, then you are likely to do it. If you think the benefit of buying something is equal to or greater than the cost, then you will spend that money.

On a macro-economic scale, there are a lot of risks out there right now. There is a lot of talk about potential disinflation or deflation, but yet the mounting debt augurs for monetization and rampant inflation in the future. We may have a “double dip” recession, or perhaps not. Gold may stay at its record highs and interest rates at their record lows, or it could all reverse. In the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the current economy is “unusually uncertain”.

Uncertainty increases the perception of risk and analysis of costs when making those economic decisions. So, the uncertainty causes people and businesses to be reluctant to spend, invest, lend, or borrow when they do their risk/return analysis.

Enter the federal government. What the government should be doing, is trying to reduce cost and risk and increase returns as best it can to encourage more economic activity. But instead, almost every action of this Congress and the Obama administration has been to increase risk and uncertainty, thereby causing more people and businesses to pull back or stand still, thereby depressing the economy and costing millions of jobs. No one in America knows for sure what their income tax rates will be starting in just over 4 months, but they fear that they will be up, and perhaps up substantially. If you are planning for your estate or a family member’s estate, your death taxes could be as high as 55% for everything over $1 million, but you don’t know. You and your employer will almost certainly be paying more for health care next year and the year after, but you really don’t know how much, or when, or what other parts of that 2,200 page bill will affect you. From cap and trade to the gulf drilling moratorium, the country’s energy policy is more uncertain than ever except that everything points to energy costs being higher in the future. If you are a bank, the financial regulatory reform bill will require 10 times more regulations to be written than did the Sarbanes Oxley bill and you have no idea what they will be or what you are currently doing which may be called into question.

And I haven’t even talked about the huge federal debt and how that might impact interest rates and the value of the dollar going forward. No wonder businesses are reluctant to take risks, expand, or hire people. It’s no wonder that individuals are husbanding cash; they may need it to pay every higher tax and energy and health care cost coming down the pipeline. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal is bringing on a double dip recession and causing job losses by doing precisely the opposite of what they should be doing. They are adding uncertainty, risk, and cost to virtually everything making those things more likely to outweigh the return and benefits. People will not risk money if they think that it is harder to make money because of regulatory costs and requirements and, even if they do turn a profit, they will keep less than half after taxes. It just makes more sense to hold on to what you’ve got. But holding on isn’t growth. Instead, we should be enacting policies that reduce risks and increase potential returns in order to unlock the natural creative and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. Our people and our businesses want to grow and challenge themselves with new ventures, but the current leadership is doing all they can to dampen that spirit.

We are in very uncertain and challenging times. But Washington is making it worse, not better. That needs to change….and quickly.