FLASHREPORT

Yesterday the Meg Whitman for Governor campaign announced their new Students for Meg organization.  The head of this new group is Chason Bullock, who is a senior at California State University, San Marcos.   What follows is a column by Chason, and below that a web video created by the Whitman campaign highlighting many student leaders supporting her candidacy...

Why Students Support Meg
Chason Bullock

Students are rallying to elect Meg Whitman to be the next Governor of California. They share Meg's focus on three important priorities: creating jobs, cutting spending and fixing education. California has seen better days: we have a 12.5% unemployment rate, a $20 billion deficit and a broken K-12 education system. Let's not forget the issues involving our state's higher education systems as well. Ask any student who is about to graduate what their primary concern is and they will likely tell you it's employment opportunities.

The most important element of Meg's platform is job creation. She was the first gubernatorial candidate to come out with a strong message for creating jobs and she's set an ambitious, but attainable goal: two million new private sector jobs by 2015. Job creation is the issue of our generation, and Meg understands we must create a climate where companies want to come and stay in California.

Meg Whitman also understands our generation and how much we rely on technology. At eBay, Meg built a business model that allowed inspired individuals working with technology to build their own businesses. Nearly every college student in the nation has used eBay at least once in their lifetime, so they appreciate what Meg can do.

Meg Whitman continues to rely on the effective employment of technology in her campaign - building a powerful online presence that reaches of young voters across the state. She's connecting with voters by tweeting, facebooking, texting, filming videos and encouraging Californians to share their ideas for our state. Meg believes in the Power of Many and our collective ability to tackle the enormous challenges facing California. Using technology, young voters will continue to be on the frontlines of this effort.

Meg's determination to build A New California is something that resonates with every college student. California's over-regulated and highly taxed business environment has effectively destroyed the entrepreneurial dream that so many before us were able to achieve. We need a Governor who isn't afraid to address our biggest problems and stands up to the status quo in Sacramento.

Meg Whitman offers an approach that Sacramento has never seen. She is focusing on three things at 100% - creating jobs, cutting spending, and fixing education. If we can get these things right, California can once again become the Golden State.

Our commitment to getting Meg elected is reflected in Students for Meg, our ever growing grassroots organization. With 40 chapters and more than 1,000 members throughout the state, more and more students are joining the fight to help elect Meg. It's going to take all of us to rebuild California, and I encourage you to join us.

This week, we took the first steps to put in place policies that will better protect our children and put an end to the failings in our criminal justice system that allow violent sexual predators to slip through the cracks.  

During an announcement at my office, a representative from the Chelsea King Family read a statement from Kelly and Brent King asking me to join them and lead the legislative effort to enact real changes to better protect our children and our communities from violent sex offenders. I am humbled and honored to work with them to create Chelsea's Law.

This joint effort between my office and the King family will seek changes in the law to protect California's children from violent sexual predators. Our goal is simple - to make sure that no family has to go through what the King and Dubois families are experiencing right now.

There is not a person in our community who hasn't been touched by this tragedy.  As a father and husband, I can't imagine the pain felt by Kelly and Brent King and Carrie McGonigle and Moe Dubois. I know every parent out there is worried about the dangers our children face.  We all want action and we want it now.  We don't understand how a high-risk violent sexual offender like John Gardner could be out on our streets.

I share these concerns and am working with the King family and others to find real changes that will honor Chelsea's memory and help protect every child.  In spending time with Kelly and Brent, I understand their commitment to being a part of making changes to the system - changes that will better protect our children.  But please know this, change will not come as quickly as any of us want.  But we owe it to the memory of Chelsea to do it right.

This heartbreaking case leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how our criminal justice system fails to deal with violent sexual predators.  It is unacceptable and it has given every one of us a renewed determination to bring about change.

We have begun assembling a broad coalition that includes the San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, legislators from across the state and from both political parties, crime victims groups, criminal justice experts and concerned citizens.

This group will evaluate all the laws on the books - including Megan's Law, Jessica's Law and others.  The sole focus will be finding any possible area of the law that can be strengthened.  Our actions over the coming months will likely include hearings, public meetings, and input from a wide variety of sources.

Everything is on the table - longer sentences, a strengthened one-strike provision, changes to our parole system, extensive online reporting requirements and increased GPS monitoring systems. We will look at everything.

This effort will culminate in legislative proposals - Chelsea's Law - to reform the criminal justice system in California to better protect our children.

The first step in this process is gathering all of the facts for this particular case.  Right out of the gate, we found one major problem within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  My office requested, through emails, phone calls and letters, that Corrections release John Gardner's full "Field File," from his time on parole, and "Central File," from his time in prison. A thorough review of these records is necessary to help us determine where the system broke down and where changes are needed.  But after several delays, Corrections shocked us by sending an email notifying us that John Gardner's Field File parole records had been destroyed, in accordance with Corrections' own internal policy.

It is unacceptable that a state agency charged with ensuring public safety would destroy the parole records of a convicted sex offender they knew was likely to re-offend.

What is even more shocking is what a Corrections spokesperson told the Union Tribune: "We are pretty confident that the system does work."  This statement is reflective of a department that is clearly out of touch.  While Corrections was busy defending its failed policies, we have two grieving families, two heinous crimes, and a traumatized community that knows the system doesn't work.

Yesterday, we contacted the state Inspector General demanding a full investigation of the Department of Corrections' choice to destroy John Gardner's records and a review of their policy to destroy documents in general.

Specifically, we want answers to the following questions:

1. Was the field file for John Gardner destroyed in its entirety?  If so, when and where was it done?  And who authorized the destruction?  

2. What records from Gardner's time on parole were added to his maintained Central File?

3. Why are Central Files maintained and Field Files destroyed?

4. Why does Corrections believe their policy of destroying crucial public safety records after such a short time is in the best interest of our state?

Additionally, I have requested that the Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review - of which I am a member - conduct a hearing on the Department of Corrections' actions in this matter and broader policy relating to inmate files.

Many people are committed to improving our criminal justice system, but our efforts are hindered when records are destroyed. With all the reports on criminal recidivism and the real danger of repeat offenders, it seems painfully obvious that this information is critical to our ongoing commitment to public safety.

We demanded answers to our questions and a change in Corrections' irresponsible policy.

I'm pleased to report that late yesterday afternoon, Governor Schwarzenegger ordered Corrections to immediately begin retaining all inmate parole records and to work to make them available to the public.

The Union Tribune summed up the reason for this change as follows:

The policy change came after several days of pressure from Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher...

Fletcher is exploring legislation to reform how the state deals with sexual predators and had been incensed when told that much of Gardner's record was destroyed.

Yesterday, Fletcher said, "We can't identify whether the system broke down if they destroyed the record."

He continued in the interview: "It doesn't make sense that if you have a commitment to criminal justice and protecting people that you would destroy the record of anyone on parole that has the possibility of repeating, much less a sexually violent predator who a court psychologist told you is callous and bold and is likely to offend again."

But this one Corrections reform is just a small part in our broader effort, the first step in what's sure to be a long process.  We applaud the Governor for moving quickly to fix this obvious wrong, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions from the Corrections Department and we will continue to demand answers.

As we move toward our goal of ensuring that no other child is hurt and no other family has to go through what the King and Dubois families are facing, I'd like to ask for your help. If you have ideas or suggestions for reform, or if you would like to join our effort , please contact our office at (858) 689-6290 or email me at Assemblymember.fletcher@assembly.ca.gov.

Please feel free to forward this email to anyone who might like to help bring about change.

We know that out of these tragedies, something good can come.  It won't be easy, or quick, but we are fully committed to the families who are hurting and to making real, substantial changes.

In the wake of Senator Ashburn's arrest last week, I found myself actually hoping for communication from the CRP. Those are the moments when leadership is needed, and the party needs a positive and unified message. But unfortunately, the CRP was deafeningly silent when the Senator was arrested. 

So I called my friend, Charles Moran, who ran media for the California delegation at the RNC convention in 2008, to find out what the Log Cabin Republicans think about Senator Ashburn's predicament. And as you will see below, there is a good reason why Charles is the national spokesperson for the Log Cabin Republicans...he is excellent at communicating on subjects that can be very difficult. I appreciate what he had to say.

JIll:  Generally speaking, what was your reaction to the news regarding Senator Ashburn's arrest for DUI, and the mention that he was driving from a gay bar?

 

Charles:  The first reaction was one of concern of the safety of the pubic - drinking and driving is a grossly irresponsible and dangerous practice that claims too many innocent lives each year. The morning following his arrest, I received a note from a colleague in Sacramento alerting me that he was spotted coming from a gay bar, I soon knew that the issue of his sexual orientation would far eclipse any story about his DUI charge.

 

I'm not going to sugar-coat it: when an elected official who has a stated public policy position that contradicts the way he/she personally conducts his/her private life, it becomes an issue of concern to the public. And when you're talking about sexual orientation, the tabloid sensationalism rises exponentially.

 

Senator Ashburn's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances concerning his arrest - which is wholly different than the circumstances and allegations surrounding former NJ Governor Jim McGreevy, Senator Larry Craig or Congressman Mark Foley. Both Republicans and Democrats, the "sword cuts both ways."

Jill:  If Senator Ashburn were single and there were no issue of adultery, would the information about his sexual orientation be a big deal?

 

Charles:   The real issue here is authenticity. We certainly saw it in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama - possibly the most under-qualified presidential candidate we've seen in decades - where the public is not making voting decisions based on party, platform/issues or the like. It's about the image...the "sense of the man." Any closeted politician - and trust me there are plenty more in Sacramento and Washington, DC - runs the risk of being inauthentic to his constituents and supporters if he's not being his or her true self. Politics is still a pretty conservative environment, and even with all the advancements the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community has fought for over the years, homosexuality is still perceived by some as liability. Politicians and party leaders are so concerned about their "public perception" that anything they can identify as being a detracting force will be quietly swept away, and thus causes the issue of inauthenticity in politics today.

 

Sexual Orientation is a very private matter and none of the leading LGBT advocacy organizations - Log Cabin Republicans included - support "outing", or the forced revelation of sexual orientation. Senator Ashburn's sexual orientation was revealed without his consent on a timeline that was not of his choosing - which is the most unfortunate way for information like this to be revealed. But Senator Ashburn showed great courage in taking responsibility for his actions and revealing his true sexual orientation to his family, colleagues in the Legislature and to his constituents. I would hope that this revelation would go far in re-establishing the level of trust between his constituents and himself, which is the ultimate measure for being a good public official.

Part II of this interview coming tomorrow....

Numerically, so far the candidate campaign that has sent the most correspondence to California Republican Party Conventioneers in advance of this weekend's confab is easily Attorney General candidate Steve Cooley (the latest being a letter from four past CRP Chairmen - Dr. Tirso Del Junco, Mike Motgomery, Frank Visco, and my former employer L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich).  Right behind him is the campaign of Gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman (her latest letter is a piece from former Governor Pete Wilson).  But all of those have been rather subdued mailers in terms of presentation -- a simple letter in an envelope.

The only mail piece I have received from a campaign that is impressive in its presentation has come from U.S. Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina.  This glossy mailer is personalized and includes not only a strong letter from some conservative U.S. Senators, but it really lays out the fiscal follies of candidate Tom Campbell.  Of course, for strategic reasons, Fiorina doesn't even mention the candidacy of Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, whom she cannot "out-conservative" but she can out-spend -- but the mail piece is effective.

Check it out for yourself (I emailed the campaign for a .pdf version)...  Click on the graphic below to enlarge...

Steve Poizner's campaign has launched a new website, RealMegWhitman.com -- a site intended pound away at the GOP primary frontrunner on a number of issues.  The first feature video on this site is, simply put, a doosey.  I have "lifted it" and placed it below...

Here's the piece.  I'm sure it deserves some analysis.  But who has time for that?  I guess I will leave it to readers to decide whether a Constitutional Officer who has CHP protection should be reimbursing taxpayers for that protection when it is provided at campaign events....

Having gotten to know many of the members of the press corps that cover California politics, I have found them to for the most part be pretty fair and balanced.  There is always an occasional example of some liberal reporter going too far -- but generally, for our part here in the Golden State, we've got a good crew of reporters (almost all of whom invariably voted for President Obama - but then again, so did most Americans).

There is no good reason for Meg Whitman and her campaign to go through Herculean efforts to avoid meaningful dialogue with the California press corps.  All it does is feed speculation that she has good reason to do so, when I don't think that is the case.  I have heard Whitman in intimate campaign settings, and have myself sat down with her on more than one occasion writing for this website.  I'm confident that she would do just fine in media interviews.

As a Republican Party officer, who is neutral in this primary and is waiting on the proverbial "50 yard line" to help our nominee win the office in November, I really do believe that practice makes perfect where it comes to media interviews.  Before Meg and the GOP get into a general election situation (if Whitman were to defeat Steve Poizner for the GOP nod - a significant if) I would like to see her having already gotten used to fluent and thorough conversations with media reporters.  I often find that these reporters think of and ask questions that are interesting, but frankly a lot of questions are things I never would have thought to ask, but am interested in hearing the responses.  All voters benefit from this kind of in-depth reporting about candidates who will appear before them on the ballot.

Of course if a reporter is unreasonably hostile, and writes a biased, non-objective negative story, that would be an immediate incentive to cease contact with that reporter, especially if corrective action isn't taken by an editor.

I have not been in a hurry to pen a commentary on this topic as it seems like how an individual campaign handles the media is really its own business. 

Except as of yesterday, we are now shifting to "embarrassing" as the adjective of choice to describe the situation of Whitman and reporters -- where we are now seeing prime time television news reports about the avoiding of reporters!  This is not good for Whitman, in my humble opinion, and I know it is not good for the GOP -- the latter being my reason for weighing in.

Yesterday Whitman had an "open media" event with Union Pacific at a bay area stockyard.  Needless to say there was heavy attendance from reporters, anxious to talk to the gubernatorial aspirant.  Apparently when they got there, the media was not invited on the stockyard tour, and then was invited to set up to cover a round table between the candidate and railroad representatives.  But when that event was over, the media were shut down in their efforts to ask the candidate even a single question.

I would direct readers to this blog post by ace SF Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci on the Chron's Politics Blog, with some video worth watching.   A smaller article on the topic appears in the print edition of the Chronicle.  Josh Richman, a very capable reporter from the Oakland Tribune, also writes about it.   But the most startling media coverage of this issue of Whitman avoiding the media comes in the form of two television stories that aired last night (of course, brought to my attention by Whitman's primary opponent's campaign).  These reporters actually got phone calls from Whitman apologizing for the incident.  I am including these two stories below.

Here's a suggestion for candidate Whitman.  All of the California political press corps will be on hand for this weekend's GOP convention.  Reserve a room, invite them in, and have a lengthy, on-the-record sit down with the whole lot of them -- followed with any requested one-on-one's.  Then this issue will be behind us.

The Republican Party in California has enough challenges without this whole, bizarre, media-avoidance strategy from one of our most prominent candidates.

In closing, I sure hope this column is treated as constructive input to the Whitman campaign, because that is certainly how it is intended to come across.

Here are the two television news stories (again, the video is courtesy of Poizner's campaign - which I have used because then I don't have to upload the reports myself.  I also similarly use videos uploaded by the Whitman campaign.  So those descriptions of the videos in big font white lettering are the Poizner campaign putting their title on these clips.).


 

My good friend Eric Hogue may have indulged in a little bit of over-analysis this morning as he penned a lengthy blog post over at Hogue News on the fact that the campaign of ersatz Board of Equalization member Alan Nakanishi made an 'amateur hour' faux pax at the California Republican Assembly convention last weekend in Orange County

The committed sin?  Nakanishi's campaign flyers, distributed all around the convention, were printed on official government paper with a watermark.  How might that have happened?  Well, Eric goes on about that at length.   But if you haven't see it yet, our cool graphic artist buddy Dave took the flyer I brought home and "enhanced" it so you can see the watermark.  Check out his work below.

I will ask this question -- why in the heck does the state place watermarks on its paper ?  And how much does it cost taxpayer to do that.  While apparently there is some utility in knowing when "government" paper is used, I would think those would be few and far between.  Oh well, state government does a lot of things that make normal people go, "Huh?"

My client Assemblyman Bill Emmerson will stay on the ballot for the April 13th special election for the vacant Republican-dominated 37 th State Senate special election, according to a bench ruling by Superior Court Judge Kenneth Andreen, issued about an hour ago in Riverside. The judge announced his ruling after a full blown Perry Mason-style trial that included testimony from a Private Eye that Emmerson opponent and Corona Councilman Steve Nolan, the unsuccessful petitioner, had hired to snoop on where Emmerson sleeps at night. I must admit, I thought the case was getting a little out of hand, but the judge delivered a resounding ruling in Emmerson's favor and I'm pleased to chalk this one up as yet another Lacy legal masterpiece.

" Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Revolution. Revolution until victory. Rolling to Jerusalem. " Sami Al-Arian, Sept 26, 2001, FOX TV. 



Normally, not the kind of rhetoric one finds in a US Senate race. 

Tom Campbell seems to have  forgot a couple of items. Campbell denied Al-Arian was a donor in his 2000 senate campaign. Tom also forgot he wrote a letter defending 'professor"  Al-Arian after 9-11. The letter, dated January 21, 2002, has Tom writing  " I have formed the fear because of the paucity of evidence supporting ...for this discipline against him. I have read a transcript of the  "O'Reilly Factor" interview and i did not see anything whereby Professor Al-Arian attempted ..." 


That was then...this is now.

At least Sami Al-Arian did not call for another Holocaust. Or did he?  He plead guilty in 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to help a "specially designated terrorist" organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

Earlier in Al-Arian's "career" , before he won the professorship at University of South Florida, he was an ambitious jihadists. 

On September 29, 1991, he said in a speech at a Chicago conference that Allah had made Jews "monkeys and swine", and damned them in this world and the after world. He used his position at the USF, to hire members of his Palestinian Islamic Jihad as university employees and used university facilities to send monies to suicide bombers. Definitely not a nice guy or dinner companion.

So, what is it about Tom Campbell that attracts such support?  

Both Chuck Devore and Carly Fiorina have called into question Campbell's judgment. 

After Campbell's ill fated support for the atrocious Prop 1-A, last year, mercifully defeated by over 60% of the voters, helping initiate the Tea Party Movement, Campbell lost all justification  for seeking higher office. Like some Republicans, Campbell thought  just a few more taxes will help "solve" the budget crisis. Campbell failed to understand the first rule for solvent government. It's the Spending Stupid. 

No one is more more charming that Tom Campbell. He probably could out debate French President Nicolas Sarkozy in French. Tom is enormously bright and multi talented.  He is only weak with economics and foreign policy. 

Add on Campbell's foreign policy chops, and its time to duck. There probably has not been anyone so little deserving the republican senate nomination, since......well its hard to find a parallel. Tom Kuchel? William M. Gwin? 



Big Government  Republican Kuchel



pro slavery Democrat Gwin

One of the things I love most about my friend Barbara Alby is her "I know something that you don't know look" -- which hasn't changed in the nearly twenty years that I have known her.  When I sat down briefly with Barbara last weekend at the California Republican Assembly's 75th Anniversary Convention in Buena Park, and asked her about her campaign for Board of Equalization, she gave me "the look" when I asked her about her ballot designation.  She told me that it was "a surprise" but that her choice for ballot designation would be very important to her campaign (along with her published statement in the ballot pamphlet). 

As always, Barbara has a gift for understatement. 

During the CRA Convention, it was obvious that State Senator George Runner was out-hustling her for what concluded in his endorsement by the CRA for his candidacy.  Runner had a full campaign operation working the event.  In contrast, with a peace of mind about her that was enviable Barbara was in what I would call a "happy place" quietly chatting with the many convention delegates).

**There is more - click the link**

View Full Commentary

Yesterday several interesting discussions took place at the Public Lands Steering Committee of the National Association of Counties in Washington, D.C.  A disturbing trend I'm seeing is that a subject that increasingly comes up in meetings involving federal land managers is Global Warm- er ... I mean 'Climate Change' (which is the term that attributes any change in the weather to greenhouse-gas emitting - read breathing - human beings).

One speaker, Tom Tidwell, Chief of the USDA Forest Service, claimed that climate change has increased wildfire seasons by a month, and that it has caused more frequent and severe fires and droughts.  When a county commissioner asked him whether the lack of proper forest management resulting in overgrowth had anything to do with the fire problems, he didn't seem as convinced of that possibility even though intellectually it makes more sense to a lot of people.

Later in the discussion a resolution was introduced to oppose the federal government's plans to establish a "cap and trade" system for controlling greenhouse gases.  I was quite pleased to see the resolution pass.  However, it faces an uncertain future as the Public Lands Committee tends to be dominated by western rural counties like ours while the full membership of NACo includes most of the country's 1,800 counties including the urban ones like Los Angeles and New York.

While traveling to the meeting I read an email that had been forwarded to me this past week that included a memo from U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to all of his department's employees announcing the formation of eight regional Climate Science Centers and a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

The memo reads like hypnosis:

"As employees of the Department of the Interior, many of you are witnessing firsthand one of our Nation's most significant challenges to resource stewardship - climate change:

"As land managers, you are confronting longer and hotter fire seasons, new incursions of invasive species, and the early impacts of sea rise." (Question: what are 'early impacts of sea rise'?)

"As water managers, you are experiencing new precipitation patterns, diminished snowpacks, and more extreme wet and dry periods.

"As wildlife managers, you are dealing with climate-change-induced impacts on wildlife migration habits, habitat availability, and species interactions.

"As scientists, you are observing droughts that are drier and longer, floods that are more dangerous, and hurricanes that are more severe."

... YOU ARE GETTING SLEEEEPY ...

The purpose of the cooperatives and centers that are the subject of the memo is to provide access to scientific information to help manage the effects of climate change from a land-management standpoint. 

But my question is, why is science so important in this case?  Why doesn't it matter when people unflinchingly attribute every change in the weather or anything that is undesirably hot or dry or wet to human-caused climate change?  What ever happened to skepticism?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a pamphlet that I saw for the first time yesterday that claims the oceans will rise six to eight feet in this century.  Really?  As a result of a supposed 1-degree increase in temperature?

Frankly, I am very tempted to challenge Chief Tidwell and Secretary Salazar and others to say that when they make such claims we want them to do the math to back up their claims - and to show their work.  Where are the data to support that conclusion?  I mean, how many years of fire and weather data would it take to prove a statistically sound cause-and-effect hypothesis establishing a nexus between my Ford Expedition and a forest fire in Idaho?

It's like George Will recently wrote: Science doesn't seem to matter when it comes to climate change because it is more like a government-established religion.  So in that case I would like to take this opportunity to challenge the ACLU to get involved and stop these government officials from violating the constitutional doctrine of a separation of church and state.

Some people on this side of the debate call this behavior "drinking the Kool-Aid", likening it to the tragic Jonestown mass-suicide/murder of the 1970s.

Speaking of Kool-Aid, let's turn our attention for a moment to California - the Central Valley to be precise.  It is a place with some severe air-quality problems.  Some farmers there have complied with increased regulations by putting their cow manure into digesters where it is broken down by bacteria, releasing methane, which is then burned to produce electricity. This is a model example of protecting the environment and using resources efficiently, especially since manure - which is untreated or raw sewage - can cause groundwater contamination, and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas so it needs to be gotten rid of, right? 

But hold on a minute.  Burning methane creates oxides of nitrogen, a regulated pollutant, and the regulators are now requiring expensive retrofits to farmers' equipment to deal with the NOx.  Farmers who invested in being environmentally responsible are now being punished.

Imagine that kind of maddening regulatory collision happening everywhere throughout the state.  The California Air Resources Board has already developed an implementation plan for AB 32, including a state cap-and-trade program. Consider the impact that will have on our economy as businesses flee to Arizona or Nevada or even overseas to get away from the requirements.

Unemployment in California is 12.4 percent. In the Inland Empire it is 14 percent and in the High Desert it's close to 17 percent. That means one in six workers in the district I represent is out of work. And now we're facing a regulatory regime that is certain to drive even more people into the unemployment line. 

One of the highest tax-revenue-producing and job-providing industries in our region - cement manufacturing - could easily be driven out of the state due to the combined costs of disposing of their CO2 emissions (nobody knows how to do it yet) while reducing their use of coal and modernizing their equipment and truck engines to reduce diesel particulates.

We have made incredible progress in cleaning the air in Southern California in the past two decades, and that progress will continue.  But if greenhouse gases are to be regulated, it needs to be at the federal level or even better at the international level to create a level playing field.  Conflicting regulations need to be considered and overall regulations standardized and tempered by consideration of their economic impacts.

I am encouraging all local governments to demand an analysis of all existing and pending state and federal regulations and how they will interact, and for a credible economic analysis of the impacts.

And now back to the original point of this article.  The Endangered Species Act has been a job killer for decades, but Congress has proven unwilling to reform it to make it either more effective or more economically workable or scientifically sound.  Over a billion dollars has been spent restricting activities in the Mojave desert to protect the desert tortoise and it continues to decline in population because the Fish and Wildlife Service won't attack the root causes - raven and coyote predation and respiratory disease - and instead have banned livestock grazing which drove out the ranchers which actually truly has led to more and bigger fires due to excessive vegetation and a lack of people to look out for fires or maintain water sources, or to help keep coyotes in check.

But now the people who have failed to save the tortoise by refusing to attack the real threats to it have been distracted by the climate-change dogma.  They talk about it like it is an imminent threat.  So now we have another example of an environmental law that will be circumvented by regulatory actions or inaction caused by the new fixation on climate change.  At this rate the desert tortoise will go extinct by the time a single true impact of climate change is actually proven to exist or affect a single tortoise negatively or even by the time the whole theory is finally debunked.

Finally, the silver lining to this cloud.  California and our region in particular will be leaders in renewable energy.  We have the sun, we have the wind, and we have a willing and competent workforce.  And even if large-scale solar plants aren't economically viable, the federal and state governments are determined to subsidize them.  We do need energy independence and jobs, and since they drank the Kool-Aid on climate change they're willing to throw money at this industry.  So we might as well take advantage.  And we will.

On Saturday morning I was reading through MSM websites gathering news stories, and almost did a double-take when I came across one story filed by Phil Willon on the Los Angeles Times website -- the headline said that the Los Angeles City Council had relaxed a tax on business.

The reason for the double-take, of course, is that the Mayor and almost all of the City Councilmembers of Los Angeles are liberal Democrats who undoubtedly are looking for more ways to gauge money from area businesses, not provide relief from taxation.

When I read more, however, it became very clear to me what was going on.  The specific issue was the City Council providing tax relief to "internet-based" businesses.  Or put another way, these are businesses that can very easily pick up and leave Los Angeles and not materially impact their business-model. 


While it is nice to see some logic prevailing on the Los Angeles City Council, unfortunately most of the businesses in the City of the Angels do not have the option of picking up and moving to a more business-friendly environment.  So if you are a business owner, large or small, in Los Angeles, don't hold your breath waiting for the same kind of treatment that internet-based businesses have gotten.

I'm reminded of a mealtime conversation I had once with Napa Valley vintner Dennis Groth, who at the time was lamenting the extremely steep increases in Workers Compensation Insurance costs (he had shared that it now cost him more to pay Workers Comp premiums than the premiums to provide health care for his employees).  Groth said, "It's not like I can move to a more business friendly state.  My business is planted right here in the Napa Valley, I'm not going anywhere."

So many businesses, like Groth Estates Vineyards, are not going to be able to move out of state.  But that doesn't mean that they don't need tax relief in order to allow them to thrive or even tread water in our current recession.