The Big Winner Is…
As is my tradition, in the weeks after a State Republican Party Convention, I publish a column on who I think "won" and who "lost" at the convention. There is no doubt who the BIG WINNER was at this year’s convention. Come on… You can guess…. Alright, tired of guessing? Read it here: Winners & Losers.
Whalen in the Standard
FR Bay Area Blogger Bill Whalen has penned an excellent column in the Weekly Standard today, called "The Governator V" — you should definately check it out here if you haven’t read it already.
Easy Call For Local Government – YES on 76
The Governor made his pitch to the California League of Cities yesterday, as to why they should back Proposition 76. The cities should get onboard with this measure that would move us in the direction towards fiscal sanity. I don’t know how much more of a lesson cities need than a look at history. Whenever the legislature overspents California into red-ink land, it seems like they always take money from local governments to fill the hole. This measure would help to stop that in the future.
Pombo a Federalist to the Core
It seems that some groups are up in arms over a proposal by FR friend Congressman Richard Pombo. He is proposing that, in essence, the United States get OUT of the business of regulating whether individual states allow oil drilling off of their shores. The idea is that EACH STATE would make that decision, as envisioned by a federalist form of government. As a matter of fact, Pombo’s legislation would also sweeten the pot for the various states, as they would get a larger share of tax revenues from any drilling off their state. The debate here shouldn’t be about oil drilling, but about whether this an area more appropriately regulated by the federal government, or the various state governments. A big cowboy hats off to Pombo!
Tit for Tat?
There are a couple of stories in today’s news about the pro and con sides in the Redistricting Reform battle going at it over illegal contributions. At the center of this controversy is a (dumb) state law that caps contributions to candidate-controlled committees. These committees are advocating for the passage of statewide ballot measures, but there is a distinction between what a candidate’s committee can accept, and a committee formed to support or oppose a ballot measure. I have an idea, why don’t we just SCRAP all of these limits, have strong DISCLOSURE rules, and let take who the financial supporters for or against a cause impacts their vote. The only ones who really benefit from these rules are, of course, incumbents and the very wealthiest of candidates, as it is unconstitution to limit what you give to your own campaign.
Have a great day!