<![if !IE 6]>
<![endif]>
Publisher, The FlashReport
Jon Fleischman
What They Are Saying
"Jon Fleischman's Flash Report is the definitive daily news source for California Republican leaders."
- Ron Nehring, Chairman of the California Republican Party 
More Testimonials
Send FlashReport to a Friend
Special Reports
20 REALLY BAD BILLS - ALL WORTHY OF GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER'S VETO PEN
FlashReport's 2006 "Worst of the Worst" - 20 Bills that Governor Schwarzenegger should veto, as compiled by Republican Assemblymembers Rick Keene and Chuck DeVore.
September 7, 2006
Unfortunately for the people of California, the State Legislature is dominated by liberal Democrats. because of it, there were scores of bills passed by the legislature, over the objection of Republicans, that are either on the Governor's desk, or are in the process of being transmitted to him. In an effort to allow readers of the FlashReport to really get a handle on how well Governor Schwarzenegger is wielding his veto pen over the coming weeks, the FlashReport asked two of our favorite Republican legislators, Assemblymembers Rick Keene and Chuck DeVore, if they would help us to compile the FlashReport "20 Worst of the Worst." These bills represent the most aggregious attempts by the Democrats to restrict the freedom and liberty of Californians, grow the size and scope of state government.
-- Jon Fleischman, Publisher
We will be keeping the list below updated as the Governor takes action on each of them!
AS OF 8:00am on October 3:
LEGINFO SAYS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER HAS VETOED 14 OF 20 AND SIGNED 5 OF 20 AND LET GO 1 OF 20
VETO "BATTING AVERAGE" WAS .700
The "Nanny State" Only Wants What’s Best For You...
A Listing Of 20 Really Bad Bills
By Assemblymen Rick Keene and Chuck DeVore
A little less than 2,400 years ago Plato quoted Socrates in the Republic warning against trying to legislate every little detail of life. Socrates said, "(What) about the business of the marketplace …the ordinary dealings between man and man, …about insult and injury, of the commencement of (lawsuits)… But, oh heavens! Shall we condescend to legislate on any of these particulars?" What Socrates was saying was that legislation cannot take the place of commonsense or a society’s healthy customs.
John Adams, our second President and a signer of the Declaration of Independence echoed Socrates’ thoughts when he said of our form of government, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams’ words are a warning that no amount of government force and no amount of controlling legislation can master a people lacking a moral compass.
With the wisdom above firmly in mind, we can now move to examine California’s thankfully terminated legislative session.
The California State Legislature ended its 2005-06 session with government power strengthened at the expense of liberty. In the closing days we voted on hundreds of bills. A few of the bills were good. Some were harmless. Many were stunningly bad. And, quite a few quite simply seek to manage your life.
The majority backed one measure after another that eroded Californians’ freedom. Clearly, the Democrats in Sacramento think they are here to help you because they know you obviously can’t run your own life. Why not just outlaw stupidity? Or irresponsibility?
Before we list 20 really bad bills, let’s review a few that were so bad, even the legislature couldn’t bring itself to pass them:
SB 626 by Sen. Nell Soto was a vehicle impound bill that allowed illegal immigrant drivers to get their cars back after 24 hours, rather than the month that garden variety U.S. citizens with suspended licenses have to wait. It died in the Assembly twice, failing its last vote 33 to 39.
AB 352 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz was the infamous firearms micro stamping bill. Easily defeated by criminals, this bill would have increased the cost of firearms and done nothing to combat crime. It died a couple of times, going down at the end two votes short on a 39 to 34 vote. The Democrats even tried to bring it back an unprecedented third time and actually got a little testy with Republicans for not granting unanimous consent to allow it a third vote!
AB 379, also by Assemblyman Koretz, sought to ban smoking in vehicles with minor passengers present. It was killed in the Assembly 37 to 35 (with 41 needed) on the last day after winning its first tests in the Assembly and Senate earlier in the year.
Now, on to the really bad 20. The bills listed below take away a bit of our liberty or dilute the rule of law. In each of them the government assumes a greater role in managing our lives while we are gradually reduced to the role of children in the house of the Nanny State. With the Legislature having failed to stop these bad bills, we will now look to Governor Schwarzenegger and see how many he will veto.
THE REALLY BAD 20
1. AB 32 (Nunez) Enacts the Global Warming Act of 2006 , which creates a statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limit that would reduce emissions by 25% by 2020. Why veto? AB 32 asserts questionable science as undisputed fact, will impose tremendous costs on the California economy, and even under best estimates do virtually nothing to curb “Global Warming.” Also, AB 32 gives the California Air Resources Board unchecked power to regulate, tax and fee.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: SIGNED!
2. SB 840 (Kuehl) Creates the California Health Insurance System (CHIS), a single payer health care system, administered by the California Health Insurance Agency, to provide health insurance coverage to all California residents. Why veto? Government-run heath insurance is not the way to go. California will become a magnet for individuals in other states and countries seeking free health care. This issue needs careful thought.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
3. SB 1437 (Kuehl) Prohibits instruction, or the adoption of any instructional material, that reflects adversely on persons due to sexual orientation. Why veto? The Education Code already prohibits discrimination against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals and this bill is designed to silence the opinions of those who have a different view. (Ed Code Sec. 200, 201, 220, 233.5).
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
4. AB 2108 (Evans) Requires children up to eight years of age to ride in a child safety booster seat and clarifies that infants shall be properly secured in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system unless that child is one year of age and also weighs 20 pounds or more. Why veto? Existing statues are adequate to protect our children. What about transporting unexpected extra kids? Discretion should be given to parents.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
5. SB 1578 (Lowenthal) This bill establishes the tethering of a dog to a stationary object, except as specified, as an infraction or misdemeanor, depending on the offense, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per dog and/or up to six months in a county jail. Why veto? SB 1578 creates a crime out of common and humane animal care. Cruelty to animals if they are restrained from shelter, food or water is already a crime. (Penal Code section 579t.)
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: SIGNED!
6. SB 1613 (Simitian) This bill prohibits a driver from using a wireless phone while operating a vehicle, unless the phone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free operation. Why veto? Studies have shown that the loss of attention is the cell phone problem regardless if one holds the phone or uses a hands free device. Currently negligence in driving for any reason is already illegal. Police should spend their time prosecuting real crime.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: SIGNED!
7. SB 160 (Cedillo) Requests the University of California and requires the California State University and the California Community Colleges (CCCs) make it easier for students who are currently exempt from paying nonresident tuition at a California College to participate in all student aid programs including illegal immigrants. Why veto? SB 160 gives tax subsidies to non-citizens and estimated $7 million in financial aid to illegal immigrant students. It also discriminates against out-of-state legal US Citizens who wish to attend a UC, CSU, or CA Community College.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
8. AB 680 (Chan) Directs the Department of Education to monitor compliance with a requirement for districts to publish parental notices in the primary languages of some parents. Why veto? There is no feasible way for the Department of Education to monitor, check, and verify thousands of schools and the respective paperwork. English is still the official language and should be.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: NONE, AUTOMATICALLY CHAPTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE!
9. AB 2444 (Klehs) Authorizes 9 Bay Area counties to impose additional annual fees on registered vehicles. Why veto? The bill would raise taxes without the voters’ approval and make the increases contingent only on a 2/3rds vote by the county supervisors.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
10. AB 2681 (Pavley) Increases vehicle registration fees to fund the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund. Why veto? This bill doubles fees and forces a car owner who has not abandoned their vehicle to help pay to clean up someone else’s problem. There is no end to the appetite for fee (tax) increases.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
11. SB 1489 (Ducheny) Repeals law that disallowed the Attorney General to collect expert witness and attorney fees. Why veto? This would create a financial incentive for the AG to pursue lawsuits against businesses, and a disincentive for some businesses to defend themselves if the costs could run high, regardless of the merit. The AG’s motives to file suit should not include financial gain, nor should he be able to bully people into submitting because of the potential for exorbitant costs for your day in court.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
12. SB 1414 (Migden) Requires employers with 10,000 or more employees to spend between six and eight percent of its total wages, as specified, on employee health insurance costs, or pay a specified amount to the Department of Industrial Relations for deposit into the California Fair Share Health Care Fund. Why veto? Employer provided health coverage is and should remain a voluntary benefit; employee salaries will be reduced by the increased cost of health care and/or layoffs may occur until equilibrium of cost is reached. This issue needs far more work.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
13. SB 927 (Lowenthal) Imposes a fee on containers discharged at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in order to fund rail system improvements, pollution mitigation measures, and port security enhancements. Why veto? As much as 40% of cargo arriving in LA and Long Beach is discretionary and can be moved to another port. Plus, the bill duplicates the transportation bond objectives. New and excessive taxes will significantly harm California businesses and the State economy.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
14. AB 1884 (Chu) Grants eligibility for Unemployment Insurance benefits to workers who are prevented by their employers from entering the worksite during a trade dispute. Why veto? California companies would essentially be forced to pay for a strike against their own company.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
***This bill below was awarded the FlashReport 2006 Golden Trash Can for being VERY BAD legislation.***
15. AB 523 (Lui) This bill authorizes the governing board of a community college district to sell for less than fair-market value. It “allows for unique circumstances relating to the proposed sale,” to a nonprofit educational television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission located in Orange County and deemed to be surplus property, to a non-profit organization for a specified purpose. Why veto? Bill is designed to discriminate against a specific company, in this case a company with a religious affiliation.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
16. AB 606 (Levine) Attempts to ensure that all school districts and schools work to reduce discrimination, harassment and violence based on specified characteristics, including but not limited to, actual or perceived gender identity and sexual orientation and requires the State Department of Education (SDE) to develop a model Anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and to post it on its web site. Why veto? Existing statue already provides for the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies expressed in this bill. This is another attempt to silence those who don’t agree with these lifestyle choices. (Ed Code Sec. 233.5)
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
17. AB 695 (Mullin) Requires a retail seller to provide legible receipts that remain legible for the entire return period of a product and directs a retailer to display its return policy. Why veto? The requirement that all stores post their return policies at every sales counter is signage overkill and unnecessary. Failure to comply with the signage requirements in this bill, even through inadvertent removal, could subject retailers to lawsuits. Another field for roving professional plaintiffs to play in.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
18. AB 2712 (Leno) Provides civil immunity for landlords who rent housing to sex offenders by providing that lease or rental of residential real property does not create any legal “duty.” It also provides that the provision of information pursuant to Megan’s Law does not impose a legal duty to actually use that information. Why veto? Land lords are still held responsible to other tenants for harm caused by these individuals, and landlords cannot refuse to rent to a registered sex offender a place near children. This bill does nothing to correct the real dilemma, rather merely window dresses the issue and provides no solutions to the real problems.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: VETOED!
19. AB 1835 (Lieber, Leno, Koretz) Sets the minimum wage at $7.50 per hour as of January 1, 2007 and $8.00 per hour as of January 1, 2008. Why veto? Businesses of all sizes are already shouldering the heavy burdens of paying the nation’s highest energy costs, and high workers’ compensation premiums, as well as the nation’s highest unemployment insurance tax rates. This bill will eliminate training jobs and jobs for kids, and will cause all wages to go up due to wage impaction; As a result, hours of work for all employees will be decreased or people laid off; planned business expansions will be delayed or canceled; companies on the margin will have to consider moving to other states or countries where lower labor costs exist; and ultimately, the consumer will bear a higher price in goods an services which will eat up the buying power of the wage increase.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: SIGNED!
20. AB 2911 (Nunez) Uses the purchasing power of the state to set price controls on pharmaceuticals. Why veto? Basically the same deal as November 2005’s defeated Proposition 79, an initiative that would sought to punish the pharmaceutical industry for not giving special deals to the uninsured. Really amounts to price controls on an industry that spends between $800 million to $1 billion to bring a new drug to market.
ACTION BY THE GOVERNOR: SIGNED!
Hopefully the Governor's veto pen will get a good work out -- and deliver vetoes on all 20 of the FlashReport 20 Worst Bills!
YOU CAN ADD YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTS ON THE TOP TWENTY OVER HERE. A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE ASSEMBLYMEN FOR THEIR HELP WITH THIS PROJECT!