Demystifying the Prop. 23 battle

SEPT. 8, 2010


Californians are faced with unusual issues every election cycle — this November is no different, with challenging “lifestyle” ballot initiatives to sort through. Proposition 23, “the California Jobs Initiative” is probably one of the most challenging, and in part, because of the fight over ballot language. It’s built around the growing green technology industry in California, but not everyone thinks the way California’s state government is going about this environmental, green technology push, is good for the state.

And some think there is a healthy side-order of guilt to go along with the attractive California lifestyle, attracting to many opposing the environmental cause.

Proposition 23 would suspend AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as cap and trade legislation. Cap-and-trade language has become commonly used, but rarely explains that total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are capped, and firms are allowed to trade the limited quantity of emission permits.

AB32’s implementation has already begun, but critics of AB32 say that if California’s adoption of these regulations does not also become the law throughout the nation, the reliance on renewable energy could create price spikes and even brownouts, leading to businesses avoiding California altogether, because of the risk. One Republican Senate report billed AB32 as, “the doctrine that California must single-handedly resolve the cyclical atmospheric warming trend through Herculean regulatory efforts.”

NO on Proposition 23” campaign strategist Steve Maviglio, sees a sunnier outlook and is working toward the failure of the measure. “National business groups see the law as supportive of rapid lean tech growth,” said Maviglio in a CalWatchdog interview. Maviglio said, “The defeat of Proposition 23 would allow the job growth spurred by AB 32, to continue.”

The “NO on Prop 23” Web site (called “Stop the dirty energy proposition”) lists 27 companies that will be hurt if the initiative passes “because clean energy mandates would be suspended,” which companies have been banking on and building toward, according to Maviglio. “California will be the leader in solar energy,” and he acknowledged that “Texas had early wind incentives” through financier, T. Boone Pickens.

Maviglio said that even gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman supports the “No on Prop 23” campaign and AB32, because written into the law is the ability for the governor to suspend it for economic reasons – something Whitman has already said she would do for one year.

Maviglio was critical of the “big oil” support for Prop. 23, and said “the big polluters will be hurt by Prop. 23 losing, because they would rather spend money on campaigns than on cleanup.”

While the businesses listed on the “NO on Proposition 23” Web site are already taking advantage of California green technology, each of the company testimonies on the Web site state that they were paid for by Thomas Steyer, CEO and hedge fund manager for Farallon Capital Management, a $33 billion company. Steyer was a key activist in the campaign against the California Electoral College Reform Initiative in 2008, according to Ballotpedia.

Both sides have big money flowing into the campaigns, as CalWatchdog reported back in June — “Dirty big oil” on the “Yes” side, and fuzzy contributors like “Green Tech” and “The Energy Foundation” on the “NO” campaign.

One of the company testimonies states, “Policies like AB32, which are stimulating “green building” standards and energy efficiency programs, help encourage home owners to do the right thing.” Recurve, a home energy audits and green energy remodeling and construction company in San Francisco, states that in California with so many construction workers are out of work and residential construction rebounding, we need new sectors – such as the home performance retrofitting industry that Recurve pioneered – to prosper in order to put people back to work.”

Another testimony reads, “The Progressive Power Group specializes in the sales, marketing, and installation of solar electric systems for residential and commercial buildings in Southern California.”

“The bottom line,” says Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, “is that the green industry in California is not market driven. It’s entirely subsidized.”

Logue, the originator of Proposition 23, says that the initiative will suspend “California’s draconian global warming laws,” and save private businesses. “If AB32 is going to create jobs as they say, why do we need a law?” asks Logue. “Green jobs are unsustainable. Just ask Germany, Italy and Spain, which are working to un-do their false green economies.” Logue said that Spain is bankrupt after trying to create its entire economy around and subsidizing green technology.

But it appears that government has a very large stake in AB32 and creating a green industry in California. On a Web site called California Bright Spot, two headlines stood out: “California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Commits $3.1 Billion for Energy Efficiency Programs While Creating up to 18,000 Jobs,” and “California Energy Commission (CEC) Grants $18.8 Million for Program that Creates Jobs in Energy Efficiency Training.”

Asked how the California government can give away this kind of money while suffering under a $20 billion deficit, Logue said, “real innovative green technology projects” were killed by the opposition — $30 billion in jobs were killed over 10 years, and $200 billion worth of jobs, nationwide.

The “NO on Proposition 23” campaign begins most opposition sentences with “Texas oil companies are spending millions on Prop. 23,” but fail to mention the wealthy hedge fund manager support leading up the effort to kill Prop 23, said campaign insiders.

“And the people who oppose Proposition 23 also killed the non-subsidized green jobs in California,” said Logue.

Interestingly, one of the criticisms of cap-and-trade laws from the left is that it would create a gigantic new market in carbon trading that would allow Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs to profit. Proposition 23 campaign insiders said that the commissions on cap and trade will total more than $4 billion each year for Wall Street, signifying just how much is on the line.

Upon closer look on the “bright spot” Web site, and stated in a news release, the $18.8 California Pubic Utility Commission grant listed states that it is federal stimulus money, “funded through the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” meaning that taxpayers are paying for California to become the green technology leader in the country according to campaign insiders.

The CPUC is funding the green jobs training project, which states it will provide “clean energy work experience to about 200 experienced California contractors and approximately 200 young people who are just ready enter the state’s job market.” Apparently, phase one of the 18-month program will be “specialized training” on the installation technologies designed to improve the energy efficiency of commercial refrigerator cases. Phase two will be “to perform 5,000 green retrofit installations at grocery stores and other state businesses with refrigerated areas.” The state is paying state contractors to learn how to install and retrofit refrigerator cases at state locations.

Ironically, the EnergySmart Job training initiative is led by an Oregon-based company Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.

For proof of his anti-cap-and-trade positions, Logue refers to the 31,000 scientists in the U.S. who signed the petition rejecting “global warming,” and the assumption that it is humans that have damaged the Earth’s climate. The petition also included more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, and the environment. The bottom line, said Logue, is that 31,000 Scientists say that global warming is not man-made.

“Adding insult to injury” said Logue, “If AB32 is not suspended, the California Air Resources Board claims it does not even know how to implement the law.”

And Logue said California residents will be faced with “paying higher gas prices to ensure you drive less, required to recycle more paper, cans and bottles, carpooling and driving less, as well as contemplating having to drive an expensive hybrid vehicle. Californians will be paying more so that our electric companies can invest in more of their alternative energy businesses.”

At Maviglio’s suggestion, good news could be found on the California Bright Spot Web site. Commercial Solar Design in Santa Rosa touts the benefits of California’s global warming law, and said, “Thanks to policies like AB32, we’ve seen an explosion in the solar farming field in the past couple years. Our company is growing with every contract we sign.”

No comments

Write a comment
  1. John Seiler
    John Seiler 8 September, 2010, 18:20

    Great article. See my blog for my comments:

    Reply this comment
  2. Ron Kilmartin
    Ron Kilmartin 8 September, 2010, 21:40

    Kathy –
    This is my reply to the Editor of the Contra Costa Times, in which I argue against the Times’ position which recommended a no vote on Proposition 23 (9/5/10).

    AB 32 is based on a myth – Proposition 23 deserves a yes vote.

    The fundamental problem with AB 32 is that it is based on the carbon dioxide theory of man-made global warming. This theory was shown to be a myth in the Climategate discoveries last year, which fact is further verified by hundreds of investigations both before and since. However, media coverage of the myth has avoided the truth and continues supporting the lie of man-made global warming. The warming and cooling which has prevailed on earth for eons is natural and has nothing to do with man-man CO2 But not only has the media lied, but the “scientific” establishment of the State of California continues to support the myth since it is the basis of their own job security. The CARB staff as public servants cannot be trusted to serve in the public interest.

    Proposition 23 was unfortunately not drafted with the idea of repealing AB32. It will set implementation of AB 32 aside for a time while employment rises to the levels of 2006, when AB 32 was passed., This lapse will permit a public vetting of the AB 32 myth so all can see what a scam it is. The case for complete repeal of AB 32 is absolutely airtight and needs to be considered by the people of California in a more comprehensive attack in the next round of propositions, unless we can get a legislature and a governor who recognize the folly of AB 32.

    The Times criticizes the oil companies (Valero, Tesaro, and Occidental) for supporting Proposition 23. These companies employ thousands in California. They are looking out for their employees, contractors and second-tier jobs, as well as their own bottom line, and I say that is great, as Proposition 23 will need a lot of financial support to counter the big bucks that are being mobilized to fight it.

    Lets take a moment and consider the bottom line of the oil companies and every other CO2-emiting industry in the state (i.e., that is every firm in the state!). CARB will want them to add costly emission controls for a mythical purpose! And the bill goes to Joe and Jane Sixpack in higher costs across the board and higher taxes. And CARB even admits that all their controls will do nothing to stop global warming even under their mythical hypothesis!! Billions will be wasted on a myth whether CARB admits it is a myth or not. And the $billions will come from good old Joe and Jane.

    The propaganda against Proposition 23 is being funded by a big-tine Silicon Valley hedge fund manager, various green fleecer gadgeters feeding at the public trough of taxbreaks and subsidies, the usual clutch of enviro-nut anti-people organizations and a large contingent of cap and traders out to fleece the public with higher electrical energy costs and higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs. Silicon valley companies such as Apple and Google, that should know that the CO2 theory is a farce apparently are fact-challenged on this myth or else they also have a finger in the AB 32 money pie.

    These big-time cap and trade fleecers include PG&E, Chevron, Duke Power, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Hewlett Packard, and many others, including Gore’s management company out for a fast buck. This list will be greatly expanded before the election since Proposition 23 will give the bottom lines of the big-time skimmers a real haircut if it passes.

    The bill for AB 32 will be at the expense of Joe and Jane Sixpack. Additionally Joe and Jane will be personally encumbered with new tyrannical regulations being dreamt up by CARB that will affect their daily lives with carbon-police harassment at every turn. PG&E has already applied for a rate increase on Joe and Jane to cover PG&E cap & trade ventures.

    We have already seen wide-spread capital flight from California because of its regulatory environment (worst in the USA), and the flight from AB 32 regulations has barely begun. Joe and Jane Sixpack will be lucky to find any employment in the state when CARB gets done with the new socialist chains of AB 32, forcing thousands of long-viable companies out of business and the jobs with them.

    One of the many associated lies about AB 32 is that it will encourage development of a “clean energy” industry – the green gadgeteer fleecers. Any such industries that depend on the CO2 myth for subsidy or regulatory chains on Joe and Jane Sixpack will surely fail when the myth becomes fully understood by the public. The cap and traders know this and are in for a fast buck, Enron Style, before the myth collapses. If Proposition 23 is passed it will allow a much gentler landing for these myth-flying companies than otherwise a few years down the road when the public-trough rug is pulled out from under them. Think of AB 32 as a jet plane flying at 40,000 feet piloted by the green fleecers and running out of fuel (the CO2 myth evaporates for all to see). The plane crashes with 100% destruction. Proposition 23 would be like a giant-parachute allowing the plane to land now and the passengers (the green fleecers) to get out alive. In other words the green fleecers can either crash and die like the windmills of the 1990s or, get a real job now in a growing economy absent the dreadful AB 32 financial threat, a job that does not require fleecing of others.

    Another lie is that AB32 will reduce pollutants that are harmful to human and animal life. That is completely false. CO2 is absolutely harmless to humans and animals and CO2 and that is the only significant gas regulated by AB 32. All harmful emissions are already heavily regulated by other laws and AB 32 will not affect their emission rates one iota. What CARB really means is that they will reduce the highly regulated harmful emissions by putting the firms out of business because of its harmless CO2 emissions. Orwellian Double talk by the 1984 CARB Ministry of Truth. The harmful emissions are already controlled at safe levels.

    Proposition 23 deserves the support of every Californian – even the fleecers will benefit in the long run by getting a real job.

    Reply this comment
  3. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 9 September, 2010, 08:13

    We must keep getting this simple message out- those for Prop 23 are dirty energy oil and coal barrons; those against Prop 23 are the new green economy.

    In the meanwhile you cansupport The Dave Jones California Green Insurance Act of 2010

    Please read and use contact links below in the article to endorse for the Governor to sign by September 30, 2010

    Reply this comment
  4. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 14 September, 2010, 09:07

    Is Karen Drunk? Lay of the Kool-aid.

    Reply this comment
  5. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 14 September, 2010, 12:12


    I believe its safe to say you have lost the argument when you resort to personal attacks. Everyone knows that dirty money from the Koch Brothers, sons of the Conservative John Birch Society, along with Tesoro and Valero oil companies are funding Proposition 23. The reason why the dirty fuel industry is supporting Prop 23 is because it does just the opposite of what AB 32 does, create a green economy. Prop 23 throws back into the dark ages of dirty fossil fuel and to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. The Sierra Club, Environment California, all green organizations including Van Jones are all against Proposition 23. Deal with it.

    Reply this comment
  6. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 14 September, 2010, 12:13


    I believe its safe to say you have lost the argument when you resort to personal attacks. Everyone knows that dirty money from the Koch Brothers, sons of the Conservative John Birch Society, along with Tesoro and Valero oil companies are funding Proposition 23. The reason why the dirty fuel industry is supporting Prop 23 is because it does just the opposite of what the Global Warming Solutions Act passed by Schwarzenegger AB 32 does. Proposition 23 stops us from creating a green economy. Prop 23 throws back into the dark ages of dirty fossil fuel and to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. The Sierra Club, Environment California, all green organizations including Van Jones are all against Proposition 23. Deal with it.

    Reply this comment
  7. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 14 September, 2010, 12:31

    @Ron- Climate Gate is right up there with Barack Obama has no United States birth certificate. Why were the names of the robbers who broke into a secure lab, and stole data from computers never released. Why was the story always what the crooks say they found? Who paid the crooks? Were the crooks ever put in jail or charged with anything. Since when have all Republicans suddenly become climate change specialists? These conspiracies are just silly and unfounded.

    Everyone knows the Koch Brothers are behind this. Global warming has been written about in the scientific literature since the early 1800’s first accounted for by Joseph Fourier, mathematician.

    Reply this comment
  8. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 14 September, 2010, 12:38

    And notice at the link above regarding how Kevin Johnson supports Schwarzenneger’s AB 32 and therefore against 23, that our old friend Frank Luntz has changed his position on climate change legislation- google ‘Frank Luntz Daily Beast.’

    Reply this comment
  9. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 14 September, 2010, 12:46

    What media tells us what and why and how

    …..- its often not what the industry professionals are saying- . At the link below is a montage from FOX NEWS for which for many years undermined industry professionals regarding global warming. Despite the fact that thousands of scientists around the world are in an highly unusual consensus [unless taking pay from the oil companies- for which too, are funding specialized think tanks groups of lawyer as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation etc- fronting for the oil companies, these are not climate scientists]

    Find me one university in the world that does not take global warming seriously. Watch who sponsors the news you are watching. Would this have anything to do with what and how the media is being produced? Why are Americans confused about global warming when meteorologists here began scrutinizing weather records in the 1930’s kept by NOAA dating back to the mid 1800s. Internationally, scientists such as Joseph Fourier from France, have calculated the free atmospheric carbon input and output imbalance thought to induce global warming in 1822!

    Have a look at this video- see how Sean Hannity introduces a lawyer for the tobacco industry as a global warming ‘expert’. Note, this ‘expert’ defended the cigarette companies stance that nicotine is not addictive nor do cigarettes cause cancer:

    Then, try something new and to add to your media exposure…consider listening to the radio over the internet and try:

    Reply this comment
  10. UpChuck.Liberals
    UpChuck.Liberals 17 September, 2010, 15:11


    Who are you working for?

    Global Warming or any of the other junk science that is being foisted off on the public is pure junk. You know it and we know it. This ‘Ohhh, we have to save the Earth’ is pure fantasy. It’s the Rich like Soros, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer and Gore that you’re trying to ‘save’. Anybody with half a brain knows that 1. Volcanoes emit more CO2 and real green house gasses than humans ever will 2. We are at the lowest CO2 levels in tens of thousands of years, more CO2 will just enable more plant growth. Just incase you haven’t heard, plants ‘breathe’ CO2. 3. If we really want to cut down on CO2 we’d get our elected officials to SHUT UP and stay home.

    Reply this comment
  11. Vladimir Val Cymbal
    Vladimir Val Cymbal 17 September, 2010, 15:34

    There is nothing stopping private industry to invest in alternative energy, except profitability and the vast amount of horrendous regulations, studies, and fees standing in the way. A solar energy generation plant in the California Desert was abandoned due to the high cost and time involved in getting permits to build it. A wind farm plant was abandoned when environmentalists objected on the grounds that birds might fly into them. These and other objections are standing in the way of alternative energy sources. The only companies who will be able to avoid them are those which hold favor with the government. This shows the true purpose of these stumbling blocks to California business. Their main goal is for government to have more and more control of the people.

    It is against the law to manufacture solar panels in California. They are being built in India and other foreign countries which benefit leaving Americans on the side line. The motors for the wind energy generating farms are built overseas, again leaving American business out of the loop.

    There have been no new refineries built in California for decades, environmentalists oppose hydroelectric plants, and even though natural leaking of oil is polluting Santa Barbara beaches and others, we can’t relieve the pressure by harvesting the oil. The cleanest source of energy is nuclear. Plants have and are being built all over the world because they are safer than ever but there are no plans for any new ones in California.

    We need to use whatever sources of energy are now available while private industry searches for other economical ways. Government rules and regulations only stand in the way of our energy independence and economic recovery. Government is not the solution to problems. Government is the problem.

    Reply this comment
  12. Joe Sullivan
    Joe Sullivan 4 October, 2010, 15:09

    The causes of global warming and climate change are now being described in terms of human activities. Environmentalists, certain political groups, and news media would have us believe this. However climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. Mankind cannot control the earth’s climate, and a miniscule reduction of carbon dioxide will not stop global warming.

    Earth’s climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geological time. The Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000 year cycles. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and humid than today, with far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than today. Earth’s atmosphere now contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geological times, our present atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. In the last 600 million years of the Earth’s history only one other geological period witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, and temperatures as low as today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period 550 million ago was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm. According to the greenhouse theory, it should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors, such as coincidence of the Sun’s solar maximums and cyclic variations of the Earth’s orbit around the sun are responsible for warm but temporary periods other than atmospheric carbon influence.

    Proposition 23 should have been designed to kill AB32. The sad part of AB32 is that it is a farce, perpetrated by those who will benefit financially from it, presented to a people basically ignorant of historical geology.

    I am one of 31,487 scientists, a Geological Engineer for over a half century, who petitioned the government to reject the global warming agreement. Further, in 1977 I was Chief of the Special Programs Unit at McClellan AFB, CA involved in supporting Missile and Space Programs, and Satellite Communications Systems. We were responsible for maintenance of ground receiver stations for polar earth orbiting weather observation satellites, part of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. The weather information, pictures and other classified information are provided to Department of Defense.

    Reply this comment
  13. Karen Hansen
    Karen Hansen 27 October, 2010, 07:55

    Hello Upchuck, I hold advanced degrees in Earth Sciences and if I told you I worked on the Climate Change Program, all you will say is that somehow I have gotten rich off of the 10 dollars an hour that I was paid at the USGS in Menlo Park. If I tell you I am a facilitator of Earth and Environmental Sciences at a private college, you will try to say that someone at that university is affecting my views rather than just deal with the facts of the science itself.

    I am one of the 100s of thousands of scientists that is simply saying that when the delicate and fragile mix of gases in the atmosphere goes out of balance, that it is a good idea to monitor and to problem solve and to not carry the water for the industries who are fully capable as well as anyone with any commonsense that it makes sense to do this. and when a few single sources are known to be the cause of a problem, that there needs to be a responsibility and not a denial.

    As Mr Sullivan says above that he is in the military, then he ought to know about that in addition to biological agents, there are military considerations for which General Warner has been leading/ planning: use these search terms in google to find some articles : general warner global warming refugees

    JOHANNESBURG, 23 May 2008 (IRIN) – Norman Myers, a world renowned British environmentalist and authority on biodiversity, forecast more than a decade ago that as the impact of climate change intensified, the number of people fleeing natural disasters could climb to at least 50 million by 2010. Now, as the world grapples with food shortages brought on in part by climate change, he is revising his figures upwards.

    Estimates of the number of people likely to be displaced by natural disasters or rising sea levels vary widely, but as fiercer and bigger weather events hit the news headlines daily, the temperature of debates on providing protection to people displaced by the vagaries of nature is rising

    In fact, Senator Lieberman and General Warner concerned with the refugee problem due to climate change and wrote a bill passed December 2007

    Here is a synopsis of how global warming was finally turned into legislation,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html

    Reply this comment
  14. Mike P
    Mike P 28 October, 2010, 16:51

    Coming from someone who is reasonably intelligent, educated, knows how to spell and punctuate and is not an extremist: Global “warming” is a deceptive and inaccurate term. Winters in many areas are getting colder, not warmer. The debate is about “climate change”. “Global warming” should be struck from the record.

    The debate is *not* about the survival of the planet, which can do just fine with or without us (and has survived billions of years of much worse effects than a few hundred billion cars)–it’s about the effect on *life on it*–on WE THE PEOPLE. We could detonate every nuclear missile and bomb and the earth would still survive, along with the cockroaches and ants and snails that eat my lawn. But to think that vehicle exhaust and manufacturing plant emissions just magically disappear and don’t go into our systems is crazier than a tennis helmet. To anyone who truly believes that, I challenge you to sit directly behind a running diesel truck or school bus for more than ten minutes without wincing, coughing, waving your hands or making a face. (Go ahead, I’ll wait.)

    You see, I couldn’t care less about the survival of the earth. I just don’t want to breathe a bunch of garbage and have to deal with lung disease even though I’ve avoided smoking all my life.

    Carbon dioxide, um, is NOT good for humans to inhale, which is why we *exhale* it. It’s *good* for green plants which, with the help of the sun, convert it into oxygen and other stuff, which (thru an amazing coincidence) is what we BREATHE. So the best way to eliminate all CO2 emissions is to just eliminate all human life. (Al Gore and none of the “green” advocates care to mention that for some reason.) But I’m not willing to vote that one in just yet. So leave CO2 out of it. If anything, we need more plants, more rain forests. But that’s a separate bill.

    Now oil? Sorry, it’s a finite resource. As in, there’s just so much left in the ground. I don’t care how many millions or billions of barrels we can pump into the ocean (thank you, BP)–at the rate we and (especially) China and India are using it, we are going to run out this century, plain and simple . Even the oil companies and oil tycoon Boone Pickens basically agree with that. So it simply makes common sense to find other sources. Anyone who thinks we have enough oil to last forever, I’d like to sell you a bridge on the East Coast.

    Will it cost more initially? Of course it will. Any and every new technology does. I’m old enough to remember when VCRs cost over $500 and movies on VHS cost $75 per tape. (Not an exaggeration!) A 13-inch television used to cost $1,500. A Ford used to cost (in today’s dollars) $60,000. No longer. So the more people use new energy sources, the more they will be available and the cheaper they will become. Can you say “natural gas”? Just a few years ago I was paying $12 per btu and now it’s less than $4, on its way to $3, mainly due to over supply. Same will happen with solar, wind, corn, bird poop, Cheetos or whatever new source becomes popular. But we won’t know unless and until it’s developed, and we won’t develop it until we have financial incentive to. That’s the way capitalism works.

    Bottom line, companies only care about—well, the bottom line. The publicly-traded ones are short-sighted, due to the structure of the markets. (They have to be as they’re beholden to the analysts and shareholders.) Corporations couldn’t care less about the next few years, let alone the next few decades. But I do. And so should every parent and responsible citizen. It’s the *reasonable* thing to do.

    So I’m voting against Prop 23 as a start. To force companies to start thinking beyond their next quarter. If and when something better comes along, I’ll vote for it. But for now, I’d rather breathe easier, thanks. And I’m willing to pay my fair share for it, just like when I bought my first VCR $200 (on sale).

    BTW, this is a great site and I appreciate all the work that goes into it…THANK YOU!


    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Gov. Brown vetoes bill easing special election burdens on counties, voters

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill on Monday that would have allowed him and his successors to cancel a special

Quarter-million applicants still waiting for Medi-Cal

  A quarter-million Medi-Cal applicants have been waiting more than 45 days, and in some cases nearly a year, either