Prop 23 could improve state's economy

Katy Grimes: The Legislative Analyst’s Office reported today that if Proposition 23 is passed, the state’s economy will improve “modestly.” However, before LAO analyst Mark Newton could give the rest of the good news, his testimony was interrupted and redirected.

Today the mandatory hearing for Proposition 23 took place at the Capitol. And the bias was prounounced – in the committee and in the audience. Seated in the gallery were far more anti-prop 23 spectators and special interests than Prop 23 supporters.

How do I know this? Seated right in the middle of the pack, I was privy to every whisper, hiss, gasp and snarky comment from opponents of the measure whenever Marysville Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue opended his mouth to ask a question or make a comment, or when proponents from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association, and the NFIB spoke.

But the moment during the hearing that made me emit an audible gasp was when Senate Environmental Committee chairman, Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, stopped LAO analyst Mark Newton  from stating that even with the “modestly higher economic activity” the state would enjoy with passage of Prop 23, “this would translate into an unknown but potentially significant increase in revenues to state and local government,” as he read from the LAO’s Prop 23 report.

The “modest uptick to the economy would result in increased revenue to state and local governments,” was all Newton got out, earlier in the hearing.

This is big!  Any “uptick” in the economy in the state is something the legislature is obligated to pursue, for the good of the everyone in the state.

Instead, Democrat committee members Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro and Senator Fran Pavely railed against the initiative, seeming determined to pursue their own agendas, ignoring the positive economic news.

Newton carefully explained that during LAO research, they weighed all of the factors before they concluded that Prop 23 would result in a modest improvement to the state’s economy.

It was disheartening to observe elected state officials allowing personal agendas override sound, non-partisan research.

And what were Logue’s damning comments? Logue said that “Prop 23 would save the people of the state from the largest enery tax in history, by suspending – not repealing – AB 32.” And Logue was critical of the massive subsidies to the green businesses in the state. “Tap the real economy, get unemployment down, do what Texas is doing with the largest wind farm in the country,” said Logue.

Critical of the subsidies propping up green tech and green businesses, Logue told of Spain’s 20 percent unemployment rate after subsidizing its green businesses, and Italy’s loss of 6 to 7 jobs for every subsidized green job. Logue recommended that green business stand on its own, and is “good for the future. If AB 32 is so great, why do we need a law?”

OCT. 1, 2010

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Paul Taylor Examiner
    Paul Taylor Examiner 2 October, 2010, 07:21

    ECOPOLITICS
    PAUL TAYLOR
    California has been a leader in American trends of entertainment, outdoor sports, cars, alternative lifestyles, environmentalism, and unfortunately of late, dysfunctional state government. Today, the once “Golden State” is deeply tarnished by massive annual budget deficits and political corruption where the partisan special interests of militant labor union, divisive immigrant and radical environmental lobbies reign supreme.

    Californians are suffering an unprecedented 12.5% unemployment rate as economic recession deepens. Californians, without any federal orders or proof of climate benefits, naively approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). AB 32 would impose costly 2012 reductions in state greenhouse gases for global warming benefits. All new environmental regulations increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of all goods, services, energies and activities. AB 32 would further punish California businesses and families with more taxes, energy expenses and unemployment as we enter the third year of an historic national economic recession.

    Proof of the punishing impacts of environmental regulations can be observed in records of U.S. unemployment rates. The massive and ubiquitous tangle of U.S. environmental regulations began to expand from the federal government level in the 1970s. Today, environmental regulations and their attendant mob of bureaucrats at local, state and federal governments cost us about 5% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Environmental regulations have also become a free-for-all of eco-group propaganda and gratuitous litigation. Rules are issued by green-obsessed government do-gooders without mention of long term costs, unemployment or proof of actual environmental benefits.

    Using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) records of U.S. unemployment data, the impact of U.S. environmental regulations upon unemployment can be seen in the 30 years before, and after, the 1970 enviro-policy explosions:
    • The average U.S. unemployment rate from 1940 (excluding WWII) to 1970 was 4.5%;
    • The average U.S. unemployment rate from 1970 to 2000 was 6%;
    • As environmental regulations expanded after 1970, 30-year average unemployment increased by 33.3%.

    California voters can delay the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) by voting for Prop. 23 on November 2nd. Prop. 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32 greenhouse gas controls until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below an unemployment rate benchmark of 5.5%.

    California’s Prop. 23 benchmarking of future environmental regulations to economic performance (recovery) should be a model for U.S. Government environmental regulations. The “new” U.S. Congress should pass legislation to suspend all pending and future environmental regulations until U.S. unemployment recovers to the post-1970 average of 6.5%. The U.S., and each state, must reset the reckless pace of environmental regulation to an economic benchmark. The so-called ”new green economy” is a green fantasy that should not be a national (or state) priority.

    Reply this comment
  2. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 4 October, 2010, 10:32

    This is just a perfect example of how these Radical Environmentalists never let the facts get in the way of their agenda. No matter how damning the consewuences are, they simply do not care, especially since its not their business that will be killed because of it. Since they are making the rules, they strategically position their investments in a way that will allow them to make a killing from their own legislative decisions.

    The fact that Fran Pavley is present at the hearing, let alone being the one rallying against the LAO’s Bi-partisan findings is frightening! This lady is literally UNFIT to serve as a public official, let alone dictate the future of the businesses in the state. This lady had to step down from her “Chair” positions on many committees and has been completely absent (both mentally & physically) since she started having regular senile outbusts during legislative proceedings. This lady has cursed at a preacher during a hearing, screamed at somebody (nobody really knows who she was talking to) because her water was not filled during a hearing, has been pictured playing games on her computer while hearings are going on, and has been sheilded from the public & kept in office, despite her loss of sanity, simply because she will march lock step with Steinberg, so he wants to make sure he has a loyal lemming able to press the “Yes” button when he needs something passed.

    The corruption and abuse of these people is simply jaw dropping. They dont even try to hide it anymore, they just do whatever they want, no matter how devistating it will be to us working class people. One can only hope that they get kicked out of office before they damage the state any more than they already have. Just a few more mis-steps and California will be filing bankruptcy real soon. You can only run $20 Billion deficits for so long before everything comes crashing down. Passing PROP 23 would be a real good start in reversing the damage these Radicals have left behind.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Related Articles

One more Obamacare snafu

May 23, 2013 By Katy Grimes There is yet one more snafu in the Obamacare health care law — paying

Happy 30th Birthday, Macintosh

The personal computer revolution took off like an ICBM with the introduction of Apple’s Macintosh 30 years ago today. Two

This just in: We're more doomed than ever

OK, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been out of the state since Wednesday, passing the hat in Washington D.C. with Assembly