Now there’s fresh evidence of this from a U.S. neighbor that doesn’t exactly have a history of smart governance. Walter Russell Mead has the details:

“Mexico’s Senate voted [Tuesday] 95 to 28 in favor of an historic energy reform bill last night, setting the stage for a massive turnaround of the country’s oil and gas production. The bill is now headed to the lower house, which is expected to pass it later this week.  The reform, if passed, will be a defining victory for President Enrique Peña Nieto, who has already made a name for himself as a reformer in his first year in office.

“But this is much more than a boost to his legacy; it’s a chance for Mexico to really take advantage of its resource bounty. Mexico has large reserves of conventional onshore and offshore oil and gas, and the world’s sixth and eighth largest shale gas and shale oil reserves, respectively. …

“The reforms will be especially beneficial for Mexican shale exploration. Fracking was so successful in the US because of our relatively simple geology—geology Mexico shares—and our deep pool of firms willing to compete with one another to develop the technology and take the risks on unproven techniques and reserves—something Mexico lacks. But that could change if this bill goes through. These changes could help the country realize the Pemex CEO’s dream of becoming the world’s ‘new Middle East.'”

Will CA join the ‘phenomenon’ or not?

Mead concludes that …

“Mexico is poised to join the US and Canada as new major players in the global oil and gas market, and if these reforms are successful, it will make the shale boom a truly North American phenomenon.”

But will California join in this “North American phenomenon” or not? Maybe not, given the dishonest media coverage of fracking.

From last month, here’s the latest L.A. Times editorial on fracking to not even mention that the Obama administration has repeatedly signed off on fracking’s safety, seeing it as just another heavy industry that can be made safe with proper regulation.

The latest Sac Bee editorial on fracking, which came in September, is not available for free online, but it too never even mentions that the Obama administration has repeatedly signed off on fracking’s safety.

The latest San Francisco Chronicle editorial on fracking also never even mentions that the Obama administration has repeatedly signed off on fracking’s safety. It’s from last month.

Only one editorial from a prominent liberal paper even hinted at the Obama administration’s views of fracking. It was the San Jose Mercury-News piece posted Sept. 15.

“Some environmentalists won’t be happy unless there is a complete ban on fracking or a moratorium until the environmental impact review is complete. But studies by the Environmental Protection Agency have not linked fracking by oil companies to groundwater contamination.”

Both edit page, reporters in on LAT’s anti-fracking agenda

Boy, such context would sure by valuable in all coverage of California and fracking, dontcha think? But so would the comments of U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell at a May press conference, as reported by The New York Times.

“Anticipating criticism from environmental advocates, she said: ‘I know there are those who say fracking is dangerous and should be curtailed, full stop. That ignores the reality that it has been done for decades and has the potential for developing significant domestic resources and strengthening our economy and will be done for decades to come.’”

The Los Angeles Times also covered Jewell’s press conference. It didn’t mention Jewell’s strong support for fracking. Instead, it went to an oil-industry spokesman to make the claim that fracking is safe — not President Obama’s secretary of the interior.

So it’s not just the LAT editorial page with an agenda on fracking. It’s the newsroom, too.

Great, just great.

By Chris Reed

With the op-ed in last week’s Wall Street Journal about California’s enormous potential for a fracking-driven energy boom, it’s beginning to look like how Gov. Jerry Brown deals with the issue will be a national story. It’s one that will test the narrative about Brown being the ultimate pragmatist, a liberal who raps regulation and a Democrat who sees tight-fistedness as akin to good government.

Bard College professor Walter Russell Mead is no conservative, but he’s a very thoughtful critic of modern liberalism and its essential unaffordability. He too thinks how the Golden State deals with its oil shale is a huge story. Still, he joins the long list of East Coast pundits who have no feel for California politics:

“California’s greens are sure to raise a fuss over any new drilling in America’s greenest state, but their fears are misplaced. Drilling for shale oil doesn’t risk water contamination in the way drilling for shale gas does, and much of the drilling will be done on existing oil fields. …

“Rather than pushing against any and all new drilling in California, smart greens should be looking for ways to move forward with drilling while ensuring that environmental concerns are taken care of.”

Such “smart greens” do not exist in California. Opposition to fracking has been reflexive and strident. The Golden State’s greens and their bureaucratic allies are so dogmatic that they have actually talked themselves into believing higher energy prices, specifically those created by AB 32, are good for the economy.

The advice from Pennsylvania’s governor

The question for Jerry Brown is whether he will heed the green hysterics — or Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who saw fracking create jobs and economic growth in his state without the downside warned of by enviro groups.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has a late-February deadline for deciding whether to extend his state’s ban on fracking. This New York Post story from Nov. 30 would leave one assuming that Rendell would offer Gov. Brown the same advice he offers Gov. Cuomo:

“‘New York would be crazy not to lift the moratorium’ imposed by former Gov. David Paterson in 2008, Rendell told The Post.

“‘I told Gov. Cuomo I would come to testify before any legislative committee,’ Rendell added. ‘I told [Cuomo] it’s a good thing to do.’

“Rendell’s strong pro-fracking comments are a coup for the drilling industry and for economically depressed upstate New York, which is clamoring for jobs.

“The no-nonsense Rendell, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, has a lot of credibility on the issue. … Rendell’s former environmental commissioner suggested it’s outrageous for New York to continue buying natural gas from other states without drilling for its own.

“’I do find it stunningly hypocritical to buy gas that comes from fracking wells somewhere [else] in the US and then say fracking is bad,’ said the former commissioner, John Hanger.

“He argued that natural gas is less polluting than coal or oil. …

“Rendell noted he barred the dumping of fracking water into wells and imposed fracking-well fees to hire 100 additional environmental inspectors.

“’The environmental harm can be significantly reduced or limited,’ by putting safety regulations in place ahead of time, he said.”

Rendell, like Jerry Brown, enjoys a rep as a blunt pragmatist. But Rendell also has a regular-guy populist vibe about him. That’s not our Jerry. Whatever his other qualities, I challenge anyone to point to any single event of his most recent four years as governor that suggests he has empathy for the long-term unemployed. Brown seems unlikely to use Rendell-style rhetoric in touting what fracking will do for hurting Californians.

As for Cuomo, he’s also not a populist. Instead, the New York governor is considered a clever straddler, someone who can win liberal votes by stressing cultural issues like gun control while governing as a pro-business centrist.

It’s hard to imagine how either Brown or Cuomo can finesse fracking, which threatens green dreams of a massive shift to renewable energy sources. Cuomo also wants to be president someday. So it is going to be intriguing — and, at least for political junkies, fun — to watch how fracking and the brown energy revolution play out this year in America’s two most influential states.

By Brian Calle and Josephine Djuhana

It should come as no surprise that the economic growth rates and prosperity for states with excessive regulations and taxes are much lower when compared to states with fewer regulations and modest taxes. Incentives, such as low taxes and humble regulations, attract business and investment, which in turn spur economic benefits and job growth. It is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, “it’s just good economics,” as Arthur Laffer, noted economist and economic advisor to former President Ronald Reagan, likes to say.

California lawmakers ought to take note.

Laffer’s new book, “Eureka! How to Fix California,” was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute, CalWatchDog.com’s parent think tank. The former California resident attempts to knock some sense into the political class in Sacramento, urging policy makers to focus on good economics instead of politics as usual. He wrote the book, he said, to create a blueprint for reforming California— to put the once Golden State back on a path of prosperity.

Laffer looked at various state economic data and found some significant disparities between states that instituted progressive income tax policies versus those that did not—particularly the gap in state growth between states with income taxes and states with none.

Eleven states introduced progressive income taxes within the past fifty years—Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maine, Illinois, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia. And of the 11, all states declined as a share of the U.S. economy. Michigan’s economy, for example, was at 5.08 percent of the US economy in 2005; that percentage slid to 2.64 percent in 2010. Like Michigan, Ohio’s wealth diminished as a result of similarly poor economic policies, Laffer argues. “The only things that still look nice in Ohio are the public government buildings,” remarked Dr. Laffer, during a recent stop on his book tour in Orange County.

Laffer also explores migration patters between states with varying tax rates; comparing “right-to-work” states—states where employees retain the right to decide whether or not to join or financially support a union—and “forced unionism” states—where an individual must pay union fees as a condition of employment and has forced union representation.

Right-to-work growth

In right-to-work states, Laffer found more economic growth, while “forced union” states trended the opposite direction.

The 22 right-to-work states experienced a 52.83 percent jump in gross state product; on the other hand, the 28 “union-shop” states had a 41.72 percent gross state product growth, less than the 46.61 percent US average.

“Right-to-work” states also trumped their forced-union counterparts in personal income growth, payroll employment growth, population growth and net domestic in-migration. Part of the reason that the growth gap is so large is that employers have a tendency to move away from forced-union states, not just to scale back wages and salaries, but also to avoid intrusive union rules, lawsuits, work stoppage threats and more.

Laffer’s proposal to reform California’s tax system should come as no surprise for those who have followed his work. He calls for a flat tax for the state of California; one simple tax on net business sales, and another on personal unadjusted income. His proposal does call for keeping “sin taxes” on the books, those taxes on cigarettes, etc., that are more meant to alter behavior than to raise revenues. Those concerned with the role of government in legislating personal decisions might argue that such sin taxes ought to be ousted as well.

California’s current tax system causes much unsettling volatility in state tax income year-to-year by making budgeting at the state level often incoherent. For example, in 2001, income from capital gains taxes (and other onetime revenues) made up a quarter of state tax revenue, according to Laffer.

And California has so many taxes (Laffer stopped counting after he studied 162 of them) that the tax code is overwhelmingly and unnecessarily complex, hence Laffer’s push to simplify it.

Looking at Sacramento today, though, there appears to be no political will in the legislature or with Gov. Jerry Brown to reform the tax code and especially institute a flat tax. Laffer dismisses that, noting that, when Brown ran for president in 1992, Brown proposed a national flat tax, making it part of his platform in the Democratic primary. “He was the first prominent presidential candidate to ever propose a national flat tax,” Laffer said. Optimistically, Laffer argues that, given the right situation, Brown could be amenable.  We shall see. Brown, this time around, seems more beholden to public employee unions than during his previous stint as governor.

“Political partisanship is ruining the politics of our country,” Laffer concludes. Fixing California requires a nonpartisan effort to eliminate excessive taxes and regulations, and to create a business-friendly environment that encourages economic activity. Laffer’s blueprint, in short, challenges California politicians to put partisanship aside and embrace simple economics.