On My Mind

Last Friday evening, December 12, I was a guest on the John and Ken show on KFI am Los Angeles.  These guys have one of the most popular talk shows in the state and discuss many of the most important issues facing the state.

I was on the show to discuss the Air Resource Board’s passage of the scoping plan for AB 32 implementation.  While I had some good light-hearted fun with John and Ken, I believe the show contained a good discussion of the issue and allowed me to discuss my concerns over the lack of a rigorous economic analysis of the scoping plan.  The reality is that the economics of the scoping plan have been called into question in two highly respected non-partisan analyses and it has been very difficult to get this message out.

While I’m an admitted skeptic of man-made global warming, regardless of how you feel about the issue, you should be demanding that the state perform an honest economic assessment of the scoping plan before beginning full implementation.

You can hear the show segment here

Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines and I recently made a request to the Legislative Analyst to study the economic impacts of the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan for the implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

AB 32 was legislation approved in 2006 that essentially gave the California Air Resources Board the unilateral authority to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Regardless of how you feel about global warming, if you stop and consider the magnitude of the task of trying to wipe out 30 years of carbon dioxide emmissions in a continually developing economy that relies largely on fossil fuels, it stands to reason that a huge economic impact is inevitable. And it is important that before we do this, we should have some idea of what that impact might be. In fact, I believe that if not implemented correctly, the economic impact of this one act alone could make our current budgetary crisis seem mild in comparison.

While the scoping plan that the ARB released came to the conclusion that there would be a net economic benefit, the Legislative Analyst’s report last week suggests that the economic analysis behind the scoping plan is flawed. In addition, the Legislative Analyst suggest that the plan fails to lay out an “investment pathway” to reach the goals set forth in AB 32.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this report is that the LAO was unable to receive full cooperation from the ARB. The LAO states on more than one occasion that they did not receive an appropriate written response to their questions from the ARB, even though, “…it had been provided ample time to do so.”

Given the current economic climate, clear direction about how we reduce GHG emissions is all the more important as we have to allow businesses and households the time necessary to prepare themselves for what lies ahead in this regard.

As we prepare to sail the uncharted waters of AB 32 implementation, a full and fair analysis of the scoping plan needs to be completed. Before approval of any scoping plan regarding the implementation of AB 32, a complete picture of the costs and benefits must be undertaken. Unfortunately, the scoping plan that is currently on the table falls short of providing that.

The Air Resources Board (ARB) is scheduled to act on the scoping plan at its December 11 - 12th meetings.

A copy of the LAO’s analysis can be found here.

UPDATE 12/1/08:  The San Diego Union Tribune has editorialized about this report.  Read the editorial here.

Whew!  The campaigns are finally over and the change that the majority of the American people were looking for is certainly in our future.

First of all, let me thank you for voting  (you did vote, didn’t you?)  And if you voted for me, thank you for that!

The remarkable thing for me as we witness a complete regime change in our country, is that this happens without revolt or violence.   For over two centuries, our system has proven its durability even as we continually change those in power.  What’s truly remarkable is that we find this unremarkable.  Let me reflect, if just for a moment, how blessed we are to live in a country with freedom, and opportunity, which many nations do not enjoy.

As we get closer and closer to this year’s election, I’m frequently asked for my thoughts and recommendations on the ballot initiatives. As there are too many to comment individually on each one, I will simply offer my recommendations. If you have any feedback on these, please, feel free to drop me a line.

Prop 1A - NO (High Speed Rail Bond):
Prop 2 - NO (Farm Animal Confinement):
Prop 3 - NO (Children’s Hospital Bond)
Prop: 4 - YES (Parental Consent for Abortion)
Prop 5 - NO (Drug Offense Sentencing)
Prop 6 - YES (Law Enforcement Funding, Gang Sentence Enhancements)
Prop 7 - NO (Mandated Renewable Energy Generation)
Prop 8 - YES (Marriage Protection Initiative)
Prop 9 - YES (Criminal Justice Victims Rights)
Prop 10 - NO (Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Renewable Energy Bonds)
Prop 11 - YES (Redistricting)
Prop 12 - YES (Veterans Bond)

2008 marks the 10th budget I’ve dealt with as an elected official. It is always a difficult process, taking a lot of time and involving very difficult decisions. This year was the toughest, and the least satisfying.

After a long week of budget discussions, the California legislature has finally approved a budget plan this evening that will satisfy the Governor enough to garner his signature.  As many of you know, the 2008-09 California State Budget was passed in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 16.  The following day, Governor Schwarzenegger called a press conference to announce that he would veto the budget plan based largely on two issues.  The Governor wanted additional budget reform that makes it tougher to take from a newly established Budget Stabilization fund, in addition to a revision of an accelerated tax withholding provision that had originally come from the Governor’s administration, and which Republicans had opposed.  Fortunately, legislative leaders came together on agreement on these issues and the final pieces to the puzzle were placed on the Governor’s desk tonight.

I voted to support this overall budget proposal, but, as I stated above, the product is far from satisfying.

The path that has led us to this budget has been long and difficult.  While it would have been preferable for us to pass legislation to authorize the state to pay for essential services while we continues to work on more major permanent budget fixes, Unfortunately the Governor threatened to veto any such temporary measure.  At this point, 75 days into the new budget year, it became clear that our only alternative, to avoid serious pain by innocent bystanders, was to pass an admittedly temporary solution and begin work on next year’s budget as soon as possible.

When Democrats and the Governor subsequently dropped their demands for a multi-billion tax increase, a path to a temporary budget solution was visible so that public health clinics, child care centers, and agencies that provide services to the developmentally disabled would be able to continue providing services and not be forced to close their doors.

As a compromise plan, this budget could have been better, but it also could have been much worse.  The fact of the matter is that this budget contains no tax increases, fully funds education under Proposition 98, contains no borrowing from local government and protects public safety while rejecting an early prisoner release scheme that was contained in the Governor’s budget proposal. In addition, this budget makes some progress on budget reform that represents a good first step in limiting our overall spending.  This budget spends a billion dollars less than the conference committee report and is $7 billion less spending than what Democrats originally demanded, while avoiding a $10 billion tax increase.

Admittedly, this budget doesn’t solve our long term budget problems, but neither did any of the other proposals that existed, including the Governor’s August revision. Under the Governor’s plan, after a three-year ”temporary” multi-billion dollar tax increase, multi-billion dollar deficits reemerge to be dealt with by a new Governor and an entirely different legislature.  The Governor criticized this budget by saying this budget ”kicks the can down the alley” for one more year, but the reality is that his plan would have kicked the can down the alley for three years to a new Governor.  At least with this plan, this Governor and a substantially similar legislature will be forced to deal with this problem immediately.

So, while this is a truly unsatisfying budget that I am very frustrated with and certainly not one I would have crafted on my own, it was a budget that needed to be done and provides closure that will force action to begin immediately on next year’s budget.

Today I attended the 14th annual Perspectives. That’s the all day event of excellent speakers put on by the Sacramento Metro Chamber.

This year’s was one of the better Perspectives with a great line-up of speakers. But what I thought about a lot wasn’t the event itself, but the guy who is responsible for it, my good friend Rusty Hammer.

I could say that I started Perspectives. It’s kinda true. The first and founding edition of the event was in 1995, the year I was President of the Chamber.  Certainly it’s why the event is uniquely special to me.  However, the assertion would be self aggrandizement to an absurd degree.  The major accomplishments of “my” year as President of the Chamber were due to Rusty Hammer’s energy and creativity.  I will take credit for recognizing his creative energy and allowing it to flourish.

But back to Rusty.  We (the Chamber Board) hired Rusty to run the Chamber in 1994.  His first full year as CEO was the year I was Chamber President.  What a whirlwind year that was and what great memories I have.  In addition to Perspectives, we founded the World Trade Center for Sacramento, celebrated anniversaries and set attendance records for every major Chamber function.  I learned much from Rusty, grew to immensely admire his capacity for accomplishment and we became fast friends.

Rusty made his mark on Sacramento in the few years he ran the Chamber.  Then his talent was spotted by the Los Angeles Chamber who gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse.  When he moved to L.A. I was sad to see him go, but vicariously anxious to watch from afar the success that I knew Rusty would have on a bigger stage.

Then tragedy struck.  Shortly after arriving in the south state, Rusty was diagnosed with Leukemia.  My bittersweet sadness with his departure from Sacramento turned to devastation.  The knowledge I gained from my longtime association with the Leukemia/Lymphomia Society gave me little encouragement for Rusty’s chances.

Rusty Hammer fought Leukemia with the same vigor he attacked life.  During that time he amazed everybody by continuing to add to his considerable life achievements, including writing a book, When Cancer Calls, Say Yes to Life, which I emphatically recommend.  In fact, he actually beat the disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment and its side effects were eventually too much even for Rusty.  He succumbed to a myriad of ailments through which he suffered with characteristic grace, dignity and good humor.

So back at the wonderful event that is Perspectives.  It is actually far from Rusty’s greatest accomplishment, but still a signature event through which his legacy will endure in Sacramento

These are tough times for many.

That’s why I am working to strengthen the economy, keep good paying jobs in
our state, and keep taxes down.

It¹s why I opposed job-killing schemes that would hurt working people by
raising income, payroll, and gas taxes.

To fight higher gas prices, I support expanded use of renewable energy such
as wind and solar and I opposed legislation that would make it even more
expensive to produce gasoline in our state.

To improve our schools, I wrote legislation to promote the recruitment of
experienced professionals into the classroom ­ so our children would have
the best teachers possible.

To make neighborhoods safer, I served as legislative co-chair for the
Jessica¹s Law campaign and helped enact a new law requiring sexual predators
to live more than 2,000 feet from schools. This law also requires these
types of criminals to wear a Global Positioning System device - for life.

I co-authored measures to create a new felony crime for the possession of
the chemicals used to make meth and extend the statute of limitations on
prosecution of child pornography crimes.

Because I understand that the sense of violation felt by victims of identity
theft and the hassle of clearing up credit records, I co-authored a measure
to raise penalties for identity theft.

It has been an honor to serve you and with your support, I’ll help make the
kind of changes California needs to get our state back on track.

I believe that a system of public infrastructure is one of the most important things that a government can do because it is the one thing that has an impact on the lives of all citizens. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation and worked for the past four years to change the way in which California builds our system of roads, bridges, railways, and schools. Unfortunately, to date, these proposals have been met with stiff opposition from public sector labor unions who want to protect public sector jobs.

At a time when taxpayer funds are scarce, one of the methods that has been used in many other states and countries to provide for infrastructure is by utilizing the resources and capital of the private sector. Known as public private partnerships, or P3’s, many successful road and infrastructure projects around the country and the world have been built this way.

For roadways, this often means allowing a private company or investors to build a road and then allowing those investors to realize a return on their investment through the collection of tolls from motorists for the use of that road. After a period of usually 20-30 years, the road is generally turned over to the state or local government. Where no road would otherwise exist if we relied on Government funding, public private partnerships can be a very viable option and something I believe the state should strongly consider.

Do you support the development of toll roads in places where currently no roads exist?

The legislature has placed on the November ballot Proposition 1A, the High Speed Rail Bond Act that would authorize the state to sell $9 billion in new bonds to begin construction of a high speed rail system between Southern California and the Bay Area. Initially, the High Speed Rail would not connect to Sacramento, although long term plans (20-30 years) show a high speed rail stop in Sacramento.

While high speed rail is a romantic notion to be sure, the cost of this is staggering, approaching $40 billion or more. I believe that we could do a lot to improve California’s existing system of rails for this amount of money and I am opposing this bond measure.

I recently rode a high speed rail system in Europe and one of the things that struck me was how low the average speed of the line actually was. While the High Speed Rail line would indeed have a high top-end speed, by the time you factor in the number of stops and the distance between stops scheduled on this new line, the rail line likely will not achieve its expected speeds. Travel times to L.A. from the Bay Area would still be nearly three hours.

Do you support the passage of Proposition 1A, the High Speed Rail Bond Act?

At one point during this year’s budget discussions, the Governor suggested a plan to release thousands of serious criminals without supervision from parole officers. Under this plan, law enforcement would have had no idea where these former inmates were living or if they were on the path to return to a life of crime. We wouldn’t know if they are abusing illegal drugs and alcohol or had acquired a dangerous firearm. Additionally, without taking steps to help former inmates to get their lives back on track, I believe this plan could have lead to a significant rise in violent crime in communities across California, making any potential savings short-lived as they will be returned to prison once they commit a new crime. The plan was put forth by the Governor as he contends that it would have saved the state $200 million.

Do you support the Governor’s plan for early release to save the state money?