« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

California’s Rogue Air Resources Board… Anti-California, Anti-Business, Anti-American.

By: Skip MacLure (Diary)  |  October 9th, 2010 at 01:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Brian Sussman, KSFO’s morning anchor here in the San Francisco Bay Area, variously known as Babylon-by-the-Bay and the belly of the liberal beast, really went on a tear over the California Air Resources Board. I can’t repeat it here, or even much of it, because I was so transfixed when I heard it that I didn’t take notes. It’s worth listening to and if you go to Brian’s section on KSFO’s website, it is there to listen to on demand. Alternatively, click on this link to hear that portion of the show: Brian Sussman, Oct. 8, 6-7am.

Brian Sussman

Between the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board and its distaff offspring here in the nine-county Bay Area, the Bay Area Air Quality Resources Board, the level of over-regulation has reached insane levels.

Our absolutely useless state government aside, much of the downturn in the state of California is directly attributable to businesses of all classifications leaving the Golden State for greener pastures in business-friendly states, or offshore altogether. Either way, these powerful agencies are responsible to no one. There is no political oversight of these agencies, whose merest whim can destroy thousands of businesses with scant fear of any repercussion.

Aside from the exodus of money, jobs and skilled people we’ve experienced, new businesses are giving California a wide berth. Once they check the punitive tax rates, multiplicity of fees and other charges, and the punitive nature of the regulating agencies here, they say adios. Then they pick up their marbles and move to business-friendly states like Nevada or Arizona.

It appears that Conservatives are on the verge of a truly historic event in American politics. Conservatives have got to make an urgent priority of collaring these agencies, federal as well as state and local, that are literally choking American enterprise to death. They are the enemy of the American people and a friend to radical environmentalists of all types.

Oddly enough, the behemoth that is the Environmental Protection Agency may be the easier to defeat as they, like any federal agency, are dependent on Congress for funding. They could be starved into submission by a Conservative Republican Congress with courage and conviction.

The California agencies may be tougher because they are solely funded by fines levied against unwary contractors, property owners and businesses. They are virtually autonomous, setting policy as they see fit and, in the case of the California Air Quality Board, fake science and cooking the books on the phony science that they had derived from someone else’s fraudulent research. These goofball goons don’t even exist in the same universe with the rest of us.

It should be readily apparent to all that if California is to recover from its current tailspin something has got to be done to change the environment for businesses here in this state.

Have you registered to vote? Has everyone in your family been registered? Tell everybody you know that this is the most important election of their lifetimes.
Four weeks and counting…

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • howardbeale

    Until you fix the gerrymandering of districts in the state, it will be difficult to make any significant political changes at the state level in CA

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      There are just too many squishy pro-aborts in the state who vote Democrat.

      • IJB

        Fixing the ‘gerrymandering’ in CA might give the GOP just a few more districts in elections like 2010 (but would likely have cost us even more districts than we lost in 2006 and 2008…).

        Ultimately, the problem with CA isn’t gerrymandering – it’s that there’s just too many D’s around!

        • SteveLA

          How about nominating candidates who appeal to D’s and I’s, even ***gasp*** Scott Brown sorts of moderates in a Blue state?

          Never work.

          • IJB

            But most of the rest of us don’t.

          • SteveLA

            IJB

            CA is a Blue to Libertarian leaning state, unless you know better. To win state wide elections you nominate people who appeal to D’s and I’s or at least don’t turn them off. If you have another plan to win elections let me know.

            Senator Scott Brown is the sort of moderate R. I can and do support, a three exception on abortion Republican who’s good on fiscal matters, good on law and order and good on a strong military and foreign policy matters. If that’s out of step with the SIVV wing of the party, well that’s the way it goes.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Rather than your talking in code

            Though I don’t see the Libertarians (capital “L” or small “l”) a significant force because of their small-government focus. More like libertine: freedom for various sexual coupling (so long as there aren’t any live kids that result) and drugs; big government for everything else.

            Quibbling aside, Carly would seem to be a reasonably moderate Republican by your calculus; if she can’t prevail against a hard leftist like Boxer, its’ hard to see where the “swing voters” are who will vote R for a candidate that is identifiably R.

            And if you move further left than someone like Carly, you’ll turn off the base more than you’ll gain a few more marginal voters.

          • pilgrim
          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Time for a trade-in.

            Why vote for Dem-lite when you can get full-bodied Dem?

            Scott Brown is sui generis as is O’Donnell or Cao – you can’t generalize from these folks.

            Until enough Californians decide that big government doesn’t work and in fact is even more intrusive into their personal lives than those “evil” (and mostly mythical) social conservative busybodies, there won’t be any substantive movement towards conservative Republicans.

            Plus we’ll need to see a willingness to move beyond identity group group-think.

            But if you don’t keep putting up conservatives who articulate alternatives “out of season” then the folks won’t see any choice when they’re ready to try conservatism.

            Which means that the left wins by default.

            (Though Republicans may be heading towards extinction anyway if this majority budget wins (or the Dems get 2/3rds in House and Senate) – as the one-party Dem government set up a positive-feedback system that drives out conservatives.)

          • SteveLA

            I’m with you to a point on the small government, lower spending part. It’s the social conservative stuff that I disagree with you on.

            I disagree with my CA R party platform, here’s only one example of how out of touch with D’s and I’s the R party in CA is and how the party is loosing state wide elections.

            We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.

            Really, in a state with a large number of gay people who vote, or with voters who have family members who are gay or friends that are gay? We’re not talking gay marriage here, we’re talking deigning health care to domestic partners and leaving children in state care instead of letting gays adopt….really? Is there any other state that has this in their party platform, I really have not looked.

            Far as abortion, that issue was settled in CA in 1968 when a law allowing abortions was passed and there is little interest in the state outside of SIVV for overturn of this law. Heck, even modest proposals like parental notifications which I voted for can’t even pass. While I have and will continue to support incremental restrictions on abortion, it’s settled law in CA and if the matter was returned to the states with an appeal of Roe, it would not be overturned CA.

            I supported and voted for Prop 187, and think that R’s in the state can win elections by getting tough on illegal immigration through smart propositions that go after the root cause, employment of illegal aliens who rob tax payers by not paying into the social welfare system.

            That makes me a RINO around these parts or worse in Neil’s lexicon a “Pro Abort”, fair enough. We disagree on what the CA R party should stand for, at least if you want to win elections with more than support from the base SIVV voters and actually have a chance at governing and not just preach at people who won’t convert.

            Cracked drum…OK guilty as charged. How about wanting to elect people who know who’s money they are spending and not just ones who got the approval of the SIVV wing of the R CA party which has controlled the party for 10 years with litmus tests on stances on social issues and promptly lose elections because in a Blue state voters reject those values.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            I perhaps should take a closer look at the party platform. I wasn’t aware of the gay rights plank that you quoted – that is an unforced error. (In other words, I have zero interest in defending that plank.)

            As for abortion – at the political level, the deciding point is whether a candidate wants to further restrict abortion vs. preserve the status quo or expand abortions. The former is what I could support. What we need more of is for candidates to say 1) what specifically they would do to advance life, and 2) convince us that they believe what they say. In almost all cases, 2) is going to require the candidate taking a strong anti-abortion stand in order to be considered believable.

            Nothing to add about immigration except that I’m looking for real solutions, not rhetoric, nor nativism, nor verifiable bigotry.

            At this juncture in our history, I certainly put my priorities on maintaining a strong defense and fiscal control/shrinking government. But I’ve said before, though, if you look at those who support those two legs, you’ll find a significantly higher percentage who are social conservatives than social liberals. So ease up a bit with your instincts so you don’t engage in friendly fire.

            That’s enough for now. I don’t recall all of your posting history, but I would think that the RINO charges against you are based mostly on different issues than the ones you outlined your position on above.

          • IJB

            For once, it’s a principled stand – the only thing that could make that plank better is if they expanded the people who ruled out adoption to include all singles, and people who’ve been married for less than 5 years.

            Steve wants pandering for votes, instead of principle – he fails to understand that the Dems as a ‘patronage party’ can waste time on pandering garbage; the GOP as a ‘principle party’ can’t and shouldn’t.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Radical pro-abort extremists.

            That’s not moderation.

          • SteveLA

            Neil

            So in your lexicon is that anyone that supports exemptions for Rape, Incest or Life of the Mother a “Radical Pro-Abort” extremist?

            If you have these objections to they extend to Griswold and Eisenstadt?

            I’m with you that I think that the Life of the Mother exemption needs to be tightened up as it has been abused, probably would support a truly independent medical review review as I would for late term abortions with a very high bar to meet.

          • SteveLA

            Neil

            Apologies are due you, I don’t know your position on abortion so I made an assumption that you had objections to life of the mother abortion exemptions, that was putting words in your mouth….my mistake…bad.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Explain to me then why you’ve called Republican candidates extremist who ran only on parental notification of abortion on demand.

          • SteveLA

            Where? Who?

            But what is your stance? Three exemptions or the hardliner no exemptions ever?

            What about restricting contraceptives for consenting adults, you good with that ?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And how did this get to be about me?

            You’re the one making a prescription for the CRP here that capitulates on mass infanticide.

          • SteveLA

            Neil

            Simon ran for the Senate in 2002. At almost 8 years ago I would have been hard pressed to make a comment about his run for the Senate here on RS, or 7 years ago which was his run in the recall, which is way longer than the 6 1/2 years RS has been around. Would you like to try again to tell me where I commented on Simon and called him an “extremist”? I think that I supported Riordian in that race. By the way, I’ve really have never studied Simon in any detail, the fact that Rudy G. supported him in his Senate run would tend to make me think he’s not an extremist on abortion.

            As I am asking questions, where are you on the out of touch plank in the CA Republican platform that seeks to end benefits to civil unions for Gays and stop gay adoptions? We’re not talking stopping gay marriage with that plank, we’re pushing ending benefits to gays who have civil unions which was one of the cases made to vote gay marriage down down; civil unions provided all the rights and privileges of marriage. But not according to the stated policy of the CA Republican party.

            Even here in my Northern LA County area; R CA Senate, R CA Assembly and R Congress-critter, we are seeing challenges to R office holders by Donks as they move North. Hard core social conservatism is not selling all that well with the influx of Donks from down below and Red Meat served up by the CA R machine and party platform is not going to change that trend here or anywhere else in the state. A focus on job creation, the economy, taxes, illegal immigration, and other pocket book issues will help hold the area and could turn the tide in the state to the R column in my RINO view.

            Fee free to disagree in your own way….

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            In 2002?

            So um, was that our third Senate seat? Because Feinstein was up in 2000 and Boxer was up in 2004.

          • SteveLA

            Simon ran for Governor, running against Grey Davis in 2002.

            So um, were on RS, or even opening it up for you a whole lot, where anywhere, did I have anything to say about Simon who’s run for office which was well before RS was created? Here’s a hint about reality, in 2001/2 I was in the process of trying to get a business off the ground, which eventually did not work out. I really didn’t have time to do much of anything than try to develop my business.

            Like to try again ?

      • cactusjack

        why is abortion such an overpowering interest group in CA that it has that much control? Is it the nearly 100 yr old alliance of LA abortion doctors and Hollywood, that got ingrained in the Economy to such an extent? (In the 20′s 30′s and 40′s, pretty starlets under contract simply were not allowed to get pregnant, particularly if their movies were making money – and the alliance has existed on to today.) Or some other factor? I am scurious because PhDs in political science are yet to be written about how the two most populous States in the Union, over the last half century, completely flipped alignment: CA the Red State went Blue; TX the Blue State went Red.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Abortion in most years just sells very well here.

          I don’t know know why, but it does.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

      1) Legislature draws districts – incumbent protection tending to keep vs D status quo except if voting patterns change.
      Some years back there was attempt to draw more partisan districts, but this got tied up in courts and initiatives for years; both parties decided not to go through that again

      OR

      2) “non-partisan” commission – coming soon to a theater near you (unless disbanded by new initiative) and only state boundaries – legislature still draws up Federal districts – cute (unless commission extended to Federal district by new initiative). Obviously depends on actual make-up of group, agendas of the data sources, who helps draw up districts – lots of backroom maneuvering possible. Will have non-partisan veneer to cover the cracks. Don’t know what appeals/court/initiative challenges are available.

      Then again, even if God drew up the districts, someone would be going to the courts, I’m sure. After all, this is California.

      • IJB

        I participated in the first ‘cut’ of applications to the new redistricting commission, and from what I saw the process was geared to pass along people who had the most organization muscle behind them – e.g. union types, and racial grievance group types – people who could easily get three reference letters, etc.

        The difference is that the “commission” will have *no* popular accountability, and no way to fight them (save repealing the commission by initiative, which may very well happen after 2011…).

        I’m willing to put money down that the new “non-partisan” “commission” will see to it that CA has few, if any, Republican-leaning districts left in 2012 after they’re done…

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

          3) Partition, as in India 1947

          Especially if the Reds have superior firepower…

  • SteveLA

    The “system, and money are mostly to blame.

    Gerrymandering of “safe” Liberal and “safe” Republican seats is probably the biggest root cause of the problem. There’s no reason for Legislators in CA to be bold, they just have to not get on the wrong side of any of the powerful interest groups in CA to get a challenger. There was an initiative a while back, Prop 11 to change the process but left the Assembly in charge of the final district lines.

  • morstar150

    I don’t understand how taxing districts, which is what these regulatory bodies are, can exist without constituent accountability.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    Check the ICLEI website……. Without my looking, it sounds like a really good bet The Air Resources Board are involved there – if not by name outright, then at least one or more of the board members…. and I know SF is part and parcel of it all.

    http://www.iclei.org

    As far as Los Federales being easier to deal with…… They are – for now at least.

    ICLEI is sustainable development through local legislation, regulatory ‘nudge’ and mandates. ICLEI isn’t really dealing with national governments – yet.

    Insidious stuff for true.