Fox and Hounds Daily Says Goodbye
With this article, we end publication of Fox and Hounds Daily. It has been a satisfying 12½ year run. When we opened in May 2008, our site was designed to offer an opportunity to those who wished to engage in public debate on many issues, especially in politics and business, but found it difficult to get placed in newspaper op-ed pages.
Co-publishers Tom Ross, Bryan Merica and I have kept F&H going over this time investing our own time, funding, and staff help. Last year at this time we considered closing the site, however with an election on the horizon we decided to keep F&H going through the election year. With the election come and gone, and with no sense of additional resources, we have decided to close the site down.
Fox and Hounds will live on, at least, with my articles collected in the California State Library.
On a personal note, I have spent over 40 years in California policy and politics. There have been some incredible high moments and some difficult low points. It pains me that politics too often is a blood sport, frequently demonizing the motives of opponents and using the legal system as a weapon in public discourse. At Fox & Hounds, we tried to adhere to the practice of giving all a voice in the debate, yet keep the commentaries civil and avoided personal attacks.
F&H offered the opportunity to publish different perspectives (even ones that criticized my writings!). We had success as indicated by the Washington Post twice citing Fox and Hounds Daily one of the best California political websites and many other positive affirmations and comments received over the years.
Tom, Bryan and I want to thank our many readers and writers for being part of our journey. The publishers of Fox and Hounds Daily believe that we added value to California and its people. We hope you agree.
Post-debate Wisdom 1.0
Hillary passed the Presidential plausibility test. Donald Trump didn’t—but there are still two more debates. Note to Donald: Review Ronald Reagan’s performance in the 1984 first debate (he sleepwalked) and second (Reagan’s terrific comeback, pledging not to make his opponent’s “youth and inexperience” an issue). Reagan and Barack Obama both had poor first debate performances, Obama in 2012 against Mitt Romney. Both improved in subsequent rounds and won their elections going away. One difference is that both Reagan and Obama were incumbents. Trump doesn’t have that edge—which, in today’s political environment is not necessarily a bad thing.
Clinton looked and sounded like a President—despite Trump’s insistence that she “didn’t have the look.” (more…)
First Debate Recap: The Devil Went Down to Hofstra
During the 90 minutes of tonight’s first Presidential debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton demonstrated who they are at their respective cores. Trump, despite a fairly strong first 30 minutes, could not or would not moderate his style as the debate went on. Clinton was not particularly inspiring, but she absolutely knew her stuff and was ready for her opponent at every turn.
In the beginning, there was Donald Trump. And he talked about bad trade deals, and losing American jobs. And it was good. Trump was passionate, almost articulate and willing to go after Clinton (and her husband) for supporting free trade deals for years. He actually aimed his comments at states that he must have to win the presidency — Ohio, New Hampshire and the like. Hillary was fine, but it was a general recitation of talking points (like much of her performance) on an issue that most of us don’t really understand. (more…)
Replacing Boxer: Bipartisan Sanchez Over Ideologue Harris
Many believe that California would be better off if we sent Attorney General Kamala Harris to Washington to succeed Barbara Boxer, the 75 year old “junior” senator from California. But then again, is it fair to the rest of the country to stick the nation with the highly partisan Kamala Harris when Loretta Sanchez is the more qualified candidate?
Kamala Harris’ fatal flaw is that she is a staunch opponent of pension reform.
During the last two years, she has authored unfavorable and biased summaries for two bipartisan ballot measures that would have reformed California’s unsustainable pension plans. Pension reform is the most important financial issue facing all levels of government as ever increasing pension contributions are required to cover the estimated unfunded liability of up to $500 billion. But these growing contributions are crowding out basic services such as public safety and the repair of our infrastructure as well as progressive initiatives involving education, affordable housing, and services to the homeless. (more…)
Transportation Special Session in Gridlock
Much like much of the state’s traffic, the legislative special session on transportation/infrastructure is stuck in gridlock. Democratic legislators have a plan to provide $7.5 billion a year in new tax revenue. The governor’s plan also includes tax increases. Republicans want to use current tax revenue more efficiently, cap and trade funds for roads or direct some of the road related monies like truck weight fees directly into road improvements. Neither side budges.
Could this gridlock be altered by the results of November’s elections?
If the Democrats secure the two-thirds majority that would allow them to raise taxes without Republican support, then its game over, right? The Democrats will pass a tax increase and the governor will sign it. (more…)
Economic growth has not “decoupled” from CO2 emissions
With the enactment of new climate change regulation through 2030, California leaders are closing ranks to make the economic and business case for more mandates.
The new requirement will reduce total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40 percent below 2020 emissions. On a per capita basis, that’s a reduction of one-half of GHG emissions from today’s levels in 14 years.
Achieving this goal will be challenging in the best of circumstances. After all, much of the relatively easy and least controversial policy choices and behavioral changes have already been baked into the current trajectory to meet the 2020 mandate: (more…)
Denying Californians a “Right to Know”
When California voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986, they overwhelmingly indicated they wanted a “right to know” when they may be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals. For the past quarter century, businesses operating in California have been required to inform consumers when they may be exposed to chemicals “known to the state of California” to cause cancer or reproductive harm. However, despite the ubiquity of Proposition 65 labels and signs, recent research shows most citizens haven’t heard of the law.
To increase consumer awareness, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) launched a new consumer-focused Proposition 65 website and issued new rules overhauling the law’s required warning labels. Unfortunately, if OEHHA achieves its goal and consumers begin reading the problematic information pushed out by the agency, consumers may end up being less informed about their health risks, not more. (more…)