Democrats Think State Regulations Have No Impact on Jobs
At a time when 2.26 million Californians are searching for
work and our economy is on life support, Democrats and Republicans should be
doing everything they can to encourage new investment and jobs in our
state. But when given the chance
to foster a stronger economy, Sacramento Democrats said no.
Last week, I presented Assembly Bill 1833, common-sense
legislation that I co-authored with Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick,
to require state agencies to first conduct an independent economic analysis of
a proposed new or revised state regulation before it takes effect. Our bill would simply require
bureaucrats to weigh the impacts of new regulations on California jobs and post
the information online. It would
not block or repeal any regulations needed to protect the public.
When presented the opportunity to pass responsible reforms
to stimulate the economy and spur job creation, the Democrats on the Assembly
Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee killed our proposal on
a party-line vote. They joined
with union bosses to crush a bill that was meant to protect small businesses
and restore our economy, ignoring the mounting evidence that costly
regulations are driving jobs away to other states.
California a Poor Model for Federal Tax Plan
The United States income tax structure is starting to look like the California income tax structure and that is not a good thing. California should be a lesson for federal tax planners. Relying more and more on the “rich” to carry the tax burden subjects the treasury to wild swings in revenue. That is something we experienced too often in the Golden State, as the economy goes through ups and downs.
There is also a question of fairness in who pays the bills for government services. Everyone should pay something to provide for government. People should not be dropped completely off the tax rolls, nor should there be loopholes for the wealthy taxpayers to escape all tax obligations.
On this tax day, state officials will be hoping for a rush of income tax returns to help pull California out of its deficit hole. But when approximately 144,000 income tax filers pay 50% of the state income tax, the tax structure is built on a rickety foundation.
The Senate Must Demand a Commitment to the Rule of Law from President Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee
Justice Stevens announced his retirement last week. Now the sixty-four thousand dollar
question: Who will President Obama appoint to replace him? Some might believe that the answer to
this question is not important because everyone knows that the President will
just replace a liberal with a liberal, but they would be wrong. The key question is not what the new
justice’s policy orientation is; rather, the question of most concern to me,
and that should be of most concern to us all, is whether the new justice will
be dedicated to the rule of law, or will add fuel to a disturbing trend in the
judiciary of placing policy ahead of objective decision-making. The choice is crucial because I believe
that the commitment to follow the law as interpreted by our judiciary will be
jeopardized if Americans come to believe that judicial decisions are nothing
more than lawmaking based on the justice’s policy preferences, behind a phony
mask of legal interpretation.
From his actions thus far, I fear that President Obama will
make the wrong choice. In his
State of the Union Address last January, the President criticized the Supreme
Court’s decision in Citizens United,
where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guarantee of free
speech-"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech"-prohibits Congress from silencing corporations during elections. Although I agree with the Supreme
Court’s reasoning in that case, I would not have been alarmed had the President
merely disagreed with the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. I have certainly criticized my share of
Supreme Court opinions. But what
alarms me is that the President never mentioned the First Amendment-or the
Constitution for that matter.
Bi-Partisan Support Continues for Chelsea’s Law in the Assembly
Yesterday, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-“Rock Star”-San Diego) introduced “Chelsea’s Law” – targeted legislation that would provide a new one-strike life without parole penalty for those sexually violent predators who commit the most heinous of violent sex crimes against a child. The law includes lifetime parole with active GPS monitoring for those convicted of felony sex crimes involving physical contact with children and “safe zones” where sex offenders may not go.
Fletcher calls the legislation “a first step in a long term commitment to better protect our children…focused on the worst of the worst, the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend…the ones likely to pose the greatest risk to our children.”
Fletcher’s law, AB 1844, is a disciplined legislative proposal named for 17-year old Poway High School student Chelsea King, who disappeared on March 25th after going for a run in a local park. Law enforcement and thousands of volunteers searched for days until they finally found her in a shallow grave at Lake Hodges – a victim of unspeakable terror having been raped and murdered.