Author: Gino DiCaro

Yesterday the Inland Daily Bulletin wrote about a California-based hydrogen-powered fuel cell company, Bing Energy, deciding to locate its manufacturing, along with a headquarters and a technology lab, in Tallahassee, Florida.

Bing officials indicated clearly that it was 15 percent cheaper to operate in Florida and that the Sunshine state unequivocally wanted them there.

In the same article, Chris Thornberg of Beacon economics countered, "we’ve lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, but a lot less than in other states.  California (manufacturing) is weathering the storm better than the nation overall."

The Public Policy Institute of California similarly countered that, "only a small fraction of the state’s job losses are due to businesses leaving the state."

Last week we heard about California’s budget crisis in Gov. Jerry Brown’s 20-minute State of the State address.

While Gov Brown stuck to state budget details in a brief 20-minute address, the regulatory crisis movement is gaining momentum as a realistic solution to revenue shortfalls here and across the country.

For example:

• President Barack Obama and Senator Darrell Steinberg take steps on reform
• see Florida
• see Maryland

California’s bill signing deadline passed last week and the outcomes of
a few specific bills send conflicting signals to manufacturers and
private sector job creators about the state’s interest in their ability
to compete and grow jobs.

Here’s a look at the result of four of the most important bills
affecting the state’s manufacturing job base and competitiveness:

Bad signal #1

If you
haven’t heard of California’s ‘Green Chemistry Initiative, you  will
soon.  It is a bold step that has the potential to change the way  we
approach chemicals in consumer products.

It also has the potential  to
further hamstring California’s struggling economy, drive jobs from  the
state and raise consumer prices.  So, it’s an issue worth our
attention.

In  a nutshell, the ‘Green Chemistry Initiative’ is a California-only
endeavor to identify and regulate "chemicals of concern" in consumer
products made or sold in California.  It would regulate alongside
existing oversight by the FDA, EPA, Prop. 65 and many others. The
Department of Toxic Substance Control is now finalizing the
regulations  to make this plan a reality.

These rules will determine whether the initiative enhances consumer
safety, inspires innovation and triggers new investment, or whether it
delivers only increased costs, lost jobs and crippling new burdens on
manufacturers and business in California.

In the closing weeks (or months) of California’s 2010 legislative
session, there are some easy decisions to make in a morass of tough
budgetary ones.  Lawmakers can get control of the state’s spiraling
regulatory environment and reconsider simple concepts on economic
analysis on new and existing regulations.

Dozens of bills died in the last few months that would demonstrate the
state’s commitment to improve government decision making and signal
that California welcomes long-term job creation and economic growth. 
What can possibly be wrong with arming a jobs-sensitive legislature
with job-impact information so they can make informed decisions?

A flyer — titled Still Waiting — and a copy of a previous letter
— supported by more than 350 companies — were distributed this week
to the Legislature to reinforce that the employer community is still
waiting for these very simple and obvious measures.

California receives a majority of U.S. venture capital (VC).  Always
has, hopefully always will.  Our state produces brilliant creative
minds and ideas because of its University power and its sheer size of
35 million people.  This unique outcome alone does not however equate,
by default, to the meaningful job growth necessary for our many workers
whom are unemployed and under-employed (a term becoming all too common
for the folks forced to take any job they can find).

We must leverage our built-in VC advantage to ensure that emerging
green and other products are actually produced here.  California’s
wealth will be multiplied once VC cash gets beyond the investment board
room offices and into the bank accounts of our very own hard working,
middle class families.

Recently the LA Times wrote a piece about VC growth in California and the notion
that it does, and will, open the floodgates to new green jobs.  Often
the state’s VC numbers are used to support bold California-only
mandates and policies, without regard for the state’s competitive
disadvantage.   Now the impressive amount of VC investment is being used to justify opposition to Proposition 23 — the
ballot initiative to suspend AB 32 until our economy is in better shape
and unemployment numbers are reduced.

How many times have you heard something like the following in response
to the state’s job decline and overall economic implosion?

"But California is the venture capital of the country."

"But we have so much cleantech investment, we’re going to lead the country."

The campaign to suspend AB 32’s global warming regulations until California’s economy and unemployment recovers submitted double the signatures needed today to qualify the "California Jobs Initiative" for the November ballot.

The initiative got more than 800,000 signatures, far above the 433,971 needed.  The state’s citizens understand that implementing AB 32 at the right time in the right way is not an anti-environment position.  It’s a path to improve our economy first through job growth — with high wage and ‘green’ manufacturing jobs at the center of that recovery — and a way to see if the rest of the country will follow with their own global warming mandates.  Today’s announcement makes clear that the California voters don’t want to go it alone on costly greenhouse gas reductions.

Today, all Californians can rest easy knowing that the State of California’s tax enforcement and administration functions are split between two agencies.  The Franchise Tax Board (FTB), who administers the Personal Income and Corporation Tax laws, and the Board of Equalization (BOE), whose responsibilities include the administration of the state’s sales and use taxes, excise tax, special taxes and fees, as well as property valuation.

In addition to the BOE’s regular duties, the Board also serves as adjudicator of personal and corporate income and tax appeals after specific issues have exhausted the FTB’s administrative dispute process. Under current law, if the BOE denies the taxpayer’s appeal, the taxpayer may bring action in state court.  However, if the FTB’s original decision is overturned, the taxpayer has prevailed and the issue is considered resolved.