Many
politicians and pundits pin the economic travails of the State of
California upon our tax rates.  However, my experience leads me to
believe that the number one cause for the economic malaise of our once
great State emanates from our regulatory climate.  Here is but one
example.

It is most unfortunate that few Californians are aware of the
scandal surrounding the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  CARB
has been in the process of establishing a Diesel Engine Rule that will
require all engines in the State of CA to be replaced twice in the next
ten years.

The fiscal impact of this rule can easily cost the
California economy in excess of $40 billion.  It will impact trucking,
construction, and farming, as these industries rely heavily upon diesel
engines.  Is the expense for this rule justified?

The case of Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman who has just revealed that he’s gay, poses a dilemma for the political and journalistic classes.

Mehlman presided over a party that exploited homophobia for political gain in races all over the country. The dilemma is: what punishment did he deserve and when did he deserve it?

Mehlman has been embraced by many, and he’s now working on the effort to overturn Prop 8. Some critics, however, say he deserves criticism and political ostracism for his past use of anti-gay feeling as a tactic.  Some have even argued that anyone who knew of his sexuality should have exposed it – and that the media and political opponents should expose the personal lives of similar closet cases. But others say outing is wrong, even in such cases.

Little
moments can say a lot.

I
experienced one such little moment a few weeks ago when John Perez, the speaker
of the California Assembly, stopped by the Business Journal to talk about the
state budget. He explained that one of the Democrats’ big proposals is to
impose a new tax on oil pumped out of the ground in California. He said it figures to be roughly
9.9 percent.

"Nine-point-nine
percent of what?" I asked.

The scheduled votes Tuesday on two disparate budget plans for California — one put forth by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the other by legislative Democrats — are fine as far as they go but they do not go far enough. There should be votes on many possible budget plans.

Tuesday’s exercise is designed to consider two different ways to look at spending plans for the state government and to take a measure of where those plans stand with legislators. The outcomes of the votes are obvious.

The Republicans will support the Schwarzenegger plan built around extensive budget cuts to close the $19-billion state deficit; the Democrats will stand behind their own plan, which features far fewer cuts.

Joe
Mathews unearthed
a nugget Thursday – turns out the 99-year-old referendum power in
California may have a more distant provenance than we thought, older than even
the state itself.

That
news could be bittersweet, though, because a measure on the November ballot  would effectively
prevent the referendum from celebrating its centenary.

On
its surface, Proposition 25 is fairly simple – it reduces the vote
requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds of the Legislature to a simple
majority.  However, Prop. 25’s language also eviscerates the
referendum, one of Governor Hiram Johnson’s great reforms enacted to
counteract the power of special interests, and a critical check that voters
have on the actions and power of the Legislature. 

In his Fox and Hounds opinion piece on August 27, Jeremy Leffler COO of BayBio, an industry consortium, touts the growth in biotechnology and bemoans the effects of Proposition 23 could have on that industry. He’s got many facts wrong and misses the bigger picture.

Mr. Leffler states that AB32 was adopted in "bi-partisan fashion."  In 2006, on a party-line vote, legislative Democrats passed AB32 over the objections of Republicans. Authored by then-Assembly Speaker Fabien Núñez, ostensibly to combat the effects of global warming, AB32 forces businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. At the time, California’s unemployment rate was just under 5 percent.

"More than 6,000 new jobs were created in our [biotechnology] sector in just in the past 12 months, many of them in the development of alternative bio-fuels that are the direct result of California’s leadership." Also partly as a direct result of that ‘leadership’ California LOST 9,400 jobs in July alone and remains three percentage points higher in unemployment compared to the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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.

Los Angeles Times business page columnist, Michael Hiltzik, and I often disagree.

I’ll never understand why the Times insists on business columnists who spend a great deal of time criticizing the business community, as they have over recent years. In my view, working toward a more business friendly state would lead California out of its perennial doldrums. Saying that, however, I think Hiltzik’s latest column hits on a subject that can help the state and country recover.

Hiltzik criticizes corporations from sitting on piles of cash. He reports that "operating earnings of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index jumped 38.4% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier, according to Thomson Reuters, and companies are sitting on an estimated $1.8 trillion in cash …"

As campaign season gets into high gear there is a lot of emphasis on women – a woman on the top of the GOP ticket, two women in a VERY competitive race for the United States Senate and a number of women running in down ticket races.

2010 has the potential to be a big year for women in California politics.  That is why the California Women’s State Appointments Project (CWSAP) is so important.  Women should have a role and a voice in public policy.

Women are a powerhouse in California, but not just in politics.  According the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) – California website, there are 1,351,087 women in California who own businesses and who employ nearly 1.9 million people and generate $318.2 billion in sales.  Women bring unique experiences and perspective to gubernatorial administrations, state departments and to boards and commissions that do the state’s work, but we need more women, more women with business background and experience to apply.