Sadly, Mildred Loving passed away on May 5 and didn’t live to see the
California State Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. I
did not know Mrs. Loving, but I believe she would have applauded the
decision.

In 1958, Mildred, a black woman, married Richard, a white man in
Washington, DC. They then moved back home to Virginia and were
promptly arrested for “cohabitating as man and wife, against the
peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.” They avoided a jail sentence
by returning to Washington but challenged the Virginia law,
eventually leading to the 1967 Supreme Court decision (Loving v.
Virginia) which ruled the Racial Integrity Act of 1924
unconstitutional and opened the door for interracial marriage
throughout the United States. There was immediate, loud and
predictable public outcry: a sin, abhorrent, will rip apart the
fabric of society, certain to destroy the institution of marriage,
dangerous to the children, etc. Excluding a few knuckle-dragging
racists, interracial marriage is now pretty much a “duh,” as is
“interreligion” marriage.

A few Odds and Ends from the weekend and this morning:

• Please welcome Matt Klink, who joins the F&H blog starting today. His first post today comments on the LAUSD Teachers’ Strike.
• F&H Editor Joel Fox penned a piece on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 for the San Francisco Chronicle, which ran this past Friday – Click here to take a look.
• The Sacramento Bee ran a story today entitled Governor’s economic adviser helps shape fiscal policy, which profiles Schwarzenegger Advisor and F&H Blogger David Crane.
• Board of Equalization Member and F&H Blogger Michelle Steel has written a piece today for the FlashReport detailing how taxes could possibly be raised without a 2/3 legislative vote. Click here to take a look.
• Finally, an article in today’s Wall Street Journal written by John Fund comments on the McClintock-Ose primary that recently took place in the 4th district and what it might mean for the future of the GOP in the legislature.

In the grand scheme of things, what difference does one hour make?

For the Los Angeles Unified School District’s school-aged children, it’s one hour out of an otherwise mediocre education experience.  

For teachers and the union leaders who control them, they believe it’s an important statement to make in protest to Governor Schwarzenegger’s latest budget proposal.

The issue at hand is that this past Friday, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) teachers staged a "walk out" to protest the money allocated to public education in Governor Schwarzenegger’s current budget.  The Governor’s proposal would provide a $193 million increase over last year’s $56.6 billion in education funding.  The UTLA believes its teachers "must" protest, despite the proposed current fiscal year funding increase, because the revenue increase doesn’t keep up with the so-called cost of living.  These "cuts," (only cut in government budgeting) will necessitate some tough choices.

"If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price – offering much needed relief to struggling families. "

So said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York recently at a hearing designed to embarrass, berate and attack the oil industry and not to find real solutions to our energy problems. This ersatz oil industry expert knows as much about energy markets as I do about brain surgery.  Schumer reminds me of Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire" who breathlessly stated as she was led to a mental institution, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." In this case the strangers are the Saudis.

First, there was the Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, which asked voters if Proposition 13 thirty years after it passed had been a good thing or a bad thing for the state. 59% said it had been mostly good; 27% said it had been mostly bad for California.

Then came Arnold Steinberg’s poll, which had Prop 13 favored by 48% to 20%. When Steinberg described the features of Prop 13 – placing limits on property tax increases and requiring voter approval of tax increases — the numbers jumped to 60% in favor of Prop 13, 26% opposed.

Then came the Field Poll. Prop 13 had an advantage here, too, 57% to 23%. When the voters were asked if they wanted to change some features of Prop 13 like raising property taxes more than 2% a year or reducing the two-thirds vote to raise state taxes, these proposals were rejected by over 70%.

Meanwhile, in the Legislature resolutions were proposed that would honor Proposition 13 on its 30th anniversary. The legislative majority buried these resolutions.

Which begs the question—Who do the representatives in our representative government represent?

Throughout the history of American politics, small business owners, which many of our Founding Fathers were, have played a pivotal role in the nation’s public life.

Entrepreneurs still deeply care about their government and its activities. A National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation Poll about political participation found that a disproportionately large percentage of small business owners-95 percent-are registered to vote and an almost equally large share-84 percent-usually do so.

And hundreds of those small business men and women will be in Washington, D.C., this week for the 2008 NFIB National Small-Business Summit. They will take a message to their senators and representatives that they want access to affordable health insurance, which is shaping up as the top issue for entrepreneurs and their employees in this election. When they’re on Capitol Hill, they will be speaking for the millions of small business owners who create nearly two-thirds of the net new jobs in America.

Few segments of society have more legitimate excuses than small business owners to stay home, to skip a major event like the Summit or an election day. Not only do they have thriving enterprises to lead and manage, but in many cases, they can be their business’ entire labor force.

But a strong sense of duty runs through this segment of our population: 96 percent believe that every citizen should participate in government, if only to vote; 82 percent agree that business owners are leaders who have a responsibility to show the way in matters of public affairs and other key components of society. In addition, small business owners overwhelmingly agree that change for the better can result when good people participate in public affairs.

This year is a particularly important and exciting time for small business owners to participate in their government and the fall elections. Voter registrations are up significantly in many states, particularly among young people, adding to the electorate’s enthusiasm, as control of both the White House and the U.S. Congress is in play.

Major issues with potentially profound consequences for entrepreneurs also will be in play once the election dust settles. Debates over how to rein in out-of-control healthcare costs, what types of tax policies will help or hurt small business owners, how to craft an immigration policy that controls the borders while meeting our labor demands-all of these will command our attention in 2009.

These and other challenges to the future of our nation are the very reasons why entrepreneurs who create and successfully grow the nation’s 25 million-plus small firms can ill afford to stay at home when politics calls.

There is still time for small business owners who attend the Summit this week will affirm the small business sector’s belief that achieving good public policy is a constant struggle, but a struggle well worth the effort-and the time.

With Assembly Speaker Bass’ announcement of her secret plan to raise revenues to address the state budget deficit, the war of words will be as important as battle over numbers.

According to the Speaker, part of Assembly Democrats’ budget solution would be up to $6.4 billion in new revenues, much of it from closing "tax loopholes."  This is where language matters.

What is a tax loophole?  Classically, it means an unintentional characteristic of a law that allows a taxpayer to circumvent the law’s intent without actually breaking that law.  A good example might be the notorious "yacht tax loophole," which allows boat buyers to avoid sales taxes by delaying possession of expensive, out-of-state purchases. But in current political usage, a tax loophole has become any tax law that treats any taxpayer differently from some accepted or announced norm. This is an insidious distortion of political communication, which twists legitimate tax policies – decided clear-eyed by the state Legislature – into flim-flamming tax avoidance.

Over the last two weeks of October 2004, Gov. Schwarzenegger and billionaire Henry Nicholas led a campiagn to defeat Prop 66, a ballot initiative that would have eased some of the most onerous parts of California’s "three strikes" law. With Schwarzenegger’s campaigning and Nicholas’ money, the "no" campaign made political history, taking an initiative that seemed certain to pass and sending it to a shocking defeat.

The "no" vote grew by nearly 30 points in two weeks. Independent pollsters say they have never seen such dramatic movement in a ballot initiative.

Nicholas’ behavior during those two weeks was strange. He seemed to work all night, rarely sleeping. With the assistance of then Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, Nicholas pulled an all-nighter in the Long Beach home studio of a rock musician to make "No on 66" radio ads. He then started calling radio stations over the last weekend, begging managers to broadcast the ads despite full slates.

It all seemed manic, but Nicholas told me at the time he simply had a passion for crime victims. Now a new indictment of Nicholas suggests a different explanation for his behavior: drugs.

Nicholas, who first drew the attention of the federal government because of a stock option backdating problem at his firm Broadcom, is charged with distributing drugs between 1999 and 2005–a period that covers the time of the No on 66 campaign. There’s no indication that California authorities have looked at whether any of Nicholas’ business or personal activities had any financial impact on the campaign.

Maybe they should. If he was trafficking in drugs, did any money from that end up in the "No on 66" effort?

It has been said that the "Pen is mightier than the sword." But, apparently an unused pen is pretty powerful, too. In a study just released by the Milken Institute’s California Center on the 2007 Hollywood Writers’ Strike, it is claimed that the strike will cost California’s economy a staggering $2.1 billion and 37,700 jobs by the end of this year.

The authors of the study, Kevin Klowden, Anusuya Chatterjee and Ross DeVol, say that the writer’s strike was one of the factors that tipped California into a recession.

According to the study, the strike rippled through the economy to the following effect:

• Wages and salaries are projected to decline by $2.3 billion
• Retail sales are expected to show a decline of $830 million
• Total personal income (which includes wages, salaries, self-employment, rents, dividend, interest and other income) is expected to drop by $3.0 billion

Click Here to read the study in its entirety.

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sent this letter yesterday to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino:

Dear Mayor Menino:

Tonight is truly an historic night. It is hard to believe that it has
been twenty one – long – years since the last time the Lakers beat the
Celtics in the NBA Finals. Tonight we renew this great American
tradition.

The only thing harder to believe is that it’s been more than two
decades since the great Boston Celtics have tasted the sweet victory of
an NBA Championship. The year was 1986. Hair was big. Shorts were
short. And Michael Dukakis was preparing his historic run for
president.

I truly expected our great rivalry of the 1980s to carry into the 1990s
– particularly as the Lakers and Celtics continued to assemble a
pantheon of NBA legends: Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O’Neal, Derek Fisher,
Phil Jackson, Pervis Ellison, Bryant Stith, Vitaly Potapenko and Rick
Pitino.

So to commemorate this historic event, I say we scrap the tired
tradition of wagering regional trinkets or cuisine – and go big.
Let’s really put it on the line: jobs, tradition, pride.

So here’s my proposal:

If the Celtics win, we’ll send you the best professional football
team L.A. has to offer: the Arena League’s Los Angeles Avengers.

If the Lakers win, we get the Patriots.

I know what you might be thinking: "Villaraigosa must be nuts!
Bostonians would make out like bandits in that deal! With an indoor
arena team, the fans would not have to risk frostbite to see a
mid-September game. And with the smaller field, our coaches wouldn’t
even need cameras to steal opponents’ signals."

I’m sure my constituents might not be happy with this deal, but I am so
confident in the Lakers’ victory that I am willing to put it all on
the line.

Oh, and to sweeten the pot, in the event of a Lakers victory you can
keep the Patriots’ coach. We have a pretty good guy down the street
who might be interested in the job – and who probably still has the
gear.

I look forward to your response and a great finals series. My only
regret is that I will not be able to visit the Garden for a game. I was
hoping to experience first-hand the legendary Bostonian hospitality and
sportsmanship.

Good luck and Go Lakers!

Sounds like a pretty fair deal to me. Maybe this will be incentive enough for Ed Roski to get started on his $800m LA stadium plan a bit early.