Roger Niello is a Republican who served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010. He represented California's 5th Assembly District, which includes the Sacramento County cities and towns of Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, Folsom, North Highlands, McClellan Park, Orangevale, Natomas, Sacramento and the Placer County town of Granite Bay.
So here’s the math facing the L.A. Unified School District according to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by its Superintendent Austin Buetner.
“During the three-year period that began last summer, Los Angeles Unified will spend about $24 billion educating students. The district’s revenue during that time will be closer to $22 billion, forcing us to spend all our reserves.” In other words, in July of 2021 the district will have zero reserves to cover what will be a deficit budget for the 2021-22 year absent otherwise increased revenues and/or reduced expenses.
Toward that point of revenue and expense adjustments, the district is offering the union what appears to be an additional 6% pay raise plus hiring an additional 1300 educators, adding to, not subtracting from, that impending budget deficit.
And the union is striking to demand more!
What they are surely banking on is what Superintendent Beutner calls for at the end of his op-ed. “To get the money to boost wages further and hire more teachers, we need to end the strike and unite to increase funding for our public schools.”
Aside from the outrageous idea that the district intentionally commit to an overhead they can’t meet even short of the union’s demands, perhaps they ought to take a look at the plight of Sacramento Unified. That district will likely be bankrupt this year and faces the draconian state take-over that Superintendent Beutner admits he laments after watching what happened to their neighboring Inglewood Unified School District in 2012.
Intentionally committing to an out-of-balanced budget hoping for a state bailout may be just emblematic of the sort of incompetence that has resulted in nearly 70% of their students not being proficient in math and about 60% not being proficient in English (statistics cited in Superintendent Beutner’s op-ed).
We can blame the district’s financial problems on unaffordable pension and retiree healthcare commitments, and that is largely true. But the performance shortcoming combined with the self-imposed financial crisis point to complete dysfunction.
The real tragedy here is the plight of the 600,000+ students who are being educationally abused by this district. Those are over a half-million young people who deserve to have a successful future that a good education contributes to. And a successful future that their families, neighborhoods and our state depend upon.
Perhaps the only solution is a state take-over and a complete restructuring of this failing district.
Everyone in California, of all places, should have a shot at the American Dream: A chance to work, to discover one’s own potential, and to share that potential with others. But for too many Californians, that Dream is fading.
Our great state, the sixth largest economy in the world and a global leader in innovation, is now home to the most extreme inequality in the nation. Whether measured in terms of income, educational attainment, or life expectancy, California is falling behind. Adjusting for inflation, California’s median wage was 6.5 percent lower in 2017 than in 1979. Our economy has largely recovered from the last recession, but an increasing portion of jobs are in lower-wage occupations. This crisis is further worsened by the rising cost of a median home, now 2.5 times more expensive in California than elsewhere nationally. Working Californians often are forced to commute many miles to work, while paying the highest gas prices in the country. And after a lifetime of work, many retiring baby-boomers face a future without a pension or a 401(k), leaving them dependent on relatives for support, while their adult children grapple with how to cover the costs of infant care, now equivalent in cost to college tuition and fees.
Anyone who thinks he or she is immune should think again. The consequences of these conditions radiate throughout our society and economy. Our state is projected to produce 2.4 million fewer college degrees and certificates than the workforce will demand by 2025. Housing shortages cost California’s economy well over $143 billion annually because households spend income on rent or mortgage that they’d otherwise be spending on consumer goods.
Although California is rightfully proud of being a national leader in research and development, patents, start-ups, and venture capital funding, most Californians have not benefited from the tech boom which has brought unimaginable wealth to a small cohort of Silicon Valley billionaires. The average small business or working-class Californian instead struggles to survive in one of the least business-friendly climates in the nation. The only remedy for some has been to give up and simply leave the state, with thousands of residents each year taking their dreams, talents, and economic potential with them.
Many smart, compassionate people and organizations have worked tirelessly to improve this state of affairs, but the magnitude of the challenge demands a unified, statewide response. This is why the undersigned will call upon the incoming Governor to announce, on the first day of his/her first term, an intention to put California on track to significantly increase economic opportunity and mobility within the next ten years.
California has long been admired as a national and global policy leader by establishing big goals with real deadlines. Because of that optimistic “can do” attitude California now leads the nation in renewables, through establishment of a 50% goal by 2030; in waste diversion, with a 75% goal by 2020; and in CO2 reductions, with an 80% goal by 2050. We believe it is time to apply this same ambitious metric-driven approach to ensuring all California residents have real access to the opportunities and tools we know are needed for individuals, communities and the economy to flourish.
We will urge the next Governor to endorse clear, specific targets for the state to achieve by 2030, and easy-to-follow metrics to track progress. Our shared goal should be measurable, visible change. Example targets might include a reduction in the number of Californians living in poverty; increased numbers of middle-income families, defined both by rising incomes as well as increasing affordability of essential goods such as housing; and increased access to early childhood education as well as college readiness and completion rates of post-secondary education. The targets should be identified through a transparent, inclusive, collaborative process.
True success also will require a commitment to designing a data collection, evaluation and reporting process that is transparent and accessible, promotes accountability, and is welcomed as a useful tool by those who work in relevant fields. The State Legislature has a valuable role to play as well, and initiatives such as the “Lifting Children and Families out of Poverty” Task Force, established by AB 1520 (Burke) and set to produce recommendations in November, 2018, can help reach this goal.
We believe every individual has the power to make our communities better and a responsibility to try to do so; this is what compels us to act. We also believe every Californian should have access to skilled jobs at which they can excel, and opportunities to enjoy and contribute to their communities and to our collective future. This also happens to be the surest way to a strong and resilient economy that prepares the next generation to thrive as workers, employers, inventors, parents, and civic stewards.
We speak as a small subset of the thousands of Californians in our state’s world class universities, its diverse non-profits, its civically conscious business community, and its dedicated civil service, ready to shoulder this effort. We are confident that there are thousands more Californians who agree with the diagnoses and proposal in this letter, and who want to be part of a solution. If you are one of them, please add your name in support, and join us. We need you, and California needs all of us – right now.
Very sincerely,
Lande Ajose, Executive Director, California Competes
Sam Blakeslee, Founding Director, Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo; former CA State Senator, Assemblyman, and Assembly Republican Leader
Virginia Hamilton, former Regional Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor
Lenny Mendonca, Senior Partner Emeritus, Washington D.C. and San Francisco offices of McKinsey & Company; Chair, New America; Co-Chair California Forward
Kathay Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause*
Pete Peterson, Dean & Senior Fellow, Pepperdine School of Public Policy, Davenport Institute, Pepperdine University*
Michele Siqueiros, President, Campaign for College Opportunity
David B Smith, CEO, X Sector Labs; former Managing Director, Presidio Institute
Jonathan Stein, Voting Rights Program Manager, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus*
Ashley Swearengin, President and CEO, Central Valley Community Foundation, Former Mayor, Fresno
Zabrae Valentine, Co-founder, CA Forward and the CA Forward Action Fund
Pete Weber, former Vice-President, FMC Corporation; former CEO, TeKnowledge, Inc.; former CEO, Riverbend International; Founder and Chair, Fresno Bridge Academy; Co-Chair California Forward
Elisabeth Mason, Venture Philanthropist; Founding Director of the Stanford Technology, Stanford Opportunity and Poverty Lab
Hilary Hoynes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy; Co-Director, Berkeley Opportunity Lab, University of California Berkeley
David Grusky, Professor of Sociology; Director, Center on Poverty and Inequality, Stanford University
Elizabeth Hill, former Legislative Analyst, State of California
Nadia Diaz Funn, Executive Director, Alliance for a Better Community
Carla Javits, President and CEO, REDF*
Dowell Myers, Professor of Policy, Planning, and Demography, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC
Kim Belshé, Executive Director, First Five LA; former Secretary of Health and Human Services, State of California
Manuel Pastor, Professor of Sociology & Director, USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity
Joseph N. Sanberg, Founder, CalEITC4Me
Natalie Foster, Co-chair, Economic Security Project; Advisor, The Aspen Institute Future of Work Initiative
Neil Malhotra, Edith M. Cornell Professor of Political Economy, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Joel Fox, Founder and Editor, FoxandHoundsDaily.com
Miriam Kuppermann, Professor and Vice Chair for Clinical Research, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, UCSF
Dan Schnur, Professor, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California; former Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission
Jeannine English, 2018 Stanford Fellow, Distinguished Career Institute; former State and National President, AARP; Former Executive Director, Little Hoover Commission
Bob Lanter, Executive Director, California Workforce Association
Roger Niello, Business Owner; former State Assemblyman; former County Supervisor
Megan Joseph, Executive Director, Rise Together Bay Area
Radhika Shah, CoPresident Stanford Angels & Entrepreneurs, Founding Chair, Tech Advisory Group Stanford Handa Center for Human Rights, Advisor SDG Philanthropy Platform
Julia Lopez, former President and CEO, College Futures Foundation
Sarah Swanbeck, Executive Director, Berkeley Institute for the Future of Young Americans
Zac Townsend, former Chief Data Officer of the State of California; Partner, Deciens Capital; Research Scientist, Stanford University*
Melissa R. Michelson, Professor of Political Science, Menlo College, Author
Malka Kopell, Co-Founder, Civity
Jessica Lavariega Monforti, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, California Lutheran University
Laura N. Chick, former Ca Inspector General for federal stimulus funds; former L.A. City Councilmember; former LA City Controller
Heather McLeod Grant, Co-Founder, Open Impact
David Wolf, Executive Director Emeritus, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (Western Association of Schools and Colleges); Co-Founder, Campaign for College Opportunity
Sabrina Moyle, CEO, Hello!Lucky
John Pimentel, President, White Hat Renewables; Co-founder, Independent Alliance for California
Steve Boilard, Immediate Past Executive Director, Center for California Studies, Sacramento State University
Caroline L. Whistler, CEO and Co-Founder, Third Sector
Jim Heerwagen, Founder and Chair, The Voters Right to Know Project; Founder/CEO IQVine & Sunvolt Nanosystems
Wade Rose, System Vice President, Dignity Health
Jim Mayer, President and CEO, California Forward; former Executive Director, Little Hoover Commission
Deb Nankivell, CEO, Fresno Business Council
Bill Shireman, President/CEO Future 500; Lecturer, U.C. Berkeley Haas School of Business
Larry Rosenthal, Program Director, UC Berkeley Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement
Julia Rhodes Davis, Chair, Vote.org; former Managing Director, DataKind
Jessica Pitt, Executive Director, HealthPATH
Pam Calloway, Executive Director, The Bread Project
Kay O’Neill, Co-founder, OpenAccess; former Director of Workforce Development, Cañada College
Brian Brennan, Senior Vice President Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Todd Dipaola, CEO and Founder, inMarket; Co-Chair, Represent.Us*
Mary Hanna-Weir, Civil rights attorney, Santa Clara
Bill Bloomfield, President, web service company
Roy Ulrich, President, California Tax Reform Association
Norman Kline, Founder and CEO, LibraryWorld, Inc.; former Mayor, City of Saratoga
Terri Feeley, Founder and Principal, Workforce Success; former Executive Director, SF Works
Lauryn Agnew, Founder, Bay Area Impact Investing Initiative; President, Seal Cove Financial
Louise Rothman-Riemer, President, Oakland League of Women Voters *
Marian Kaanon, President/CEO, Stanislaus Community Foundation
Fernando Guerra, Professor of Political Science and Chicana/o Studies, Director of the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles, Loyola Marymount University
Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO, California Emerging Technology Fund, former Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; former President and CEO of the Bay Area Council (checking affil.)
Robert B. Reich, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Ted Lempert, President, Children Now; Co-founder, former CEO, EdVoice; former California State Assemblyman
Connie Rice, Civil Rights Attorney
Kristin Connelly, President and CEO, East Bay Leadership Council*
Moira Kenney, Executive Director, First 5 Association of California
Laura D. Tyson, Distinguished Professor, Graduate School, Berkeley Haas School of Business; Board of Trustees Chair, Blum Center for Developing Economies, UC Berkeley; former Chair, Council of Economic Advisers; former Director, National Economic Council
Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor and Former Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; President, Opportunity Institute
Nora Silver, Founder and Faculty Director, Center for Social Sector Leadership, UC Berkeley-Haas School of Business
Gabe Kleinman, Director of Portfolio Services & Marketing, Obvious Ventures
Sandra Susan Smith, Professor of Sociology; Interim Director, U.C. Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment
Anne Wilson, CEO, United Way Bay Area
Steve Westly, Former California State Controller; Founder of the Westly Group
Diane Geller, Educational Consultant
Andrea Zeller-Nield, Former Assistant State Director CA Small Business Development Centers
Steven Miller, Lawyer
Micah Weinberg, President, Bay Area Council Economic Institute
Jennifer Bagosy, Attorney
David Moren, UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business; W.K. Kellogg Foundation Racial Equity & Healing National Fellow
Ezekiel Gorrocino
Hadar Aviram, Law Professor, UC Hastings College of the Law
Jen Pahlka, Founder and CEO, Code for America
Simone Otus Coxe, Co-founder and Board Chair, CALmatters
If @realdonaldtrump attack on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is not racist we should still be troubled. Maybe more so.
I’ve heard the logic from those who would defend The Donald. Judge Curiel is, indeed, of Mexican descent and, given Trump’s comments about Mexicans who have migrated north in recent years and his unapologetic commitment to build “The Wall” I suppose it is not inconceivable that the Judge could be biased against him. Also, if white judges can be questioned about their partiality regarding black defendants I guess one can question the impartiality of a judge of Mexican descent in this case.
Whether any of that has merit or not, this is also another example of Trump’s thin skin and his propensity to savage anyone against him. What makes me take pause is this infamous thin skin along with his stated goal of wanting to loosen libel laws to make it easier for him to silence anyone (individual or press) who criticize him coupled with the possibility that he just might be elected to the most powerful position on the planet.
As I recently read that Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute, said “Who knows what a Donald Trump with a pen and a phone would do?” As we have witnessed with our current President, a lot can be accomplished unilaterally at the whim of the office holder alone. Even if successfully challenged, severe damage can be done to the legal tenants that might have been well established prior to that executive action.
I call on anyone to use knowledge of past practices combined with thoughts of what a Donald Trump may conceive to imagine what is possible. Nixon’s enemies list, the Clintons’ propensity to character assignation (I know: oh! the choices we have!) and Obama’s IRS discrimination of right-wing interest groups’ non-profit applications are just a few examples. And, for those who know a little American founding history, there’s John Adam’s Alien and Sedition Act (I know, not an Executive Action but still an example born of executive paranoia). You get the point.
So, if you’re open to excusing the racist accusation, are you still not troubled by Donald Trump’s thin skinned tirades? I am.
I was serving in the California State Assembly ten years ago when we debated whether to pass AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Other than the debate regarding the importance of reducing greenhouse gases and the economic impact of the proposed regulations, there were two provisions of the measure that caused me and many of my colleagues concern should AB 32 pass: a fee that the Air Resources Board (ARB) could implement to cover its costs under the measure and the allowance of a “market-based compliance mechanism”.
We were assured at the time that the fee would only cover ARB’s minor administrative costs of promulgating and implementing the necessary regulations. The market-based compliance mechanism was described as, and widely assumed to be, a system whereby companies could trade emission “allowances” among each other, with a declining overall emissions cap.
Now fast forward to 2016 and we find ARB has perverted these provisions into grotesque scheme that will extract up to $45 billion from California businesses and consumers to spend on many things that do not meet the requirements of AB 32. It has become, in fact, a huge tax without the benefit of the required two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
The objective of the law was very clear: reducing the state’s greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020. And ARB was tasked with creating programs to meet that target.
But along the way ARB seemed to become more focused on raising revenue than on lowering emissions. Under its cap and trade program, ARB is forbidding companies from emitting any greenhouse gases unless they have bought an “allowance” at required auctions. What was originally thought to be a market where low-emitters would benefit by selling allowances to higher-emitters became also a way for EPA to extract huge sums of money by selling allowances it created from whole cloth.
So how is all of this money being spent? To further the objectives of AB 32? Not exactly. In the current legislative session, there have already been at least 25 measures collectively spending more than $6.5 billion in cap and trade revenue, many having little or nothing to do with AB 32. Many divert these AB 32 funds to a variety of General Fund appropriations typically funded by general tax revenues, like education, social services, parks and recreation, housing and even mosquito abatement. Spending this money on general fund expenditures unrelated to AB 32 makes these cap and trade extractions a tax.
The State Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a vote of the people to approve a new tax. AB 32 was passed by just a simple majority of the Legislature. We have a clear constitutional violation here, putting in jeopardy all of the revenue raised and expenditures made.
So what does ARB say in defense? It sounds like a bad joke, but ARB actually says that cap and trade funds are merely a “byproduct” of its regulatory function and this shouldn’t be subject to any of the rules governing taxes or fees. This is a novel spin that would set a radical and very dangerous precedent. It would allow any unelected regulator to levy the equivalent of a tax on a business or a private citizen without legislative approval or a public vote merely if the regulator deems it to be “incidental” to its regulatory responsibility.
But if it is a joke, not everybody is laughing. Even the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst issued a report in January advising the Legislature to first approve ARB’s “byproduct” revenue by a two-thirds vote before spending any more of it.
When the vote was taken on AB 32 I did not support it. Not denying climate change, I felt the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases would have too negative an impact on California’s economy. But that was just the effects of the regulatory approach necessary to reign in greenhouse gas emissions. I never considered that ARB would devise a huge illegal tax on top of some burdensome regulatory requirements.
If ARB’s money train continues it will erode critical taxpayer protections under Proposition 13, making a mockery of the voters’ wishes for a two-thirds threshold. Further, the whole scheme destroys any credibility of California’s climate change programs that proponents of AB 32 desire, reducing the legislation to not much more than an illegal money-grab.
The Legislature can fix both problems. It can approve the revenue by a two-thirds vote and spend the money on programs with measurable, transparent, cost-effective and relevant results. Or it can direct ARB to cease the illegal tax.
We all know that familiar phrase: If we don’t learn the lessons of history we’re doomed to repeat them. Well, today’s lesson is trade. The issue is the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement. The history to learn from is the Smoot-Hartley tariff bill that was enacted in 1930.
There were many mistakes made as the 1920s came to a close and Herbert Hoover’s presidency came to a beginning that greatly exacerbated the economic downturn that became the Great Depression. One was a populist appeal to protect our domestic economy by impeding imports.
The Tariff Act of 1930 increased 890 tariffs, even over and above increases made just eight years earlier by the Tariff Act of 1922. The bill ended up doing nothing to protect our economy while it completely soured trade relations with much of the rest of the world. The resulting impediments to international trade helped make the Great Depression a world-wide happening.
The bill was actually widely opposed. More than 1,000 economists petitioned President Hoover not to sign it. Many bankers sided with them as did scores of editorialists. It only squeezed through the U.S. Senate by 44-42. But in the end, populist support driven by a combination of individual economic self-interests and emotional reaction to unavoidable economic forces pushed protectionism to victory and our economy to defeat.
Today, we are faced with a mirror image of Smoot-Hawley. We have the opportunity to adopt the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement with eleven other countries that will strengthen our competitiveness in global markets.
The partner countries of the TPP – many in the Asia Pacific region – encompass two-thirds of the world’s economy. It is a market of nearly 500 million consumers with a combined GDP of nearly $12 trillion. According to the Economist Magazine, the TPP proposes to reduce 18,000 tariffs on American goods to this huge market to zero. Even agricultural barriers, usually among the most heavily defended, will start to come down. And significantly, the TPP promises to give greater access to these markets for more service providers, a particular strength of our economy.
The TPP provides particular opportunity to California and the Sacramento region. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, California is the largest exporting state to the Asia Pacific region, to the tune of $67 billion in 2015. And that translates into high-paying jobs for over one million Californians. Imagine what this can become with much freer access to a $21 trillion market!
And the opportunity to feed into the potential of the Sacramento region is tremendous. According to the Northern California World Trade Center’s Capital Region Export Plan, “the Capital Region has a wide array of unique regional trade assets, including a deep water channel seaport in West Sacramento and proximity to other ports in Stockton and Oakland; the Sacramento International Airport; access to major markets through its interstate and highway network and rail systems; foreign trade zones; and is recognized as one of the nation’s most culturally diverse regions.”
Much of the opposition comes from labor and environmental interests. But the reality is that the TPP includes the strongest labor provisions of any trade agreement in history. According to the Economist Magazine, “several of the TPP’s chapters are devoted to protections for workers and environmental safeguards. There are clauses that attempt to slow deforestation and over fishing. All parties will also be compelled to follow the International Labour Organization’s basic principles on workers’ rights. They will be required to set a minimum wage and regulate working hours. . . Such commitments will be enforceable under the treaty’s dispute-settlement mechanism.” The TPP expands the fight for decent work around the world and creates a more fair and level playing field for American workers.
The issue is playing out in this year’s political campaigns. It is a different kind of debate that doesn’t fall down along partisan lines. I find myself with expected friends but also opponents among fellow Republicans, and rare allies who are Democrats including, yes, at least in this case, Barack Obama.
California has long been a leader on the world stage and we cannot ignore the growing influence of the Asia Pacific region. We must be forward-thinking and seize opportunities – like TPP – to shape trade policy. Rather than fearing competition and trying hide from it by suppressing global trade we should be seeking ways to capitalize on global trade to grow our economy and benefit American workers and consumers. Let us not fall victim to the same sort of myopic and visceral forces that prevailed in the mistake that was Smoot-Hawley. Let us learn the lesson of history.
Just like nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee (remember that commercial?), everybody is against duplicative and overly burdensome regulations. And everybody is a small business advocate. Liberals and conservatives alike, all policy makers profess the same allegiance.
But talk specifics and the ranks start to separate.
Everyone laments the so-called drive-by lawsuits filed in the name of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) that terrorize (my word) so many small businesses. Everyone except the opportunist attorneys who file such claims, of course. However, when it is pointed out that this only happens because of California’s Private Right of Action statute, the repeal of which would cure the problem, then sympathies abruptly change.
My point here is that in order to be truly effective in political advocacy, it is crucial that we in the business community be specific as to what we’d like to see. We can compromise and take part of a loaf, as we have. But we must be clear as to what the full loaf should be.
CEQA reform is, of course, on top of the regulatory reform list. And we have supported some proposals that would provide needed flexibility in somewhat narrowly focused areas like infill development. But we should be clear that the real need for quality business growth would be a broad-based reform that would limit endless challenges to projects for reasons that have little to do with the environment.
A few years ago the courts provided relief to our state’s extremely restrictive rules imposed on businesses for meal and rest-breaks, but we still must labor under burdensome restrictions regarding work week hours and overtime payment obligations.
This attention to the specifics might not be quite so necessary if our policy makers had an Economic Development Ethic in crafting public policy. If they did, the success of business would be an integral part of our regulatory decision making.
We know that consumer, labor and environmental protections are the prime reasons generally for regulatory proposals, as they should be. But many times the consideration of the success of our businesses appears to be an afterthought. If at all a thought.
Bringing the consideration of impacts on business, and thus economic vitality, to the forefront along with protection of labor, consumers and the environment is essential for a full consideration of the efficacy of regulatory proposals.
That would reflect a true Economic Development Ethic.
It is incumbent upon the business community to aggressively advocate for its interests. In order to allow for an open-minded consideration by our Legislators and Regulators, it should be incumbent upon them to have an Economic Development Ethic.
I’m happy to announce that I’ll be returning to the State Legislature next month. As part of our Chamber’s State Legislative Summit March 1, that is.
While in elected office I often spoke of the need for business people to lobby their government. I call it The Business Imperative. For self interest, for sure, it is important for business to advocate for business friendly policies.
But I find that, of all special interests, business people have the broadest public policy interest. On behalf of not just their business’ success, but also their personal quality of life as well as that of their employees, businesses are interested not just in prudent regulatory policies, but also a broad array of public policies that contribute to general quality of life, like quality education, clean water and air, parks and recreation, etc.
Also from my experience in elected office, I find the task is larger than just supporting or opposing bills. The real challenge is in influencing opinions and attitudes.
On that score one need look no further than the stories about the recent announcement of the departure of Waste Connections from Folsom to Texas and the public reaction of a couple of local members of the Legislature. As our new Board Chair John Frisch pointed out in his column last month, the not unreasonable criticisms of California’s regulatory environment by Founder and CEO Ron Middlestadt were met with sharp accusations of disingenuousness. These two local Legislators declared that Waste Connections made so much money that they really had no right to complain. Their comments were the rhetorical equivalent of “good riddance”. These reports shed a rude light on the absolute disconnect between the attitudes toward business of some of our elected policy makers and the reality of the regulatory burdens of our state.
To repeat, simply advocating positions on individual bills is not enough. We must try to influence opinions and change attitudes. This is important stuff and the business community absolutely must be part of the public policy setting process.
Come join us and help this year’s State Legislative Summit make a real difference.
There are few issues that demonstrate the failure of California leadership more than homelessness. Seemingly everywhere you look, homelessness is diminishing the quality of life and safety in our communities– and perhaps most troubling, we are leaving thousands of Californians to struggle and die on the streets.
We need a new approach to homelessness that addresses the root causes of the problem: mental health and substance abuse. We need to reform the way we treat those suffering from mental health and substance abuse and reform conservatorship laws to make it easier for families, social workers, and law enforcement to take action when someone simply can’t act on their own accord. In addition, we need to return to the successful drug courts model which provided the ability of judges to require those suffering from addiction to receive treatment.
We also need to make it easier to build new housing in California. The high cost of housing directly contributes to the homelessness crisis and is caused by radical environmental policies implemented by the state. In the Senate, I would champion efforts to streamline housing construction and lower the cost of building new housing units in our state.
California’s rising crime rates demand immediate solutions. Years of counterproductive policies, such as Proposition 47 and realignment, have let criminals off the hook and left communities struggling. These policies have proven to be failed experiments in reform and need to be repealed and replaced.
Unfortunately, too many have learned the wrong lesson from these failed policies and want to go further and defund the police. I strongly oppose these efforts and will work as a collaborative partner with law enforcement.
Finally, the drug epidemic that is sweeping our communities needs to be confronted with an all-hands-on-deck approach that removes dangerous drugs like fentanyl from the streets and punishes those that knowingly sell these dangerous opioids in California.
Together, we can keep our streets, neighborhoods, and communities safe.
California is a state of entrepreneurs. Like so many other California families, I spent a large part of my life managing my family business, the Niello Auto Group. Through hard work and determination, we were able to grow our small business into a leading regional employer.
There is not a single active or former CPA currently serving in the California Legislature, and it shows. Policy after policy coming out of the Capital makes it more expensive and difficult to do business. AB 5 makes independent contract work nearly impossible. Regulatory schemes expose businesses to threats of litigation, simply for doing business as usual. Our high corporate and payroll taxes incentivize businesses to leave the state.
Should I be elected to the State Senate, I will take my experience as a business owner and CPA and fight for reforms to make California a leading state to open businesses and create new jobs.
Sacramento and Placer Counties are growing communities and we need quality infrastructure to connect households across the region to job and educational opportunities. We can’t attract more business if we have deteriorating roads and lack the ability to bring products in or out of the region. We need to reevaluate where we send state transportation dollars and prioritize projects that improve quality-of-life instead of boondoggles like high-speed-rail.
In addition, we need to invest in water storage and flood control measures to ensure the resiliency of our agricultural industry and regional transportation network. For too long, we have neglected to keep up with demand for increased water capacity and are paying the price in the form of prolonged and avoidable droughts.
With sky high inflation, highest in the nation taxes, and out-of-control housing costs, California has become an unsustainable place to start a family or grow a business. That is why for the first time ever, more Californians are leaving than moving to our state. To get the affordability crisis under control, in the Senate I would:
California’s schools should be #1 in the nation. Instead, we have allowed special interest groups to dominate our public school system and accept a failing status quo as normal. In the Senate, I would:
California is home to some of the best doctors and hospitals in the nation, yet for too many in our community, healthcare costs are too high and access to care inaccessible. In the Senate, I would: