Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/16548
6A – Daily News – Monday, September 20, 2010 Opinion Proposition 23 – Just say no D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 The advancing understanding Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 of ourselves and the world around us is becoming a conundrum of conflicting disciplines, ideals, facts, perspectives, and realities. With all the information sources of varying levels of reliability, trans- parency, and applicability to the problems at hand it is no wonder that we have trouble knowing what to do in our own lives, much less what advice to give to others. This concern inspired last week’s column beseeching readers to question the facts presented to them and the alignment with their predispositions before making important decisions. The reaction to this column was predictable. Several conserva- tives lashed out as if I had gored some sacred cow by asking them to question the information sources they rely upon and consid- er that they may on occasion be mistaken. My more progressive colleagues welcomed my remarks, by nature being more willing to consider new approaches to solve problems and to be more receptive of alternative viewpoints. I do not apologize that my words angered some since in my opinion such anger is misplaced and reflects upon the insecurities and intolerance of those that may be offended. My hope is that in the process of considering the root causes of any such defensiveness that one might discover underlying false beliefs, unhealed wounds, or areas of uncertainty to examine and deal with. By studying any strong visceral reactions to what I might read, I more fully under- stand and refine beliefs, character, and my ability to grow. Those that would rather silence sources of angst or ignore disagreeable facts may set themselves up for chagrin and disappointment if they ulti- mately gain an alternative perspec- tive. Perhaps you are one that prefers to hear only what appeals to you and strokes the ego by vali- dating your beliefs. If so I am sorry for you, and sorry that columnists such as I may offend by challeng- ing your predispositions and pre- senting what may be disagreeable facts and inconvenient truths. I do not claim to know what is best for you, or what decisions are most appropriate for others, but I do want to help everyone to at least consider they might be wrong on certain matters, and thus help to "Change Your Mind, Change Your Life, and Change the World." It is rewarding to appreciate the wis- dom of new ideas and approaches that replace or refine any outmod- ed or no longer applicable precepts in the face of our rapidly expand- ing consciousness of personal responsibility and planetary stew- ardship. If you find it difficult to fathom the chemistry of global warming or the economics of cap and trade legislation to ame- liorate it, I hope that you will defer to those that don’t by voting no on Proposition 23 this November, or at least contemplate the near certain realities of voting for it. A vote for Prop 23 will undo the immense efforts behind the pas- sage of Assembly Bill 32, The Global Warm- ing Solutions Act, by indefinitely delaying its implementation. Every- one should understand that if we continue to consume more of our limited fossil fuels at unprecedent- ed levels without encouraging effi- ciency or cleaner technologies as the Global Warming Solutions Act prescribes that our environment will suffer and our quality of life will diminish. It is irresponsible to pretend that mankind is not accountable for the environmental damages we create by using non-renew- Richard Mazzucchi Positive Point able resources and fouling our air and water. There is no free lunch, but by using more efficient and evolved technologies and practices to reduce waste and unnecessary damage to the environ- ment we can consume less and reduce the damage. Americans that selfishly persist that the world is theirs for the taking and harm our planet by using inefficient technologies and environmentally harmful fuels must be stopped. Assembly Bill 32 shows that the peo- ple of California have the know-how and ability to accomplish this feat and lead the world by example. The question that remains is whether we have the political and moral fortitude to address the challenge before it is too late. I encourage all California voters to do the responsible thing this November and just say no on Proposition 23 to secure a healthy and sustain- able future for you and your chil- dren. Richard Mazzucchi can be reached at living-green@att.net. Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. Regulating the personal and state economy Commentary First thing this week, a huge "atta-boys-and-girls" is owed to the Tehama Tea Party Patriots for their upcoming one-year anniversary on September 28 – more next week. I think it always comes down to asking if it’s reasonable. Think about how you apply that standard to your economic life. You can buy the name-brand canned or frozen goods, or the generic; the pricier camera or the basic model. The same goes for large appliances, entertainment equipment and, ulti- mately, automobile and home pur- chases. Usually, the more money you have to spend, the nicer stuff you can buy – but you still ask yourself "Is it reasonable?" given your other needs. It all boils down to trade-offs, value, trouble and the convenience (or inconvenience) you can afford. All of the above examples involve your personal decisions and responsibilities to manage your life – also known as "freedom of choice," and I intentionally omitted any mention of the govern- ment’s role in any of it. That’s because in a free society, providers of goods and services depend on people making reasonable choices, for their businesses to survive, even thrive. Most folks work for some per- son or some business, that tries to convince consumers that it’s a rea- sonable, desirable decision to pur- chase what they offer, which com- pletes the economic cycle by pro- viding paychecks to those employ- ees, who then spend the money. The role of government should, most would agree, be the least pos- sible interference, for the simple reason that there is a cost associat- ed with all government rules and regulations. You know it; I know it. And unless the citizens and their elected representatives restrain the com- pulsion by those in government to reach further, often unnecessarily, into the entire free-choice econom- ic cycle, that whole process becomes encumbered and bur- dened with excess and unreason- able regulation. You’ve been reading for weeks about the likely, predictable costs to businesses, and ultimately indi- viduals and families, associated with national and state so-called "greenhouse gas" (GHG) regula- tion. The expected costs for energy, mandates and regulation, etc, of California’s AB 32, will be simply huge. Some may say that for those of us who question the reliability of predictions of so-called "climate change" (the warming apparently stopped) – to offer projections of economic harm is hypocritical. The difference is that the recent impacts of government regulations can be quantified – global temper- atures cannot over the long term. Climate occurs over hundreds, even tens of thousands, of years; precise thermometers only came about in the last 150 years. Busi- ness expenses are quantifiable, pre- dictable. So, at what level does regula- tion, necessary to some degree, become waste and abuse by bureaucrats and the state? Profes- sors and the Dean of Cal State Sacramento’s College of Business authored a study titled "Cost of state regulations on California small businesses study" that sug- gests we’ve long passed that point. Using 2007 data, this September 2009 study measured those primary and secondary costs of the total annual impact of regulation on small businesses and found: "The total cost of reg- ulation to the State of California is $493 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs, which is a tenth of the State’s population … Don "The total cost of reg- ulation was $134,122 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,360 per small business, indirect business taxes not generat- ed or lost were $57,260 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business." So, going forward, do you think the best course for improving Cali- fornia’s economy, with its 12+ per- cent unemployment, is to add the previously documented burdens of AB 32 regulations, all for an incon- sequential effect on the planet’s cli- mate? Or would it be better to withhold further mandates, roll back just half of the regulatory bur- dens and add millions of jobs and state income, including increased taxes paid by employed individuals and growing businesses? Vote Yes on Proposition 23 for a start. Remember, we have it from the Air Resources Board that AB 32 will cost Cal- ifornia at least tens of billions of dollars, mean- ing $1,000s per house- hold. Then there are studies by the indepen- dent Legislative Ana- lyst’s Office (LAO) that find very little good news – the first one, released in early March, didn’t please the envi- ronmental left. "We believe that the Polson The way I see it aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative" due to "economic dislo- cations, behavioral adjustments, investment requirements, and cer- tain other factors." They wrote that the "total effects" were "likely to be modest" because what people and businesses spend on energy are "a relatively small share of expenses." Get it? These government regu- lation advocates make more money than you, they don’t have to make a payroll or produce a net profit, and so they are free to low- ball the impact of paying more for energy. Their attitude: we’re gonna make you pay more, but you’re not gonna notice, but if you do – you’re gonna like it, or else. To be continued. Don Polson can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@yahoo.com.