September 27, 2010

Republican Corner: Budget Talk
By Post Scripts on September 24, 2010 6:00 AM | 2 Comments

By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party

I wanted to give all of our readers a heads up that the CA State Legislature may very well be holding budget votes soon. It is rumored that legislators will be called to the capitol on Monday. In light of this I thought I’d spend a moment talking about the budget process and why it’s so late this year.

As you all know, the two houses of the California Legislature have to agree and pass a budget before it gets sent to the Governor for his signature. That means that 80 assemblymembers and 40 state senators have to reach an agreement. Both houses have democrat majorities and so the democrats, namely Assembly Speaker John Perez and Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg, have the power to call for a vote on any issue. In California, it takes a 2/3 majority to raise taxes or to pass a budget, so republicans have more leverage with democrats here than on other issues.

As I mentioned, the democrat leadership in the legislature can call for a vote on the budget at any time. They could have locked legislators in the building way back in June and forced a vote, had they wanted to. Instead we are now in late September and we have broken a record for the latest budget yet.

The sticking points for this budget remain the same as last year. Republicans want to cut spending and Democrats want to raise your taxes. The state is bringing in less revenue than what it spends. Currently we’re roughly $19 billion in the hole. There is no possible way to close a gap this large without making cuts to program (entitlement) spending. There is simply not enough money left to pinch with tax increases.

In the next week you will hear a lot of cries about evil republicans and how they want to starve children and old people. The public employee unions will probably spend millions attacking them in advertisements. This is because they know we cannot cut spending without firing a lot of state employees. I realize that this sounds bad, but consider that CA state government has grown over 40% in the last decade. While the private sector is having to cut back and lay off millions, government jobs have been relatively safe. What’s worse, they want you to pay for it all.

Unfortunately, as I already stated, there is not enough money to tax out of the people. Even if we raise taxes and put even more taxpayers into default on their mortgages just to pay government, it won’t be enough to close the gap. Last year, the CA legislature passed the biggest tax increase in state history. That’s right, Republican legislators crossed over and compromised the way liberals wanted them too. Sadly we ended up with less revenues coming in after the tax increase than before. Further proof that tax increases do not work!

It is time for California to cinch up its belt and cut the fat. Our state budget is more bloated now than ever, and the only way we will balance our budget is to drastically cut spending. It will not be pretty or fun. There are millions in this state depending on assistance from those who produce. In fact, while 12% of our nation’s population lives in California, we shoulder over 30% of the welfare burden. It’s time for some other states to start pitching in and helping those in need. California can no longer shoulder the load.

For those of you who do not like seeing our budget so terribly in the red. Consider all the businesses we have driven out of our state with excessive regulations and taxation. Consider all the jobs and tax revenues that those businesses create. If you want a prosperous state, you have to have a prosperous business climate. If what you prefer is draconian environmental laws that give us no freedom to breathe, than be prepared for massive unemployment and suffering. The grapes of wrath are right here folks. Hope you enjoy the taste.


September 18, 2010

POST SCRIPTS
Republican Corner: Party Endorsements
By Post Scripts on September 17, 2010 6:00 AM | 10 Comments

By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party

Ever wonder how candidates for office come by their endorsements from the political parties that support them? While visions of smoke-filled rooms may fill your head, it’s a lot more bureaucratic (and boring) than that. The subject of endorsements by the Butte Republican Party came up in the newspaper recently, specifically in local non partisan races, and as chairman I wanted to take this opportunity to explain some of our policies to the general public.

I should make clear that the party has not always endorsed in local non partisan races. I can remember several years ago I was at our republican fair booth and a former chairman of the party showed up. He saw that we had a Wahl for City Council sign up and gave me heck for it. It wasn’t how things were done in his day I guess.

Over the last decade the Republican Party, both locally and nationwide, has been going through an internal reformation. The moderate wing and the conservative wing have been in a tight contest for control, with the future of our party hanging in the balance. Many of us in the conservative wing feel that the party should be more active at the local level, and that we should do whatever we can to help identify conservative candidates at the local level and give them our support. Non partisan races were originally intended to limit partisan influence, but the partisan influence was never removed, just moved to the background. The downside is that now voters have a hard time knowing where the candidates stand on issues that matter to them.

You see, if I look at a ballot and I see the designation of “R” or “D,” I may not know for sure what that candidate stands for, but at least I have an idea of their general views. Take away the designation and now I have very little to go on. The remedy to this of course is for voters to educate themselves better, but time is limited and the local races often go overlooked. The result is that a conservative voter might end up voting for a very liberal candidate (and vice versa), which will eventually tend to frustrate and disenfranchise voters. For example, a few years ago, college students who were registered Republican received letters stating that Scott Gruendel was “the Republican Choice” for city council. Anyone who knows Gruendel knows this is false, but many students were likely fooled. Had they been able to see Gruendel’s registration on the ballot, they could have made a more educated choice. In the long run I believe partisan designations are good for the political process.

There is also the annoying occurrence of slate mailers. You know those mailers with a republican sounding name that show up with endorsements of Wally Herger, Dan Logue, Doug LaMalfa, and Jane Dolan??? It leaves you thinking, how did she get on there? As a county chairman I get a lot of calls from angry voters wanting to know how this happened and how can they stop it! All I can say is pay close attention to the asterisks and look for the official logo of the republican party when casting your vote.

With all of this considered, the Butte County Republican Party recently decided to get more involved in local elections. We have been actively vetting candidates to determine whether or not they match our values and deserve our support. We have already made some endorsements this year and we plan to make more. We will do our best to publicize our endorsements so that the voting public will know where we stand and who we support.

Our process is by no means perfect. We have a general set of rules (our bylaws) that we have to follow. All of our members are elected to the positions they hold, and it takes a 2/3 vote to cast an endorsement, so it’s not an easy process. Because we have members from throughout the county (Chico, Paradise, Oroville, Biggs, etc) we have members who can look at candidates from an objective viewpoint and decide if we should be supporting them or not. They’re also real people too, with jobs and kids and their own individual priorities. They have the same capacity for human error as you or I, but they’re good-hearted people and I have faith in them.

One of our general guidelines is that we try not to favor one Republican over another. When republicans face each other on the ballot, the party should generally let the voters decide for themselves. The exception to this would be if a flat-out liberal RINO was running and we felt an obligation to point this out. There have been mistakes made over the years though, and the process is not perfect.

All of this leads up to the current election, and more specifically the Chico City Council race. Anyone who pays attention knows we have a liberal majority on the Chico City Council, and that the lone conservative, Larry Wahl, is leaving the council. While they are not allowed to list their party designation on the ballot, it’s hardly a secret where any of them stand. It is however, perfectly legal and just for political parties to tell voters who we support and why. To suggest otherwise would be a violation of our 1st Amendment rights.

Although we haven’t taken a stand in every race, we did in the Chico City Council race. You can stop by Republican Headquarters on the corner of East and Cohasset (the old Hollywood Video building) and find out more. Currently we support the following candidates:

Chico City Council:

Bob Kromer
Mark Sorensen
Bob Evans

Chico Unified School District:

Erik Lyon
Sean Worthington
Dean Stefanides

For more races, stop by HQ or check out our website at www.butterepublicans.com

Thank you all again for being patient readers. If you have questions about our endorsements please post them and I will try to get back to you with an answer.


September 10, 2010

POST SCRIPTS
Republican Corner: Two Wrongs Don’t Make it Right
By Post Scripts on September 9, 2010 6:04 AM | No Comments

By Steve Thompson

There’s been plenty of controversy and plenty said about the proposed mosque near the hallowed site of ground zero in New York. Now the pendulum has swung a bit with a Florida pastor who was preparing to burn copies of the Quran. Interestingly, as of this writing, the pastor has backed off on his idea after reaching an agreement with local muslims who will travel to New York and appeal for a change in the site of the proposed mosque. Cooler heads may yet prevail.

Still, the fact remains that both the property owners in New York, and the pastor in Florida, have the constitutional right to go forward with their plans. It’s legal to build on your own property (although getting more and more difficult, just try it in Chico), and it’s also legal to burn a book. Legally there’s no real challenge to either of them.

But sometimes there is something to be said for sensitivity to others. Building a mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive to millions of Americans who consider it sacred ground. Burning the Quran is likewise insensitive to millions of followers of Islam. Neither action would bring enlightenment or peace to our nation. Neither does any good for anyone other than to prove that they have the ability to do something that offends people.
I think it’s time for Americans to pause a minute and ask themselves if there’s a peaceful compromise here.

Any of my political opponents over the years could tell you that I can be a hot head sometimes. I’m guilty of shooting first when I should pause and assess the situation, but I’m getting better. I’m still young enough to find strength in my anger, but getting old enough to start seeing the wisdom in tempering my temper. I say this because my first tendency here would be to unleash verbal holy war on those who would desecrate the American values I hold dear. Now, a pastor in Florida who a lot of people want to write off as crazy, is showing that there is always some merit in trying to work things out peacefully.

I hope the mosque proponents in New York accept the truce he is offering. Americans are the most tolerant people in the world, but they not as forgiving when wronged. A vast majority of Americans hold Ground Zero to be their line in the sand, a final line that they will not forgive if crossed. Cooler heads will see that discretion is the better part of valor here. This is a chance for the muslim leadership to show America that they can be compassionate when given the chance. This is their opportunity for some positive public relations with the American people. This is their chance to show that they are bigger than their critics give them credit for, and bigger than their own egos.

The Florida pastor has taken the first step and offered the first olive branch. He has shown respect to the sensitivities of muslims throughout the world. Americans will be waiting to see mulsims will show the same respect to our own sensitivities. I hope for their sake that they will.


Logue claims win with consumer complaint

September 7, 2010

By LARRY MITCHELL – Staff Writer
Posted: 09/04/2010 12:15:57 AM PDT

SACRAMENTO — It couldn’t have turned out better, apparently, for Assemblyman Dan Logue when he complained to a top official about the state Department of Consumer Affairs recently.
Logue said his complaint was about “a perfect example of bureaucrats looking for something to do.”
Now, as a result of Logue’s complaint, a complete investigation of the bureau in question is planned, including whether there’s even a need for it to exist anymore, said Russ Heimerich, a spokesman for the department.
“This is a huge, huge victory,” the assemblyman said.
Logue said he was contacted by a constituent from Truckee, Deborah Maloof, who runs a furniture store there.
According to Logue, Maloof said a woman who works for the department came to her store and confiscated a chair worth $1,300. The woman said she was taking the chair to Sacramento to be tested.
Logue said Maloof asked the woman if she would be reimbursed, and received the reply, “Talk to your insurance carrier.”
The 3rd District assemblyman, a Republican from Linda, issued a news release about the incident. In it, Maloof was quoted as saying, “I don’t feel that I was even given an adequate explanation of what was happening. I felt that my rights were violated.”
What the department’s agent was doing, Logue said, was taking the chair so tests could be done on whether it was made of material that could catch fire.
But this didn’t make sense, Logue said. There are laws now that furniture must be made
Advertisement

of non-flammable material, and this chair had all the tags in place indicating it was made of safe materials.
He said the incident shows “how the regulatory authorities are out of control.”
Logue complained to Bill Leonard, secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, which oversees the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Heimerich said several things have happened because of Logue’s complaint. “Appropriate action” has been taken against the employee who took Maloof’s chair, he said. Similar operations by the department have been suspended.
Maloof has been sent a letter of apology. She has been assured she will be reimbursed for the chair or be sent another one like it. And a complete investigation will be conducted of the bureau involved in this incident.
This is the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation.
Heimerich said the section of this bureau that deals with home furnishings and insulation employs about 30 people, including investigators, chemists and support staff.
He said no conclusions are being drawn before the investigation is done. However, he added, because there are now state and federal flammability standards and mattresses and furniture must have tags indicating they won’t catch fire, what occurred at Maloof’s store seems unwarranted.
Logue said the incident in Truckee wasn’t an isolated case. Something similar occurred in Yuba City, he said, adding he was told of another case in Santa Rosa.
Logue said he would introduce a bill to disband the Department of Consumer Affairs’ bureau that inspects furniture.
Heimerich said despite flammability standards, there still may be problems with some furniture not being fire-resistant.
The state Department of Consumer Affairs has between 2,800 and 3,000 employees, he said. It includes about 40 different bureaus and boards, including the Medical Board, agencies that license contractors and various professionals, as well as the Bureau of Automotive Repair.

Staff writer Larry Mitchell can be reached at 896-7759 or lmitchell@chicoer.com.


September 2, 2010

National InterestScientist’s Firing After 36 Years Fuels ‘PC’ Debate at UCLA

By Diane Macedo

Published August 31, 2010

| FoxNews.com

  •   Print
  •   Email
  •   Share
  •   Comments (237)
  •   Text Size  
  • James Enstrom

    Dr. James Enstrom

    A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his “research is not aligned with the academic mission” of his department, says he’s being fired after 36 years at the prestigious school because his scientific beliefs are ”politically incorrect.” But UCLA says Dr. James Enstrom’s politics have nothing to do with its decision.

    Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA’s School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death – a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris.

    Now Enstrom says his studies show no causal link between diesel soot and death in California – findings that once again set him far apart from the pack and put him in direct conflict with the California Air Resources Board, which says its new standards on diesel emissions will save 9,400 lives between 2011 and 2025 and will reduce health care costs by as much as $68 billion in the state.

    The expected benefits of the new standards have been used to justify their estimated $5.5 billion price tag, which opponents say will cripple the California trucking industry at a time when the state can least afford it. The new standards, the critics warn, also could set the stage for national regulations.

    Enstrom questions the science behind the new emissions standards, and he has raised concerns about the two key reports on which they were based – exposing the author of one study as having faked his credentials and the panel that issued the other study as having violated its term limits.

    He says his views are what have gotten him fired, raising serious concerns not only about the diesel regulations but about academic freedom and scientific research as a whole.

    “It’s quite unfortunate that it’s come to this, considering I’ve been in this school 36 and three-quarter years,” Enstrom said. “… but the reason I’m so passionate about this is because the careers of thousands of California businessmen are on the line.”

    Enstrom says he is committed to exposing flaws in the science and procedures by which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed a series of regulations on diesel exhaust, the last phase of which will require trucks and buses that enter the state either to be retrofitted or replaced entirely to meet new emission standards.

    “The Scientific Review Panel of Toxic Air Contaminates in 1998 declared diesel exhaust a toxic substance based on studying truckers and railroaders from back in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, when emissions were much higher,” Enstrom told FoxNews.com. “They never factored in, for example, that a very high percentage of truckers are also smokers when evaluating heath issues they may have had, yet they were using this research to declare that all diesel exhaust is a toxic substance.”

    Enstrom also expressed concerns that the review panel “is supposed to have term limits of up to three years” to keep the panel from being dominated by one school of thought, yet “many of them had been in their posts for over 20 years.”

    He said he voiced those concerns in 2008 to CARB, former UC President Robert Dynes, and current UC President Mark Yudof. The UC president is charged with making nominations for the Scientific Review Panel.

    At least five of the nine panel members have since been replaced.

    “Cal EPA had been talking internally for a while just about encouraging some more diversity on the board, in terms of expertise and in terms of opinion, so that’s part of the reason for the new appointments,” Lindsay VanLaningham, deputy secretary of communications for the California Environmental Protection Agency, told FoxNews.com.

    VanLaningham said she wasn’t sure what Enstrom’s role was in the panel’s recent changes, but she confirmed that some of the replaced members had been on the board past their term limits.

    “We were under the legal impression that they were permitted to serve if we didn’t have a new appointment,” she said. “… sometimes it’s a lengthy process to find new appointees.”

    Enstrom also blew the whistle on a CARB staffer, Hien Tran, who authored a report that was central to the legislation – after faking his credentials.

    “He said he had a Ph.D. from UC Davis. Turns out he had bought his Ph.D. online for $1,000,” Enstrom said.

    Tran was demoted, but his report was still used to “set the context for the health benefits of reducing diesel emissions” when the board voted on the trucking regulations, CARB spokesman Stanley Young told FoxNews.com.

    What the board didn’t take into consideration, Enstrom says, were the many studies, including his own, that contradict its conclusion that diesel soot has caused premature deaths in California.

    So in February, he and other scientists presented the board with some of their findings, and in June he co-authored an op-ed for Forbes.com in which he voiced his concerns with the regulations.

    Less than a month later he received a letter from UCLA saying his contract would not be renewed because his “research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department.”

    Dr. Michael Siegel, professor and associate chairman at Boston University’s School of Public Health, says the reasoning raises some red flags.

    “The mission of the department is to study the impacts of the environment on human health and that’s exactly what Enstrom does,” Siegel told FoxNews.com. “…What the department appears to be saying is it’s not the nature of his research but the nature of his findings.”

    Siegel says he doesn’t even agree with a lot of Enstrom’s findings, but he agrees with his right to relay them without fear of losing his job.

    “The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it’s also a threat to academic science,” Siegel said. “If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.”

    But UCLA says Enstrom’s findings had nothing to do with his dismissal.

    “The nature of research results, political views or popularity are not appropriate factors and are not considered when evaluating individuals for reappointment,” Hilary Godwin, associate dean for academic programs at UCLA’s School of Public Health, said in a statement.

    She said Enstrom’s position at the school was non-tenured and was appointed for fixed terms that are renewable subject to established departmental and university review procedures.

    When asked why Enstrom’s contract wasn’t renewed, UCLA spokeswoman Sarah Anderson said the school was unable to comment further because the issue “is considered a confidential personnel matter.”

    Richard Saller, Dean of Stanford University’s School of Humanities and Sciences, says it’s not every day that a school will let a research professor go because his research doesn’t align with the school’s mission, but it does “occasionally happen.”

    “At Stanford these non-tenured research faculty are generally on soft money from grants, and if the grants dry up or the research of the program/department shifts away from a faculty member’s interest, the position may have to be terminated,” Saller said.

    Dr. Stephen Maxwell, a surgeon at Mercy San Juan Medical Center and volunteer for the American Lung Association, says Enstrom’s pattern of being in the severe minority with his scientific findings also raises legitimate concerns.

    “If 100 people conclude one thing and another person concludes something completely different, then it’s natural for his credibility to be called into question,” Maxwell said.

    Robert McClernon, president of the California Dump Truck Owners Association, which opposes the diesel standards, says the officials who support them are “systematically quieting down anybody that’s against what they’re doing,” and that Enstrom was just their latest target.

    “We go to the board meetings and Mary Nichols will give someone else 15 minutes to talk and will limit us to three,” McClernon told FoxNews.com, referring to CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who is a former UCLA professor. “It’s so one-sided it almost makes you sick to be involved in it, but of course we have to be involved in it because it’s our livelihood.”

    McClernon, who owns a dump truck company in Sacramento, said the regulations not only make it too expensive for companies like his to maintain their fleets but also devalue the trucks they currently own, paralyzing their ability to get loans.

    “Right now at Bank of American they pull all your credit lines back away from you because the value of your equipment is no good, so they don’t have any basis for collateral,” he told FoxNews.com. “So I have no credit line anymore.”

    Young said Nichols is still an active member of the UCLA community, but neither she nor anyone else on the board had anything to do with the university’s vote not to renew Enstrom’s contract.

    The board’s information officer, Karen Caesar, also denied accusations that it didn’t heed different perspectives on the diesel regulations.

    “We do everything we can to consider smaller businesses and the financial climate of the state and the country, so we don’t make these decisions in a vacuum,” Caesar told FoxNews.com.”These regulations are passed with a lot of thought and consideration and with hearing testimony from all sides.”

    Caesar says considering California has the worst air in the country and 28 million registered vehicles in a state of 37 million people, the regulations are necessary.

    Still, the board is proposing several amendments to the regulations and inviting truckers and others to offer their input in a series of meetings to be held in different parts of the state starting Aug. 31 — coincidentally, the day after Enstrom’s last scheduled payday.

    Meanwhile, Enstrom says he’s not only utilizing the school’s traditional appeals process but has also filed a complaint under UCLA’s Whistle Blower Protection Policies, which he says could mean he’ll be on the payroll a little longer than previously thought.

    “I filed a whistleblower complaint on Friday which I guess, according to the university policy, that trumps the normal grievance process, which I’d already filed early in August… so I just got this email saying they’re going to extend my appointment until the grievance process runs or until the end of March,” Enstrom told FoxNews.com Monday night. “…it makes no mention of whether they’ll keep me on even if I do win in the appeals process, but right now I’ll take what I can get.”

    Anderson confirmed Tuesday that “Dr. Enstrom’s appointment has been extended until March 31 or until the grievance process has been completed, whichever comes first,” but would not discuss the issue any further because it is a “confidential personnel matter.”


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.