 |
 |
Mark Leno
Two North Coast Democrats who authored measures to create a universal health care system, reduce foreclosures and expand recycling saw their proposals earn prominent spots Monday on an annual list of “job killer” bills issued by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Five of the 37 measures targeted for defeat by the Chamber this year originated on the North Coast from state Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Wes Chesbro.
“Not only do these bills send the wrong signal and create an uncertain environment for investment but, if passed, they would create new costs that would harm our ability to recover and add new jobs,” CalChamber President Allan Zaremberg said in a statement.
The list sets the stage for an annual battle under the Capitol dome between business and environmental, consumer, labor and legal groups, The Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters reports:
Wes Chesbro
Over the years, the chamber and other business groups have been very successful in either killing the targeted measures in the Legislature, getting them changed to their liking or getting them vetoed.
Love ‘em? Hate ‘em? Depends on your point of view. Here’s the list, with a summary of their impact, the spin from CalChamber, and links to more information:
SB 810 (Leno): Would create a universal health care system to provide every California resident with comprehensive health benefits for life. “Single payer health care is ultimately our best hope for a stable and secure health care system in the future,” Leno said. CalChamber calls it a “socialized health care system based on a yet-to-be specified ‘premium structure’ — in essence, a tax on all employers.”
SB 1275 (Leno): Would require loan servicers to provide borrowers who are behind on their mortgages with an application for a loan modification and determine their eligibility before filing a default. Leno says the bill would help avoid unnecessary foreclosures when a loan modification benefits both the borrower and the lender. CalChamber says the bill would delay the recovery of the home construction industry by reducing the availability of credit.
AB 479 and AB737 (Chesbro): Would increase the amount of solid waste diverted from landfills from 50 percent to 75 percent by 2020. Supporters say recycling conserves resources and creates jobs. CalChamber says the bills would expand the state’s waste bureaucracy and expose employers to new requirements that are unworkable and not cost-effective.
AB 2138 (Chesbro): Would prohibit food providers from distributing take-out bags and other packaging unless the packaging is compostable or recyclable. Chesbro says the bill is designed to reduce the amount of waste reaching landfills and littering the ocean. CalChamber calls it an “unworkable” and “costly” mandate on the food service industry.
What’s your take?
- Ted Appel
Watch Sonoma County
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Joe, Ann,
Facts and ensuing logical constructs:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st162.pdf
This is just one source I am reading to determine the etymology (and perhaps actual meaning) of Ann’s claimed “environmental progressivism”. It appears, Ann, that you are actually an “environmental reactionary”. Now I need to figure out the real implications of your proposed “local and sustainable” (currently suspect that it’s fancy words for protectionism, in furtherance of the next topic). Also, how your declared “living wage” relates to, or doesn’t relate to, the futile Marxist goal of redistribution of wealth (*).
Your name calling (“clouds of smoke”, “stupid words”, “a sadly funny anachronism”, “the singularly unfortunate action of one who, when powerless to articulate a logical argument”, “desperate, illogical attempt to further your silliness”) is exactly what had Ombudsman running to the moderators to put a muzzle on. Putting an accurate label, with referenced quotations, is distinctly different from name calling.
We understand the Universe by developing standard conditions. We cannot wake up every morning wondering whether a red light means “go” or “stop”. If a person blames all ills on capitalism and corporations, that is an INVALUABLE aid to understanding what is likely to come next (which of course is, whatever Marxist philosophy would dictate).
I told Ombudsman, instead of personal attacks on me, just show how what ya’ll say doesn’t mirror Marxist rhetoric. That’s easy, and I will instantly quit saying that what you’re saying sounds like quotes from Mao, Khrushchev, and Castro. Or you can keep doing what you’re doing.
Now Joe and Ann, understand and review my writings, I have never called anyone a Marxist. I have repeatedly said that specific rhetoric mirrors Marxist rhetoric. I quite frankly don’t care whether or not you are Marxists. Being a Marxist is perfectly legal, and has actual intellectual foundations.
With that said, Joe, I regret to inform you that Marxism has failed with the collapse of the founding Marxist state (the USSR), the fundamental transformation to market capitalism (with authoritarian government) of the largest Marxist state (China), the the economic demise of every other country that’s attempted it. While the semi-capitalist United States continues to thrive, if not flourish, despite the best attempts of self-proclaimed Progressives Marxists, in pursuit of ideology, to destroy the underpinnings of both our Constitutional government and the source of the prosperity they count on (^).
It is tedious for me to respond to insults and name calling with sources and logic. Joe, Ann, if you respond with presentations of logic in favor of your position, I will be PLEASED to continue the discussion. I will discuss here or meet you at the location of your choosing. But I have no interest in, and there is no payback for me, to respond to further slurs, fact-free attacks, or your self-serving declaration of my beliefs.
You are entitled to your free speech, even mud slinging, but you are not entitled to my time or attention in response.
Warm regards,
Chuck
(*) Marx’s fundamental error, repeated unto this day (by no less than the President) is a failure to understand wealth. Wealth is not a process, wealth is an output. Wealth springs from prosperity, which is the ability to generate more than one needs, which leads (with suitable culture and values) to the accumulation of excess production (eg; a silo full of grain). That is wealth, and wealth can be redistributed by taking from those who have, to those who don’t. What cannot be redistributed is prosperity, which leads to the ancient proverb, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself for a lifetime”. But that requires a desire and a drive on the part of the recipient to BECOME INDEPENDENT (ie; not dependent), which is anathema to self-proclaimed Progressives, Marxists, and all others who place government over people rather than vice versa.
(^) Ann, you recall my surprise when you invoked the “ten years to the moon” call you issued. I told you at the time, but you never responded, that the United States no longer has the capability to mount that kind of effort. America under John Kennedy was nothing whatsoever like America today. Collectivism (“none of us is alone”) and a wide variety of other issues (which I alluded to in my original response to you) have generally gutted this Nation of the ability to conduct itself with courage, vision, commitment, confidence, selflessness, and duty to generations unborn. Starting within four months, we will need to rely on Russia (no longer Marxist ;-) if you know what I mean) to lift American astronauts into orbit.
It seems to me that some people, apparently like Chuck, are so extreme right wing in their positions that everything else appears “liberal” or “socialist” to them. I am sure most of us can see through the clouds of smoke created by the those who use those terms so often when they are supposedly discussing the facts. Not only do they fail to see the part of history where capitalism has failed, they seem to give credit to capitalism for virtually everything they see as good, and blamed everything bad on our governments, or “socialism”.
The fact is, as most of us realize, the truth is never absolute. We let discussions end when people start calling each other “socialists” or ” fascists”. In that context they are just stupid words.
Having said all of that, I think the proposal submitted by Leno and Chesbro will probably have minimal affect one way or the other, and the Chamber of Commerce, in its typical fashion, has once again over-reacted in their allegations they will be “job-killers”.
Oh Chuck, you’ve just made yourself a sadly funny anachronism.
I used the words “environmental progressive” as a description of how I see myself. I used this self-identification, not because I am a part of a vast “new movement,” but because you seemed to need to apply some kind of label to me and “Marxist” is incorrect so I offered you, as a palliative, the label you seemed to so desperately need. My philosophy is personal to me, my beliefs are my own.
To continue to label me a “Marxist” is erroneous, and shows the singularly unfortunate action of one who, when powerless to articulate a logical argument, is determined to discredit through repetitive insistence.
To attach a link to Stalin is a desperate, illogical attempt to further your silliness and it engenders a whole truckload of pig-pucky.
Sonoma Watch Ombudsman, got a shovel?
There you go again. Ball four, man on base. Give the red-baiting a rest, or the coach may have to pull you from the game.
Ombudsman,
You wrote, “The purpose of this nasty rhetorical device is to associate….”
Not even close. My purpose is simple. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it smells like a duck, it is my duty as a citizzen to clearly state that it walks and quacks and smells like a duck. You are entitled to your non-standard and idiosyncratic definition of hate speech, the First Amendment guarantees that. But the First Amendment does not entitled you to have others accept it.
As for three card monte, if there’s a game afoot, you’ve placed me on the wrong side of the table. I believe that the game is being run by those who would prefer to decide what they are to be called by others. I don’t think the people running the game like it too much when the rube decides for himself what to call them.
Environmental progressivism is a movement that is new to me. I am still dissecting and absorbing. I’ve already stated what I think of self-declared principles (very little). The Marxist tone of rhetoric I’ve heard from this “movement”, assigning all blame to corporations and capitalism, is simply obvious on the surface. I am now examining “local, sustainable, and living wage” as Newspeak for protectionism and redistribution.
I don’t care what banner a person chooses to wrap themselves in. If I see a duck under the cloth, I’ll say so. And right now, whatever this is that’s wrapped in the progressive environmentalist banner has a clearly discernible duck-like profile. I still have a lot of reading to do, but we could all start here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm
I will be examining this material to determine correlations, if any, between Marxist collectivism and the progressive environmentalist concepts of “local and sustainable”. And I need to look further into political and economic relationships between Marxism and the redistributative elements of “a living wage”.
Warm regards,
Chuck
“I want to say this very clearly, so it will convey exactly what I mean. As long as you blame capitalism and corporations for the ills of the world, you are mirroring the rhetoric, style and substance, of Marxist dictators.”
I want to say this very clearly, so that it will convey exactly what I mean. As long as you continue to use the McCarthyite tactic of attempting to associate your political adversaries with Communism, you are engaging in a worn-out form of hate speech.
This is a dangerous and destructive rhetorical device that has seen a resurgence in talk radio and Faux News in the last few years. We thought that we had finally put it to rest with the public humiliation of McCarthy and his cronies, but it keeps coming back to life, like some zombie that can’t be killed off. The purpose of this nasty rhetorical device is to associate any progressive political concepts with the deep reservoir of fear generated by the threat of nuclear extinction during the Cold War. It had gone out of favor until a new generation of conservatives, led by characters like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, revived it, realizing that it still had the power to evoke fear and loathing.
Your long piece (which has quite a bit of useful commentary apart from your attempt to keep the ‘M’ word in circulation) reminds me of a diversionary tactic, like a three card monte operator running up a string of chatter while you slyly slip the dead rat into the punch bowl. It didn’t work. We followed the action and we saw your hands. The call still stands. Ball three.
Ann,
How refreshing to have you back in the conversation. We may not disagree on the substance of environmental challenges as much as this discussion would lead a reasonable person to believe. Where I have my real problem with you post is where you assign blame. Blaming major problems on corporations and capitalism was stock in trade for Marxist dictators for decades, until they collapsed, one by one, until now only Fidel and a couple other minor players are left.
Governments themselves are equally responsible for the messes that exist. Legitimate governments are formed by the people and govern with the consent of the people, to perform those duties (eg; regulation of corporations) that individual citizens cannot perform. So when government fails in its regulatory function, it is in fact the people who have failed in their duty. This is not Republican or Democratic, both are utter and abject failures due to placing ideology over pragmatism. But since every apparatus of Marxism is governmental, they inevitably blame all problems on corporations and capitalism, if only to shift blame off their own shoulders.
Who do you think was responsible for Chernobyl?
I want to say this very clearly, so it will convey exactly what I mean. As long as you blame capitalism and corporations for the ills of the world, you are mirroring the rhetoric, style and substance, of Marxist dictators.
Now, to attempt the quantum leap out of that discussion rut. We were a different Nation back then, when we went from a standing start to putting a man on the Moon in 10 years. This America is no longer that America, although there are those who are trying mightily to regain that risk taking, selflessness, entrepreneurial spirit, courage and strength. The legacy of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo will be dead (although, prayers sent, not beyond resuscitation) when the last space shuttle launch occurs later this year or early next year. The reasons are several, and not germane to this discussion.
Buy American (local, sustainable, living wage, etc, etc), indeed. I’ve become wearisome on this topic, but I’ll persist. We own two Fords and a Harley Davidson, all bought since the economic collapse, as our part to try to prop up an economy that is beyond the reach of any government to rescue. I wear New Balance 811′s (made in New England) and Diamond Gusset jeans (made in Carolina). Our dinner china is made in the United States, as is every other product in our home where an American or North American product is available.
Finally, in exasperation, the reader might ask, “So what’s your point?” The point is, self-declaration of principles pales in comparison to the actions of ones life. Some lead with words, others lead by example, each citizen will take their pick.
But the fly in the ointment of “local and sustainable” is the efficiencies of specialization. Face facts, we would not be conversing on this forum, we would not have an Internet, we would not have computers … so all of this would be imaginary … were it not for the power of specialization. Civilization is based on specialization, and the efficiencies of the market that enable us to afford this luxury is also based on specialization. We will not, not should we, have microchip factories in every town, county, state, nation, or even continent. Wheat grows better in Kansas than it does in Mendocino county.
To return to your points, we don’t completely disagree over genetically engineered foods, I just don’t think they are nearly the threat you consider them. We now have antibiotic resistant bacteria due to the use of antibiotics. Some say we should stop using antibiotics, others say we should reduce the use of antibiotics. None of this was an issue before we had antibiotics, but a lot more people died early.
Now combining that with my response to your point on overpopulation, yes, there are too many people on Earth (or soon will be). Until we solve the problem of overpopulation, we face the choice between using the best available agricultural food production technology (ie; genetically engineered crops) on the one hand, and widespread endemic famine on the other. I don’t want to make that choice.
Just one reference providing the counterargument, including an interesting reference to how anti-GM activists prey upon the ignorance of most people regarding genetics to create groundless fear: http://everything2.com/title/Fear+of+genetically+altered+food+unfounded
Whew! Nearing the end here, you don’t know what is happening with the climate, neither do I or anyone else. I am in denial over nothing, I consider ALL evidence, and I am able to do that because I have no preconceptions of what I’m looking for.
Overwhelmingly, the temperature on Earth is the result of solar radiation. During recent periods when Earth’s atmosphere and oceans have heated, so has the surface of other planets, indicating an increase in solar radiation.
One reference, many are available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
I won’t be silly here, it’s obvious that NOT polluting is better than than dumping crud into the atmosphere and water. The issue is how that affects ones decisions versus how it constitutes a political base of power. Convincing the voting mass that the actions of a few are causing a problem creates a political power base, but if the problem is being created by the Sun, well, there’s no political gain.
In wrapping up, what you think is fine with me. I have no desire whatsoever to shut down the debate, call foul on what people call me, or do anything other than place both sides of the issue in public view. Blaming all ills on capitalism and corporations is characteristic of Marxism. Government (the proverbial “We the People…”, of whatever political party) are equally responsible. Pollution is bad; climate change depends on many factors, all except pollution being out of our hands. We as a Nation are no longer capable of going to the Moon, thanks to our willful frittering away of the intangible greatness of spirit that we inherited over petty, selfish, and divisive issues. The Earth is overpopulated or soon will be, and GM crops may be the only way to prevent catastrophic famine. Local and sustainable only go so far, and some things are simply and completely beyond the practical reach of local economies (and should be!). OK, I’m exhausted, my fingertips are bleeding, and it’s time to cook dinner.
Warm regards,
Chuck
To Sonoma Ombudsman and Chuck Becker,
It is interesting to watch my name being bandied about and I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the posts.
First, Sonoma Ombudsman, I think we have a lot in common and I appreciate your defense. I think you clearly understood the basis and intent of my remarks. Those remarks may have been murky to Chuck Becker, hence his calling my stance “Marxist.” You’re right that it can be used as a knee-jerk epithet, although I think it missed that mark in this case, however ill-placed the designation.
Chuck:
You’ve said and quoted here:
“to \this is a country that put a man on the moon in 10 years\. Not to mention your \Buy American!\ plug. As a rhetorical construct, that is clearly one of the most facile approaches to selling the unsellable that I have ever seen.”
I invoked the “man on the moon in 10 years” example to put into context the political and public WILL and imagination needed to energize the United States, its people and its businesses. Regional economies (buy local) provide resiliency when things get rough, as well as produce products, especially our foods, without the need for high energy transport of those goods.
Chuck, you continue:
“Electricity from coal, oil, or natural gas costs $.05/KwHr. That same kilowatt-hour from solar costs $.38.”
That cost difference occurs when we lack the political WILL to overcome the obstacles fossil fuel companies put in the way of the creation of a clean energy economy. If you think fossil fuels have not been subsidized by our government through tax breaks, then you’ve not been doing your homework. Once again, we have an example of corporations blocking environmental protections through lobbying and campaign donations. It is no surprise to anyone that relaxing safety standards leads to lax practices that create disasters and cause lasting harmful consequences. (Have you been watching the news?)
Chuck, you go on:
“We’ve had global pandemics before, and H1N1 is no more likely to mutate into a killer species than any other (but are you rooting for a global pandemic? I’m sure you’re not).”
I think in this case you may have deliberately misconstrued my words. I didn’t say that H1N1 is likely to mutate into a killer species but that new and dangerous diseases, like the new strains of malaria and TB, will continue to walk among us. The more we clear rainforests, the more we experiment, the more chemical inputs we use, the more likely it is that pandemics will have far-reaching consequences. The fact is, humans ARE an adaptable, invasive species that is subject to crash as we overpopulate the earth. Overpopulation of any one species in a habitat usually leads to the crash of that species. Have your read any biology or ecology lately?
Chuck, again:
“For climate events, I would refer both you to the last Ice Age.”
Oh, please, keep trotting out that overused and trite denial if hiding from the truth makes you feel better.
Chuck, here you go again and this is possible the most facile of your “arguments:”
“The one spot where your art deserts you is in your speculative reference to \Frankenfoods\. All this reads like an extended review of a bad eco-thriller. Ann, this is not REAL, it is imagination.”
Sorry, Chuck only in your imagination is this not REAL. There have been strong negative consequences to gene splicing that we’ve loosed upon the environment (can anyone say Round-up Ready weeds). Contamination of organic crops is another problem. Genetically modified crops should be grown in contained facilities only.
We only have to look at the current oil spill and the new scientific information flowing daily regarding the underwater plume and the ultimate consequences to environment to understand how we truly do outsource pollution, both intentionally and unintentionally. But outsourcing pollution and environmental devastation is not only practiced by the United States but also practiced by a multitude of international corporations whose bottom line is profit—no matter the cost.
One of our biggest economic errors is not to include full cost pricing of goods over their entire lifetime to do so would “hurt the economy.” Unfortunately, unsustainable inputs from the environment DO have an economic price, both in terms of the damage done to countries exploited and their perceptions of the United States (can we say blowback), and in terms of scarcity over the long haul, which will lead right back to higher prices. It is a cycle we need to break.
And, Chuck, if you want to apply a label to me, please use environmental progressive, because it fits.
Sonoma Watch Ombudsman,
You and I are probably the only ones who give a dang about this any more, but I just can’t leave a good political debate go to waste.
Please re-read what I posted, I did not say that Ann is \like a Marxist dictator\. Those were your words.
Now, admitedly, this may seem like a minor difference. But in tone and meaning, my post said nothing like what you claim. My words were, \Specific parts of Ann’s comments mirror EXACTLY the rhetorical style and substance of Marxist dictators of the 50’s-80’s.\
Notice that I said 1) \specific parts\, and 2) \mirror exactly the the rhetorical style and substance\. Nowhere in that was the intent of actuality of an attack on Ann. Only a challenge to her ideas.
Here is the quote from Ann that I offer for comparison to the next quote (from Fidel Castro): Ann wrote, in her own words, \We have outsourced our pollution and we have exported greed and exploitation.\
Now compare for style and substance with to Fidel Castro:
\I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating… because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.\
I have now provided explicit comparison and sources to demonstrate how Ann’s post mirrors the rhetorical style and substance of a Marxist dictator. I am not now, nor have I ever, made the statement that I think Ann IS a Marxist dictator. I write words, they are then at the mercy of others to comprehend or misinterpret as their ability and preconceptions incline them.
(Above quote courtesy of http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/fidel_castro.html)
To correct another, unrelated error in your response, there is nothing about Marxism that makes it less like to spring from native sources than from foreign sources. There have been many highly effective and dedicated natural born American Marxists. Not that it makes any difference in this case whatsoever, I just don’t want to let your nativist defense stand uncorrected.
I believe that reasonable, literate, and neutral observers, after comparing what Ann wrote to what Castro said, and taking it in the context of what I actually wrote, will find nothing vulgar, much less mindless, in my response to both Ann and you.
Warm regards,
Chuck
Are Leno and Chesbro job killers?
Yes, and no.
Leno is a proven job killer. His voting record has no recognition of the contributions to society from anyone except the glorious government employee. He should get a job someday that isn’t funded with taxpayer money so he can understand the reality the rest of us live with. His pitch about unaffordable socialized medicine in our state he has helped to bankrupt is laughable if it were not so sad.
And for Chesbro? At best, he is not a job creator. If you read his post carefully, you will see a very smooth arrangement of questionable data to frame his argument. However, the facts are on the table…recycling is vital and important, is paid for with taxpayer subsidies, and factually does not create any measurable employment beyond those who administer.
I just re-read Ann’s comments, and I will have to affirm my original commentary. Ann represents a branch of the environmental movement right here in the USA, born and bred from our native soil. She believes in sustainable economics and is concerned about the health of the environment. How in the world does that get morphed into being like a “Marxist dictator”? That is a “vulgar and mindless insult”. You’ll have to come up with a broader range of descriptors. The call stands. Foul ball.
I may be kind of agreeing with Zuma. Surely that is a sign of the Apocalypse!
Ask the Chamber what they think of being more responsible in checking IDs of job seekers. Oh, no! That would be too costly! People won’t hire! They aren’t Homeland Security! It’ll increase profiling!
sigh
Sonoma Watch Ombudsman,
I used “Marxist” for a specific, targeted reason which I documented in the body of my post (provided two specific examples in parens). This was far from a throwaway insult of convenience, it was a casting in sociopolitical context. Specific parts of Ann’s comments mirror EXACTLY the rhetorical style and substance of Marxist dictators of the 50′s-80′s.
As you point out, I didn’t use the common throwaway insults, because I’m not in the insult business. I’m in the clear thinking business. What works will save this country, what doesn’t work (eg; Marxism) will ruin it. Clear thinking, clearly stated, can at time be offsetting, but that doesn’t make it wrong. There’s a difference between what we don’t like, and what’s not correct.
Now, if you and the moderators here think that constitutes hate speech, then we clearly differ on our understanding of that term. Hate speech in my book is attacking someone for their race, sex, religion, ethnic origin, etc. Calling heated debate of political differences “hate speech” is simply another form of stopping the dialog, shutting down opposition, and exactly the reason that the Founders insisted on the 1st Amendment.
I will simply wait for you to point out to me where I’m guilty of “vulgar, mindless insults”. I think that only a person with no other objection could call anything I wrote “vulgar” or “mindless”. And if what I wrote is mindless, then after re-reading my post, please point out the “mindless” part?
And yes, I use my real name, I always use my real name. If I hadn’t been threatened with physical violence on this forum already, I would be pleased to post my email address, as well. But what will be will be.
I will not be surprised whether this comment is approved of squashed. Folks expect political debate to be as vile as they want, until someone disagrees with them in reasoned, measured tones. Then, whatever is said is disagreement is subject given the least flattering possible label. Political debate is supposed to be tough, it’s supposed to be hard hitting, it’s supposed to challenge comfortable assumptions. My comments were on topic, were never ad hominem in nature, and did not debase the dialog.
As a last resort, squash your opponent’s ability to speak.
Warm regards,
Chuck
Wow solving health care and modifying mortages sound like noble causes. But who is going to pay for it?
States don’t get easy access to the Federal Reserve printing press. And with California’s bond rating one level above junk status that simply means more taxes for you and I.
I recycle everything I can and have solar on my home. With that being said, I do have some questions about recycling. In many Cities in California and in many other States, it is almost impossible to find recycling bins. Not every State requires a deposit on cans and bottles.
If recycling is going to save the planet, why isn’t it mandatory everywhere?
Just to clarify: that last comment was not created by anyone here who operates Watch Sonoma County. As your site moderator, I approved it because I’ve been seeing more and more of these types of comments.
I’ve been thinking about the tone of comments on this site and will post something shortly laying out my concerns — and hopes for maintaining this as a community resource.
Ted
@chuck becker
Stop with the worn-out rhetorical device of calling folks you disagree with “Marxists”. Maybe that flies in the closed-circuit Fox News media world that you and a lot of your ideological mates occupy, but what you don’t seem to understand is that it immediately disqualifies you from being taken seriously among educated people. It’s like the shock jocks that go to “Hitler” inside of five minutes. Give it a rest. At least you resisted the temptation to go for the more popular “communist/socialist/fascist”
incoherent combo insult. Once you cleared the insults out of your throat, you actually had some substantive content. And you get bonus points for using a real name. So why discredit yourself with these cheap shot tactics?
The use of these kinds of epithets is meant to destroy the space of public dialog, by attempting to fix a slur over any comments that your opponent might make. It’s juvenile hate speech, and I would hope that the moderator would start cleaning up the site by not posting any comments that have these dumb insults in them. Over time, operant conditioning will kick in and posters will realize that vulgar, mindless insults don’t make the cut, and they will elevate their game. This cuts across all ideological lines. Liberals have their own dumb epithets, and those should be excluded as well.
C’mon Ted. Don’t let this site go the way of the PD forums. They are unreadable, and that’s why your bosses went to a moderated site. They want a place where adults can have spirited political discourse (and draw eyeballs for advertising). That only works if it is actually moderated. You need to widen the parameters of your moderation if you want this site to succeed.
Wesley Chesbro is correct about adding jobs, but still misses the Chamber’s point. Recycling is great, and setting aggressive goals will make it a more ordinary behavior. The Chamber’s point, I suspect, is that the cost is just one more thing making California less competitive for business.
The jobs created by recycling are related to recycling (or its administration), and all the costs are paid by consumers and business. That means the cost of living and running a business in California is higher once again because of legislative choices.
Recycling is one of so many important priorities. Among all of them, what are we going to have to defer in order to operate with the money we have available. Until Wes and his peers answer that question, we’ll have deficits and costs out of proportion with the rest of the country.
Ironically, the Captcha code for this post about California legislative spending is “out billions”.
The Chamber is not intune with what is happening to our environment. In their habit of making childish observations they should take some time to watch the movie “Happy Feet”, and perhaps that will put it in a better perspective which they will be able to understand.
‘Mark’ has it backwards on just about all counts: The State does not (and has never) subsidized recycling. In fact, for the last several years, Recycling has been subsidizing the state. Governor Schwarzenegger’s budgets have ‘borrowed’ hundreds of millions from the state’s recycling programs, forcing centers to close and workers to be laid off. Last week the Governor proposed another $75 million ‘loan’.
Senator Leno and Assembly Member Chesbro have been leaders in the legislature for honest budgeting and green jobs. Whether your a Democrat, Independent or Republican, the residents of the Northcoast have benefited from their leadership.
Recycling not only creates jobs, it reduces green house gases, means less mining and resource stripping, and saves land fill space. Come on folks, lets separate motherhood and apple pie (recycling and the benefits therein) from weird political rhetoric. The latter is creating more problems than the problems you are complaining about.
EC
How is the chamnber creating jobs by asking the public to support its efforts to bring in and educate illegals?
Hello Ann,
You present an interesting patois of concepts from various ideologies. I sense from the words you write that you are generally generally amendable to Marxism (single-payer healthcare, which eliminates the free market healthcare industry; capitalist exploitation of innocent Third World countries in that \We have outsourced our pollution and we have exported greed and exploitation\ … Fidel would be proud).
But you then deftly turn around, and this is where most Marxist ideologues fall on their faces, and invoke American energy and aggression with your reference to \this is a country that put a man on the moon in 10 years\. Not to mention your \Buy American!\ plug. As a rhetorical construct, that is clearly one of the most facile approaches to selling the unsellable that I have ever seen.
Ann, thank you for demonstrating that Marxists don’t have to be thick, ungraceful, ham-fisted party apparatchik. You serve as a model for the very real concept that a completely dysfunctional ideology can be eloquently presented, with art and intrigue.
Electricity from coal, oil, or natural gas costs $.05/KwHr. That same kilowatt-hour from solar costs $.38. We’ve had global pandemics before, and H1N1 is no more likely to mutate into a killer species than any other (but are you rooting for a global pandemic? I’m sure you’re not). For climate events, I would refer both you to the last Ice Age. The one spot where your art deserts you is in your speculative reference to \Frankenfoods\. All this reads like an extended review of a bad eco-thriller. Ann, this is not REAL, it is imagination.
I do happen to support SB810, single-payer healthcare for California, for the same reason that Arizona passed their SB1070. As bad as the state government is, all 50 together, trying as hard as they can, could not put a finger on the utter, abysmal, unrelieved, unmitigated fiasco that is the federal government. At least if California does single-payer, when the system goes broke, Sacramento won’t be able to run a deficit, or print money, or solve all problems by creating Weimar-style inflation. Leno and Chesbro are idiots, but even idiots stumble upon a good idea from time to time.
You have created an fascinating diversion by wrapping Marxism in sustainability, but that doesn’t change where you’re going. Marxism has never worked, it has impoverished every nation where it’s been tried. The only way it has been sustained is through utter, remorseless violence against any in the population who disagree. Why would we follow that model?
There are a lot of failed experiments that other nations have sustained for a while, now failed or failing, that we should avoid. Not to say that the wrapper you provided doesn’t include some good ideas. Buy American. Go back to the Moon (write to President Obama and ask him how cancelling our manned space flight capability inspires the next generation of young Americans, mealy-mouthed lawyer words notwithstanding).
Unrestrained, self-regulating business does not work, but that’s not what Capitalism is. Government is supposed to play a regulatory role, one they abdicated when President Clinton signed Glass-Steagal’s death warrant, and when Barney Frank and Chris Dodd strong-armed Fanny and Freddie into buying non-compliant mortgages. But I digress.
I wear New Balance 811′s, made in New England, and I wear Diamond Gusset jeans, made in Carolina. We have two Fords and one Harley-Davidson. We do this because we can, and we feel responsible. But go talk to the folks who shop at Walmart and explain the economics of paying $80 for running shoes or $100 for a pair of jeans to them. And then explain why government employees make 35% more than the private sector employees who pay their wages.
Ann, you are literate and lyrical, but in the end you are reciting scenarios and rationales from a tired and discredited ideology. Join me in striving for a better future for America, will you?
Warm regards,
Chuck
If the State, and particularly the Democrats, had listened to the Chamber of Commerce more often we would be far better off financially. If its good for business it is good for jobs. After an economic recovery is well underway, then it is the time for fancy feel-good proposals.
Since when is recycling a job killer? The state Chamber of Commerce has completely missed the mark on this, and I think most of our local northbay and northcoast Chambers would agree with me.
California’s longstanding commitment to recycling and the reduction of waste, including a mandated 50% statewide diversion rate (enacted by AB 939 in 1989) has greatly exceeded our expectations in both environmental and economic benefits, and at no cost to taxpayers or the state budget! In fact the Governor has been “borrowing” from our recycling funds, so you could say that recycling has been subsidizing the state General Fund!
Cutting our waste stream in half is one of the great untold environmental success stories of our time. Although it took us until 2006 to reach 50%, six years longer than originally envisioned by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the fact is we did it. And we did it in the face of significant population and economic growth, which in previous times would have caused our landfills to overflow.
As of 2009, California’s statewide diversion rate stands at 59%, and growing.
A recently completed study on clean tech jobs in California shows that AB 32 and recycling are driving green jobs growth. Currently, there are 500,000 jobs in the green jobs sector, which is 3.8% of California’s total employment. A quarter of these green jobs (approximately 125,000) can be attributed to recycling (including employees at recycling centers and manufacturers who produce products from secondary materials). http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/contentpub/GreenDigest/CWA-green-jobs-0410.pdf
The study also found that companies listed recycling and using recycled products as their top sustainable business practice, citing it as environmentally beneficial as well as providing a cost savings to those businesses. Despite these efforts, there is still room for improvement with many businesses identifying a need to target waste minimization efforts.
Another study showed that recycling a ton of “waste” has twice the economic impact of burying it in the ground. Moreover, recycling one additional ton of waste will pay $101 more in salaries and wages, produce $275 more in goods and services, and generate $135 more in sales than disposing of it in a landfill. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Economics/41004002.pdf
A study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance shows that for every 10,000 tons of material, landfills create one job while recycling can create as many as 35 jobs to process, transport and remanufacture new products.” (http://www.greendaze.org/recycling-and-climate-change/)
At a time when virtually no other sectors of California’s economy are adding jobs, we have proven that recycling and waste reduction are job creators and my bills would build on these successes and result in even greater jobs growth statewide. It is time for the California Chamber to stop pointing fingers and tossing around labels, and instead look at the facts.
Wait a second, did Ann say that SS and Medicare are good ideas? You can’t be serious?
Why would I support and pay for two programs that are both insolvent and neither of which I will ever reap any benefit from? Oh wait, because I have to before I even see my check. Can I just opt out and take my chances? I’ll be working till I die anyway. At least I will with the current tax burden in CA.
Did you just get back from 20 years of exile on a Desert Island with no communication to the outside world?
Ya gotta love ‘em. How else can we cut welfare and out of control social programs without slamming business with taxes(albiet indirectly). Add pension reform and term limits and we might be on our way to getting a grip on what is wrong with California. Gotta get worse before it gets better. These losers have the solution in their rapidly vertically moving palms.
When our legislators get together to dream up more “solutions”, I run scared. California has an abundance of dysfunctional bureaucracies. Compared to other states, and to support these bureaucracies, California charges excessive fees, imposes higher taxes, reduces services and eliminates amenities. All the criteria necessary to drive away business, drive away wage earners, and kill jobs. All of this is well documented, yet our legislators float blithely through their chambers churning out more of the same. They are detached from real world functioning. We must re-think who we are electing to run our state.
The Chamber makes a lot of claims and provides no facts or data to substantiate them.
What neither of you want to admit is that the recycling industry is heavily subsizied and could never make it without state money. Guess what, the state is out of money.
The “scales of economy,” outsourcing labor in return for cheap disposable products, and “businesses too big to fail” have proven to be disastrous to our environment and our economy. We cannot sustain business at any cost. There will come a time that Chambers of Commerce will recognize their faulty reasoning about economics and growth.
At some point, in my opinion, now, we must wholly embrace sustainability, primarily local economics, and purchasing fewer, well-made, sustainably produced, cradle-to-cradle products in lieu of the throw-away world we have created. Many people are advancing this cause (think of all those gardens planted last weekend) and thoughtful purchasers are already working hard to choose responsible companies who are environmental stewards for large purchases. Even more people are planting gardens, canning, purchasing in-season foodstuffs, buying local, while choosing to downside their lives and their environmental footprints.
The global economy has been supported by unsustainable inputs from finite natural resources. We have outsourced our pollution and we have exported greed and exploitation. We have move whole nations from sustainable local crops and given them instead monocultures and filthy water. Even now indigenous peoples are showing strength in numbers and outcry against such practices. As the global population continues to climb past the point of no return we will be forced by nature to recognize what we have done.
Our most innovative, adaptive and populous invasive species H. sapiens will suffer from water shortages and water wars, global pandemics (think of H1N1 in a much more virulent form), continuing global climate “events,” and perhaps even creating “Frankenfoods” through genetic engineering.
It used to be considered anti-American to purchase goods produced in other nations because it was clearly understood that when we purchased such goods, we would lose American jobs. I suggest we come back to that model—instead of whining about not being able to buy every latest cheap fad—that we buy less, support local, regional, then then U.S. produced goods. I also suggest that all other countries do the same. We must produce cradle-to-cradle, sustainable products at home, while supporting fair wages, single-payer medical care and environmental responsibility and sustainability.
The Chamber of Commerce may scoff. However, this is a country that put a man on the moon in 10 years. With public support and political will, we can change our world for the better—one quick, broad step at a time. Starting with garbage (near-zero garbage production, and energy from what’s left to decompose) and moving quickly and systematically we can make these changes.
AB810—Yes! Let’s be leaders to a state of the art medical system. (CofC—what do you think of Social Security and Medicare? I daresay you think they are good things—so lighten up with opposition.)
AB 1275—Yes! Let’s help people save their homes and restructure their loans (it is actually an economic boon to keep people in their homes). Construction recovery is going to take a long time, regardless of whether people stay in their homes—we built too many, too fast and there’s a glut out there.
AB 479—Yes! What is not to like about solid waste diversions. They are truly cost effective over time and through full-cost pricing (companies must take into account the end of life of their products).
AB 2138—Well, maybe. Take out packaging is overwhelming waste, but too many “compostable” take out containers simply don’t meet the test of being truly compostable during the time frame necessary. Bio-plastics are not working the way they were intended. Some people already bring containers from home in which to place leftover food. We need more thought on this because we could pay for a “lip-service” solution instead of something truly beneficial.
The first thing the Chamber of Commerce needs to do is to come into the 21st Century and realize their model doesn’t work over time. The Chamber is composed of intelligent, innovative people that should wake up and smell the fair trade, organic coffee. We can make changes and support sustainability, in fact, we must if we are to survive.
Asking if Dems are for job killing bills is like asking if the ground gets wet when it rains.
Wow, the chamber has really lost sight of it’s goals and mission.
First off, I don’t understand knee-jerk opposition to environmental legislation. Most of the Chamber’s members support reducing pollution and conserving resources and have the foresight to see the economic benefits of a clean environment. Not to mention all of California’s clean tech entrepreneurs who are not being well represented by the Chamber.
Second, why abuse the term “job-killer”??? We get it, you don’t like these bills. That doesn’t mean that they will reduce jobs. Look at Mr. Chesbro’s recycling bill: recycling has ALWAYS created jobs. In fact, 1% of all jobs in the state are from recycling or manufacturing from recycled materials. That’s job growth by any rational standard!
Thank you Mr. Chesbro and Mr. Leno for standing up for the public good against the CalChamber bullies. We need more people like you in Sacramento.
The views that the “chamber” extoll are increasingly out of step with the wants of the general public. The chamber consistently speaks out against any bill that would improve environmental conditions by exploiting pocketbook concerns in a down economy. The response is always the knee jerk “it’s impossible to implement” or “it will cost too much”. I thought the entrepreneurial spirit was about finding new solutions to problems. The chamber wants to perpetuate business as usual. Whenever I look at a bill or a proposition being proposed and I see the chamber is against it, that’s a good sign that I should probably be for it.