SLOTribune: Viewpoint - August 19, 2012
In light of recent mass shootings, is it time to overhaul gun laws? By: John Peschong
The recent massacres in Colorado and Milwaukee are national tragedies. Many innocent people were maimed and murdered by deranged men, and the suffering of the victims and their families and friends cannot be measured.
In light of these crimes, new attention is being focused on an old hot-button issue in American politics: gun control. And although these cases still aren’t fully understood, past cases, studies and statistics can help guide us as we seek answers to two important questions. First, do guns increase violent crime? And second, how can society prevent tragedies like these from happening?
When you study the perpetrators of mass killings, patterns emerge. Typically, the killers had a lengthy psychiatric and/or criminal history, and the families, school administrators or authorities either didn’t recognize their mental illness or didn’t deal with it properly.
The Batman movie shooting suspect was seeing a psychiatrist specializing in schizophrenia and “threat assessment” before the shooting; the Sikh temple shooter was less-than-honorably discharged from the military and had links to white supremacist groups; the Virginia Tech shooter was declared mentally ill two years before the massacre; and the Columbine killers wrote online about acquiring guns to kill people years before it happened.
Clearly, something needs to change. Under current federal law, serious criminals and mentally ill individuals cannot legally buy guns. In some cases a lack of communication between parents, psychiatrists, schools, local law enforcement and federal agencies enabled tragedies to occur. But no matter how vigilant we are, sometimes tragedies will happen. This doesn’t, however, mean that we should ban all guns or severely restrict them for sane, lawabiding citizens.
Gun ownership is an individual, constitutionally protected right. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that strict gun control laws don’t reduce violent crime. After all, whom do gun laws actually disarm?
The United Kingdom has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Recent reports from the European Commission show the violent crime rate in the U.K. is higher than any country in Europe, as well as America and South Africa.
Gun control proponents often cite gun ownership in America and our rates of homicide and suicide compared to other countries. Indeed, America does have a high homicide and gun ownership rates, but Switzerland also has high gun ownership and a very low homicide rate. Russia more than doubles our homicide rate with extremely low gun ownership rates. Also, Japan’s suicide rate doubles ours with almost no gun ownership.
A Harvard study from 2007 examined many surveys, studies and statistics from around the world regarding firearms, murder and suicide rates. The study found that high gun ownership didn’t increase murder or suicide rates, and it in fact noted a negative correlation in the United States.
This means that areas with a high density of legal gun ownership have lower violent crime rates than areas with a low density.
Violence, overall, was deemed to be more related to social, cultural and economic factors rather than gun ownership. Violence wasn’t prevented due to restricted gun access — criminals simply used another weapon.
Dr. Gary Kleck, famed criminologist from Florida State University, conducted a national survey that found that guns were used four to five times more to prevent crime than to commit crime. His work was cited in the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which stated that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to bear arms, and struck down the D.C. handgun ban.
From here, the question becomes: would more gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime? My contention is no. Those who seek to commit violent crimes will not stop because of a gun law. As the saying goes, “If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.”
The 2010 Cumbria shootings in England, which killed 12 people and injured 11 others at 30 different crime scenes over two hours, are a good example. Would this event have been possible if law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry weapons for self-defense? The police cannot be everywhere. We have a right to protect ourselves.
The laws already on the books are sufficient to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people, if they are enforced. We should improve awareness of mental health issues so families can recognize problems early on, but we should also get these individuals on the radar of local authorities and in the database of the federal government’s backgroundcheck system.
We need to enforce compliance with our current system, which uses a national background check for permits to own firearms, and make sure that states are adhering to rules by reporting mental illness. Beyond eligibility to own a firearm, decisions regarding right-to-carry and other restrictions should be determined at the state and local level.
SLOTribune: Viewpoint - July 23, 2012
Improve border security, guest worker systems By: John Peschong
Illegal immigration is a contentious issue that ultimately boils down to two topics: border security and legal immigration policy.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, almost 2,800 people were arrested per day last year for attempting to illegally enter the United States. There is no way to know how many people succeeded. Although this marks a sharp decline from the number of apprehensions in years past, the number and persistence of arrests proves that we may be discouraging illegal immigration, but we are certainly not doing enough to prevent it.
Current estimates place the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in a range from 10 million to 12 million. This places a tremendous burden on infrastructure, government services and taxpayers. Many studies and organizations, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, conclude that taxes generated by illegal immigrants do not offset the cost of public services provided to them.
Despite paying unavoidable taxes such as sales tax, illegal immigrants generally do not pay income taxes. Meanwhile, government services often cost more per person for illegal immigrants than for American citizens. Education, for example, often costs more per student for illegal immigrants because of the need for remedial and ESL classes. Illegal immigrants also have an impact on our criminal justice system.
California’s prison population is more than 160,000, and 10 percent of the inmates are classified as illegal immigrants. The cost of housing an inmate is approximately $45,000 per year, which equates to about $720 million that California spends each year incarcerating these violent and serious offenders. It makes more sense to focus on preventing these criminals from ever entering our country.
Comprehensive and common sense immigration reform starts with securing our borders. We are chasing our tails when we catch illegal immigrants on the border and deport them without fully preventing their re-entry. They recognize that our border is porous and will try until they succeed in illegally crossing into the U.S. Nevertheless, there has been progress.
Since a peak number of 1.6 million arrests at our southern border in 2000, there has been an overall decline in apprehensions, including a decline every year after 2006. This is primarily because of the concerted and ongoing effort by the U.S. government to tighten our borders since Sept. 11.
The surge of efforts over the past 11 years, using a combination of manpower, barriers, technology, intelligence gathering and stricter consequences to secure our borders, has brought significant improvements. However, we must remain vigilant.
Terrorists have made it perfectly clear that they will not rest until they destroy us. A reduction in apprehensions for illegal immigration does not negate the need to secure the borders for national security reasons.
Along with border security, we need better internal enforcement. Roughly 40 percent of all illegal immigrants in our country came here legally via work or student visas that have now expired. We need to monitor the legal status of the visas we issue more closely. We should also make it easier for entrepreneurs and students with advanced degrees to come to America, or stay in America, by increasing the number of H-1B visas available to them.
Regarding guest workers, we need an accurate system that verifies a person’s eligibility to work through a criminal background check and ID verification. This system should be universally mandated to employers because illegal employment is a two-way street. This would hold more employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, and simultaneously discourage illegal immigration by making it more difficult to work here illegally.
An efficient guest worker program would give an advantage to law-abiding immigrants, create a disadvantage to those who break the law, and ensure that California’s agricultural industry would have the labor force they need.
Immigration reform is a contentious issue, but we should not let it become the new “third rail” of politics. It has the potential to benefit those who choose to work within the system, and our national security depends on it.
John Allan Peschong served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration and later as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company, and serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
SLOTribune: Viewpoint - July 18, 2012
Why the fuss? Walmart's just a store By: Al Fonzi
It’s said that “a fool and his money are soon parted.” The opposition to a Walmart, particularly in Atascadero, frequently brings this proverb to mind whenever I hear self-appointed “culture monitors” making a bevy of snide remarks about “white trash” and “cheap underwear” ad nauseam whenever the subject of bringing a Walmart to Atascadero is broached.
Mr. Joe Tarica’s recent columns are representative of this appeal to snobbery and intellectual superiority.
In the case of Atascadero, Mr. Tarica has made a number of assertions about Walmart (“Joetopia: Atascadero shoppers deserve better,” July 1). Mr. Tarica states that we shouldn’t settle for second best. We didn’t. Walmart deals in mass marketing and very low prices to be sure, but most of its products are the identical items our “Ivy League cousins” love to boast of obtaining at the “right kind of store” but costing a good deal more.
My oldest daughter works as an accountant for a Southern California firm that imports all sorts of women’s clothing, including lingerie destined for Macy’s, Victoria’s Secret, etc. Interestingly, the same merchandise is also destined for Kmart, Walmart, etc.
The determining factor is what label is sewn on by the several hundred workers who sew on labels for each store, from the same lots of garments. In other words, pay a lot or a little, but the only thing you’re getting is a label.
The same garments are going to upscale and discount chain stores but with different labels and higher or lower price tags. So pay more if you want; it’s your money. But don’t labor under the delusion that you’re getting a superior product; it’s the same product that the working-class family is buying down the street at the local discount store for half the price. So, who’s really “the brighter bulb on the block” in this case?
Mr. Tarica suggested that Atascadero hasn’t used its redevelopment money wisely, with multiple boarded-up shops and a burned-out lot (“Beautification effort takes an ugly turn,” July 8). Quite the contrary: The development of the Colony Square with Galaxy Theatres and the upgrade to Sunken Gardens resulted from redevelopment dollars. The burned-out lot is privately owned; we lost redevelopment money before the city could assist the property owner. You’d think keeping the 85 percent retail sales leakage in a local community, currently lost to Paso Robles or San Luis Obispo, would be applauded by the “activist left,” given that the principles of “smart growth” call for keeping businesses localized for easy shopping access. Walmart costs jobs? What jobs? Good luck finding anything in Atascadero even without the presence of Walmart.
As for small businesses not competing, smart retailers don’t go “head to head” with a discount store. You find a niche and provide what a mass marketing outfit cannot. Additionally, there is the matter of 17,000 Atascadero resident car trips per week to Paso Robles or San Luis Obispo; that’s 20- and 40-mile round-trips, respectively, so how many gallons of gas are required, and what about all that greenhouse gas we’re supposed to be worried about? But, it is a Walmart, and we all know that Walmart is a shortcut to hell, or so we’ve been told for seven years.
The Walmart saga began nearly a decade ago as the city searched diligently for merchants to establish retail outlets in our community. Continuously, we were turned down as “not having the right demographics,” especially population, to justify the placement of a store in our community.
In the case of Trader Joe’s, Atascadero offered a $2 million package to lure them to our city, but we were turned down for Templeton. Previously, Atascadero had a well-earned reputation as being “business unfriendly” and making life difficult for investors.
“Not in my backyard” could have been a city motto. Mid-decade, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. purchased the last large commercial lot in Atascadero. They have gone through a ridiculously long review process and have yet to turn a spade of dirt.
We built Hoover Dam in less time than this project is taking, and in the end, it’s just a store, folks, it’s just a store.
Al Fonzi is a retired Army officer and writes for Atascadero News. He has been married to Atascadero City Councilwoman Roberta Fonzi for 38 years.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - April 8, 2012
Three Strikes law has been effective -- why change? By: John Peschong
After 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped from her home during a slumber party and murdered by a lifetime criminal in 1993, the California Legislature moved quickly to pass a law intended to prevent such criminals from being released after incarceration.
“Three Strikes and You’re Out” was approved by the Legislature in March of 1994, and in November of that year, voters overwhelming passed a nearly identical law, Proposition 184.
Since that time, Three Strikes legislation has consistently faced criticism and attempts to weaken it despite its immensely positive results.
In the years since passage, crime has drastically declined in California. Critics point to a national trend and note that crime has also declined in states without Three Strikes legislation.
However, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, violent crime in California decreased by 51 percent from 1991 to 2003, compared with the national decline of 37 percent. In California, there were actually fewer felony criminal trials in 2002 than in 1993 despite population growth in the millions.
Three Strikes keeps recidivist criminals off the streets for longer periods, preventing them from committing additional crimes and harming society.
Studies estimate that in the first decade of its enforcement, more than 2 million would-be crime victims in California were spared.
Three Strikes accomplishes this through a system of “enhanced sentencing.” If a person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any new felony conviction is doubled, making him a “second striker.”
If a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction is life imprisonment, with the minimum term being 25 years. He would be a “third striker.”
This system is much stricter than prior law. Previously, a person convicted of two serious felonies, such as burglary of a residence and robbery, who then committed a third serious felony, such as another robbery, would only have been sentenced to seven years.
Furthermore, such a person could be released and back onto the streets after only 31⁄2 years for “good behavior.”
Three Strikes prevents this situation by taking the focus off the crime and putting it on the criminal. It forces the justice system to consider a person’s criminal history when sentencing that individual. This is a positive thing for California.
After upholding a Three Strikes conviction in Ewing v. California, the United States Supreme Court noted another positive consequence of the law in California: More parolees have been leaving the state than entering it. This is likely due to their fear of being prosecuted further under the law.
Critics blame Three Strikes for prison overcrowding and the rising cost of corrections in California. However, there are fewer than 9,000 third strikers in California prisons, fewer than 6 percent of the total prison population.
Three Strikes is estimated to cost less than a quarter of the original projection.
It should be reiterated that second- and third-strikers have been convicted of multiple serious and/or violent felonies. Because of the high rate of recidivism, strikers would likely be in prison regardless of whether Three Strikes was on the books.
Three Strikes prevents career criminals from costing society in the form of human suffering, crime scene investigation, apprehension and prosecution.
Movements to repeal or weaken the law claim it’s too harsh and is locking up nonviolent and/or non-serious offenders. Proponents of these movements simply don’t understand the law.
Aside from the fact that all strikers have been convicted of serious and/or violent felonies, the law has safeguards that give prosecutors and trial judges discretion in choosing when to consider a felony a strike.
For instance, they can choose to disregard previous felonies when issuing a strike if they determine them to be nonserious, or for a variety of other reasons in the “furtherance of justice.”
Strikers with nonviolent drug convictions may also be eligible to go through treatment instead of serving prison time.
Often, the media has played into the hype and propagated stories of petty criminals being locked up for life for something as small as stealing videotapes. The truth of that case, however, is quite different.
In Lockyer v. Andrade the defendant had nine previous convictions, including three felony residential burglaries, several drug-trafficking offenses and an attempted escape from prison. His final strike was for felony theft of videotapes that were small in value, but his pattern of committing serious crimes and recidivism justified his life sentence.
Critics bemoan the fact that this person’s third strike was not for a serious or violent offense. However, why should we wait for this habitual criminal to commit another serious or violent crime before locking him up for good? Three Strikes is intended to prevent another tragic situation like Polly Klaas’, not enable it.
John Allan Peschong served in President Reagan’s administration and later as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company, and serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - March 4, 2012
Students with a plan should get priority at community colleges By: John Peschong
Over the past 155 years, California has built one of the largest networks of higher education in the world. This includes 10 University of California campuses, 23 California State University campuses and 112 community colleges with 71 off-campus centers. Our community colleges alone educate 25 percent of the nation’s community college students, which is about 2.6 million per year.
However, there are less flattering statistics. Roughly half of community college students seeking a degree never reach their goal, and more than 130,000 first-time students were unable to register for a single class in the 2009-10 academic year.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that California spent $480 million from 2004-09 on community college students who dropped out after their first year. Is this the best use of our scarce resources?
It is clear that California community colleges need improvement.
Recognizing this, the state formed a task force, a 20-member team of experts, charged with analyzing the system throughout 2011, and presenting their final recommendations in January of this year. Overall, the task force’s recommendations seem to follow common sense, but some critics have attacked certain provisions.
The most controversial recommendation the task force made was to require students to select a field of study and create an education plan by the end of their third term. If a student does not do this, he or she will lose priority registration and may find it more difficult to get into certain classes. Students who do create their education plan will receive priority registration for classes necessary to complete the plan and achieve their goals.
However, rather than being controversial or detrimental, I believe this is the most important recommendation in the report.
This would change the current system, which gives priority to students with the most units. The problem with giving priority based on units is that students who aren’t working toward any goal, but have amassed a large number of units, get priority over everyone. These students get first pick of classes, even ahead of incoming freshmen and students who wish to transfer or obtain a certificate but can’t get the classes they need.
Cuesta College students and administrators have expressed worry over students losing the ability to explore and take classes outside their field of study. They shouldn’t worry, however, because students would have three terms to explore and would also be able to change their field of study anytime. I do believe the task force could improve upon its recommendation by requiring the education plan after a student completes 36 units instead of three terms, thereby better accommodating part-time students.
Overall, I believe requiring students to be responsible for developing and executing an education plan is a great idea. From business plans to personal finance, the ability to envision a plan and put it on paper is crucial to success in life. From there, priority registration serves as positive reinforcement for students who can execute their plans.
The semi-immediacy of the plan is also a great idea. A college atmosphere is usually different from high school. In high school, students are often coddled and pushed through curriculum. The immediacy of the plan will help students realize that a larger degree of personal responsibility is required in college.
Finally, the importance of our community colleges cannot be underestimated. As is stated in the report, California community colleges train 70 percent of nurses and 80 percent of firefighters, law enforcement personnel and emergency medical technicians.
Likewise, the cost of the community college system cannot be ignored. Taxpayer funding for California community colleges for the 2009-10 year topped $10 billion. It’s not too much to ask that the schools and students be responsible and efficient with taxpayer money. We need better results.
The task force has generated some great recommendations that will reward students for making decisions, setting goals and progressing toward achievements, and at the same time increase efficiency on the schools’ side. These recommendations should be implemented as the basis for improving the vast network of California community colleges.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - January 2, 2012
Mandate has no basis in Constitution By: John Peschong
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is rapidly approaching its day in the Supreme Court. This controversial bill has helped polarize our country even before most of its provisions have taken effect. Based on its individual mandate, which fines people who don’t purchase health insurance, the bill should be struck down as unconstitutional. Due to its unpopularity and price tag, the bill should be repealed.
The individual mandate within Obamacare marks the first time the federal government has attempted to force Americans to purchase a private-industry product. Supporters of the individual mandate are citing the Commerce Clause in the Constitution as justification for this, but when one reads the actual clause the argument seems unreasonable. Author and professor of law Richard A. Epstein stated the following in a Stanford University journal: “Looked at from the vantage point of the original Constitution, Obamacare should be dead on arrival.”
The reason behind his frankness is simple: The Commerce Clause explicitly states, “(The Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” If Americans choose not to engage in commerce, then there is nothing to regulate. Therefore, the individual mandate has no base in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the individual mandate was the linchpin that Obamacare was constructed around. President Obama and Democratic leaders forced this ill-advised, partisan bill through both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote. In order to secure passage, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid handed out several sweetheart deals to hesitant Democratic senators in the final days before the vote. The most notorious was the “cornhusker kickback” for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The deal gave Nebraska a permanent exemption from the cost of Medicaid expansion, which means that the federal government will cover all future costs.
Deal-making is common on Capitol Hill, and compromise between legislators is good and expected. However, buying individual votes with sweetheart deals for certain states at the expense of the rest of the nation seems excessive, to say the least. If the bill were written well enough in the first place, deals like these wouldn’t be needed to buy votes.
These brash tactics only served to deepen the divide in the country and resulted in an even more sharply partisan Congress. The unproductive environment in Washington was cited by Standard & Poor’s as a reason for downgrading our country’s credit rating for the first time in history.
So this raises the question: In the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, why did the president and Democratic lawmakers choose to spend so much time and political capital forcing this bill through? Shouldn’t they have focused on the economy first?
It seems like most Americans would agree. In recent CNN/ORC polls, an increasing majority of Americans disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is handling the economy and health care policy.
Now new reports are projecting that Obamacare will cost much more than was touted by the White House and Democratic lawmakers. Author and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a public policy think tank, Michael Tanner stated that the act, “will cost more than $2.7 trillion over its first 10 years of full operation, and add more than $823 billion to the national debt.” This doesn’t include, “more than $4.3 trillion in costs shifted to businesses, individuals, and state governments.”
In March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments brought by 26 states arguing that President Obama’s health care overhaul overstepped the Constitution by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. It’s likely the justices will hear arguments that if the individual mandate stands, then the federal government can mandate just about anything, from purchasing a hybrid car instead of a truck to buying nonfat milk versus whole milk.
When considering the federal government’s power to force Americans to purchase a product, i.e. the individual mandate, let’s remember the role for which the founders intended our federal versus state governments to have. As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, the powers of the federal government under the Constitution are “few and defined.” The powers in state governments are “numerous and indefinite.”
Obamacare with its individual mandate has no justification within the Constitution. Considering this, and that a growing majority of Americans disapprove of the president’s health care policy, it is safe to say this law is unconstitutional, overpriced and unwanted. Whether stricken down by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress , it must go.
John Allan Peschong served in President Reagan’s administration at the White House and later as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company. He currently serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - December 9, 2011
Arguments to repeal penalty fall short By: John Peschong
Despite the seemingly hyperpartisan times we live in, there is at least one issue that a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents support — capital punishment.
According to the latest Field Poll conducted two months ago, 68 percent of California voters favor keeping the death penalty. I am one of those 68 percent.
While I believe in the sanctity of life, I also believe the state has a responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens. The death penalty, in addition to being the ultimate punishment, serves as a deterrent to other criminals who may commit violent crimes and take innocent lives.
In the face of overwhelming support, opponents of capital punishment have zealously sought abolishment of the practice for decades. Their arguments range from moral to constitutional and even practical grounds, but ultimately they all fall short.
On moral grounds, public opinion seems to have settled this argument with 50 years of California polling data showing solid support of the death penalty. Like it or not, morality often follows the tide of public opinion.
More importantly, the fact that the deterrent effect of capital punishment can actually save lives justifies the state’s right to execute the most violent criminals.
On constitutional grounds, capital punishment has withstood the test of time. Except for a brief period in the 1970s, the U. S. Supreme Court has upheld capital punishment, and in California, people voted overwhelmingly to amend the state Constitution to allow for the death penalty. In fact, California voters have expanded the use of the death penalty to include 39 special circumstances involving murder.
On practical grounds, opponents argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent to capital crimes and that capital punishment costs more than incarceration. The former argument has been repudiated numerous times by scientifically based, peer-reviewed studies, while the latter argument is often misleading.
A 2007 New York Times article reported that a dozen studies showed for each inmate put to death, three to 18 murders are prevented. So not only does capital punishment ensure convicted murderers will never kill again, but it also deters other potential murderers. Further addressing this point, Nobel laureate Gary Becker, a leading figure in the death penalty debate, wrote in the Economists’ Voice, “I believe the preponderance of evidence does indicate that capital punishment deters.”
The death penalty does cost more than a life sentence. However, the extra cost is associated with California’s lengthy appellate process and a lack of attorneys qualified to handle capital appeals.
A study conducted by a senior U.S. 9th Circuit judge and Loyola Law School professor accumulated findings from case studies between 1983 and 2006 and concluded that death penalty trials cost “about $1 million more per trial than the costs of average nondeath penalty homicide trials.” In total, the “Executing the Will of the Voters?” study determines the death penalty in California cost taxpayers $184 million in 2009.
I believe the value of an innocent human life is priceless. Despite the high cost of the death penalty in California, it does save between three and 18 lives according to most economically based and peer-review studies. However, if the debate does come down to dollars and cents, government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration find the “statistical value of life” to be $9.1 million and $7.9 million, respectively. If we reform and speed up the capital punishment appeals process in California, the value of the lives saved would be greater than the cost of the death penalty.
John Allan Peschong served in President Reagan’s administration at the White House and later as a senior strategist for the campaign of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company. He serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - October 23, 2011
Proposed ban on plastic bags is a bad idea By: John Peschong
The economy is limping along, and unemployment remains high. State revenue is down nearly $1 billion, which will trigger automatic budget cuts and likely a push for higher taxes. Working families and seniors are feeling the pinch when they visit the grocery store where food prices are up nearly 5 percent over last year — the steepest rise in decades.
I mention these ominous facts because even in light of them, the debate we are having in San Luis Obispo County is whether an obscure board should make the unilateral decision, affecting the entire county, to ban plastic bags.
I believe the answer is a simple no.
The plastic bag ban increases costs for consumers at the worst possible time; creates another government mandate that businesses and citizens alike will have to cope with; and it may be unconstitutional — opening taxpayers to potential lawsuits.
The goal of reducing plastic bags is laudable. I am a big believer in recycling. My own small business was recognized by the California Air Resources Board as a Cool California Small Business Excellence award winner for its efforts to recycle.
However, the San Luis Obispo County plastic bag ban is a deeply flawed ordinance proposed by a government agency that works in the shadows without having to be directly accountable to voters.
Besides the obvious, the plastic bag ban would also:
• Force private businesses to charge customers a minimum of 10 cents per paper bag. In essence this creates a government-mandated charge, which sounds a lot like a tax.
• Criminalize individuals and businesses that provide free bags to customers — a crime that carries up to six months in jail.
• Create a civil liability for businesses that are not in compliance with the bag ban where the government can sue businesses for $1,000 per day for every day on which a violation exists.
These are glaring flaws that defy common sense. Now is not the time for a mandated charge that may be unconstitutional (a lawsuit is pending in Los Angeles County over a similar tax). The idea of sending someone to jail for providing a free paper bag is absurd. Do we really want bag police?
It would be one thing if the county Board of Supervisors or a local city council was proposing a plastic bag ban that raises taxes and criminalizes behavior. Those are local governments that are directly elected by the people. But these new “taxes” are being proposed by a little-known government agency whose board is not elected by the entire county even though that is who they represent.
The Integrated Waste Management Authority is a joint-powers agency that consists of a representative from each of the seven cities, all five supervisors and a representative of the special districts. These 13 board members have the power to enact this law that governs the entire county, without the ability of our local governments to make this decision on behalf of the residents who elected them. Even if a majority of a city’s council members opposed the ban, they couldn’t stop it. That’s wrong.
I believe the IWMA, rather than banning plastic bags, should focus on educating the public. Voluntary recycling programs work. Take aluminum cans, for example. Every year more than 80 billion cans are sold, but according to the EPA, cans account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. waste stream because of recycling — that’s impressive.
In San Luis Obispo County, we already require stores to have plastic bag recycling bins, which consumers use. With an education campaign, these recycling bins could be used even more. Recycled plastic bags are made into new products such as decking, benches, playground structures and new plastic bags — creating jobs and opportunity.
Furthermore, studies reveal that 90 percent of consumers reuse plastic bags for various household purposes such as picking up pet waste and wastebasket liners. With the plastic bag ban, consumers will be forced to buy heavier garbage bags that contain more plastic, which could increase the amount of plastic in our landfills.
The bag ban is a bad idea, which may not even accomplish the goal of reducing waste. Instead the IWMA should focus on education and the proven formula of the three R’s — reduce, reuse and recycle.
John Allan Peschong is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company. He currently serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
San Luis Obispo Tribune - September 25, 2011
We can't afford new regulations By: John Peschong
The protection of our natural environment is a moral calling. As an outdoors enthusiast, I try to answer the call by following the old rule of “leave no trace.” It’s a simple principle that’s meant to conserve nature for future generations.
However, conservation does not exclude our ability to use nature, whether for camping and hunting or farming and harvesting natural resources like timber.
In order to balance the use of nature with our duty to conserve it, America has led the way in sensible environmental regulations.
As a Republican, I am proud of my party’s environmental record, which includes President Lincoln’s protection of Yosemite Valley, President Grant’s creation of the first National Park in Yellowstone, President Theodore Roosevelt’s designation of more than 70 natural areas as national monuments, wildlife refuges, or national parks including the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, President Nixon’s creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the landmark Clean Air Act and President George W. Bush’s creation of the world’s largest ocean preserve in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.
Unfortunately, sensible regulations have lately given way to overreaching and burdensome environmental regulations that cost American jobs.
President Obama’s EPA has issued stringent regulations that are planned to take effect this fall and winter that will destroy jobs and cost billions of dollars when our economy can least afford it.
For example, the EPA’s new Boiler MACT regulation will impact hospitals, factories, colleges and thousands of major American employers who use boilers. The odious new rule will impose billions of dollars in compliance costs and put at risk over 200,000 jobs. It’s estimated in the paper mill industry alone, 36 mills across the country would close because of the new regulations governing boilers, resulting in nearly 90,000 lost jobs.
Other new EPA regulations in the pipeline include the Cement MACT. A recent study concluded it would force the closure of nearly 20 percent of America’s cement manufacturing plants. This looming regulation caused the suspension of a $350 million cement production facility in Ragland, Ala., stopping work for 1,500 construction workers.
Not only do many of the EPA’s new regulations result in lost jobs and wasted money, but they also suspend common sense. Take for example the EPA’s “Farm Dust” regulation that would create historic restrictions of particulate matter — “dust” caused by activities like harvesting or driving a truck down a dirt road.
Perhaps the most convincing argument that overreaching environmental regulations cost jobs can be found in President Obama’s order to the EPA to withdraw new smog regulations. By the EPA’s own estimate, the new rule would have cost the economy $90 billion a year, which could have meant millions of lost jobs over the course of a decade.
Supporters of the EPA will argue that the jobs lost by environmental regulations are offset by new “green” jobs or jobs that are created as a result of complying with the regulations. However, the recent bankruptcy of California-based Solyndra that laid off over 1,000 employees refutes that argument. If a White House backed solar panel company that received over half a billion dollars in government loans could not be viable, it is dubious to believe in the hope of “green” jobs to replace jobs lost by extreme environmental regulations.
The government’s own Small Business Administration released a study just a year ago that showed the total cost of compliance to all federal regulations is now $1.75 trillion, which costs small businesses $10,585 per employee.
The study also found that environmental regulations are the main cost drivers and they disproportionately affect small businesses — costing 364 percent more than large companies.
Regardless of political party, we all share the goals of cleaner air, water and land. However, it’s clear that some environmental regulations do cost jobs and with unemployment rising in California and more than 9 percent nationally, we can ill afford many of the new regulations coming out of President Obama’s EPA.
Let’s make a commitment of protecting America’s natural heritage, while also protecting American jobs.
John Allan Peschong served in President Reagan’s administration at the White House and later as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company. He currently serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.
Atascadero News - June 29, 2011
We Get the Government We Deserve By: Al Fonzi
To be called a “racist” in today’s America is akin to being a “Nazi” in WWII. It is not a trivial charge nor should it be trivialized by wanton use in political disagreements.
Over the last week SLO County has witnessed a deplorable abuse of that term by our Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Adam Hill. While Atascadero doesn’t vote for Hill directly, he represents all of us in his position of Chairman. Chairman Hill doesn’t like people to disagree with him or call him to account for actions with which his opponents disagree. He has used his position of authority to browbeat and intimidate citizens during public comment, threatening to “investigate IRS records” and demanding personal and usually private information. .He called his opponents “racists…hatemongers” for the crime of political opposition. His “non-apology” was insincere. He attempted to misdirect public attention to alleged Republican misdeeds versus accepting responsibility for his own words. Hill is a Democrat Party activist and his party has a 150 year history of official racial segregation. It was under President Wilson (1912-1920) that the military and federal civil service were re-segregated and the most racist film in America, “Birth of a Nation”, screened and celebrated in the White House. I normally don’t agree with the concept of collective guilt, believing that people are personally, not corporately responsible for their actions, but liberal progressives routinely advocate collective guilt, so I’ll let them wear the mantle.
Sadly, most people of the world live under tyranny with “individual rights” consisting of the whim of local police to beat you or not, depending upon their mood and your position in society. In America, our Bill of Rights confers “unalienable rights”, meaning they are given to us by God, whom we acknowledged as a nation when we ratified our constitution in 1787-89. Those rights are not granted by men or any government, which is why no government can take those rights from us without our consent. However fashionable it may be for our “intelligentsia” to mock the concept of “God-given inalienable rights”, respect for that concept has made America the most free nation in history and a beacon of hope to millions who immigrated here in search of a better life where, before the law, every man was every other man’s equal. Politicians who forget our heritage and their place as servants of the people, like Hill, are petty tyrants in training and should be harshly curbed when out of line. It is incumbent upon people of conscience to speak out against abuse of political power. If elected officials and members of the public excuse or give Hill a pass, we get the government we deserve.
The Tribune - August 27, 2011
Plan to complex for government to handle? By Daniel Cashier
As a concerned American Citizen, I am writing this letter without any Political Party influence. As most Americans believe, we need Health Care Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, and Medical Malpractice Tort Reform and need to provide health care to the poor uninsured.
The Government recognizes that we have financial and fraud problems with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. For decades, spending on the Federal Government’s major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy. The Government has not been able to control costs for health care programs under their full control. In addition, we are faced with growing deficits and National Debt.
For these reasons and after reading and reviewing the Congress H. R. 3200 Bill, 1,107 pages, I am against a Public Health Insurance Option where the Government becomes a Self-insurer and incurs the liability to cover the cost for health care provided to millions of people as they do for Medicare and Medicaid. I have no confidence in having the Government manage and control a complex Public Health Care Program, as described in H. R. 3200, now or in the future without the need to borrow money and/or raise taxes on a continuous basis year after year.
On July 14, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) completed a preliminary analysis of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200 specifications. The CBO reported, “According to that assessment, enacting legislation that embodied those specifications would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010–2019 period. By 2019, CBO and the JCT staff estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants)”.
Currently, our National Debt has reached $11.7 Trillion as of August 12, 2009 and the amount of money the Government can borrow by law, including foreign creditors is capped at $12.1 trillion. The borrowing was required to cover/finance years of annual deficits. According to the May 2009 Updated Summary Tables prepared by the U.S. Government Office of Management and Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, it shows the deficit is projected to be a total of $5.6 trillion for fiscal years 2009-2014 and a total of $8.9 trillion for years 2009-2019.
Debt held by the public, including foreign creditors is projected to increase from $5.8 trillion in year 2008 to $12.6 trillion in year 2014 and increase to $16 trillion in year 2019. These projections do not include the Government’s Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade funds needed for these programs or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations.
One of the biggest crises we are faced with today is the Government being out of money for decades, causing the Federal Deficit to grow year after year. Further, we have become dependent on receiving a substantial amount of funding from foreign creditors. As of January 2009, $3.1 trillion of US Treasury Securities were held by foreign owners, 36% of the National Debt. In addition, we have a troubled economy with high unemployment. It seems the White House and Congress should have these concerns as their top priority to resolve.
The Congressional Budget Office reports “under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Keeping deficits and debt from reaching levels that would cause substantial harm to the economy would require increasing revenues significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two”.
If the Government is really serious about Health Care Reform, they should abandon the Public Health Insurance Option, work with State Governments to pass Federal and State legislation to reform the Health Care Insurance Industry to fix the current insurance inequities/problems and pass legislation for Medical Malpractice Tort reform. Further, the U.S. Government should immediately fix the current problems with Medicare and Medicaid. It is estimated that five to ten million uninsured American citizens are too poor to pay for health insurance; they should be enrolled in current federal and state programs currently established to help them.
Action Required: need to send letters to members of the White House, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senators to express our fear of heading into an economic collapse, because of their excessive spending causing deficits. They need to pass legislation to create a balanced budget to avoid future deficits, and pledge to read all bills before voting.
Further, if you agree with my position concerning the Government’s health care reform plan, please contact Congressmen, Congresswomen and U.S. Senators and demand they vote against the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200.
Daniel Cashier holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Pepperdine University and is a Certified Public Accountant in Pismo Beach
Atascadero News - June 1, 2011
Remembering our heritage and those who need us today by Al Fonzi
I am a fan of author Eric Sloane, an artist and writer for half a century on aspects of “Americana”. I first encountered Sloane while living in New England and read everything I can find he has published. A favorite work is “Vanishing Landscape”, published in 1951, which describes an America long since lost or vanishing.
Want to know why country roads undulate instead of simply being straight and level? Roads were constructed so that horses pulling loads pulled uphill and were able to rest on the downhill. He describes the loss of the great American primeval forest, the “old first growth” forest trees with heights of nearly 200 feet and circumferences that stagger the imagination, like a Black Walnut with a height nearly 200 feet and a 36 foot circumference; this was not uncommon 250 years ago.
How villages and towns formed and what governed their growth is fascinating, like the role of the local Miller, who was held in as high esteem as any town father or pastor, advising on virtually any topic of commerce and considered among the “first captains of American industry.” Sloane’s books recount an America lost but also the values that molded our nation.
Throughout his books is a theme of self reliance, personal responsibility and liberty. On a broader note, what is happening on the national scene should touch us all as we watch the Midwest being devastated by floods, massive killer tornadoes and wildfires. As a small boy living in the Midwest, I remember the fear on my parents faces as my father rushed us to the basement when a tornado warning was issued. I remember our county seat, Xenia, Ohio, a civil war era community with 150 year old homes and stately, tree lined streets, annihilated by an F5 tornado in April, 1974.
I hope we all will give a moment of thanks and not take for granted the blessings we enjoy. Most of the world lives under one form of tyranny or another. A self-governed free nation requires an informed and actively engaged people in their government; it’s not somebody else’s job, it’s yours!
Our city council meetings have fewer and fewer attendees with less public input. The council needs to hear from you. As we remember our blessings, don’t forget those who have suffered catastrophic loss in these most recent Midwest tragedies. We tend to be emotionally engaged for a few days or weeks, then move on with our lives; disaster victims will be putting their lives back together for years and they need our material help, moral support and prayers to comfort them in their personal losses.
Remember our past and don’t forget those who need us today.
Atascadero News - April 18, 2011
Regulators are killing the "Golden Geese" by Al Fonzi
In my last article I praised Melanie Blankenship for her pluck in standing up for her rights. Melanie is an entrepreneur operating an organic grocery store in Templeton. When faced with federal regulators she defended her operation and her rights and won. Too many people simply acquiesce to the demands of regulators, however wrong or unreasonable, and a little bit more of our freedom is lost.
Melanie represented the best of America in keeping with its founding principles. On April 19, 1775, a group of Massachusetts farmers stood up to the legally constituted authority, the British Army, and said “this far and no farther.” They were defending their rights as Englishmen against a King and Parliament that refused to acknowledge the American Colonies demand to be accepted as “Free Englishmen” with guaranteed rights under English law. Some paid with their lives. Their struggle gave birth to our nation and its constitution, guaranteeing rights granted by God, not government, rights which no government, therefore, had authority to abrogate.
For most of the next two hundred years, Americans understood and defended these freedoms, fought a great civil war to extend them to all men and a peaceful civil struggle 40 years ago to ensure they were enshrined in both the constitution and federal statutes.
Today, I’m not so sure Americans are as willing to sacrifice their comfort, let alone their lives, to defend what was obtained at such great cost. Melanie seems to be an exception. Entrepreneurs like Melanie are under siege, especially in California. Regulators all too often ignore public protest, even mocking those who protest regulatory excess. Regulators seem to hold a mindset that if someone profits or gains, someone else must be losing, “therefore that must stop.”
That’s more of a Russian peasant mentality of class envy than the American tradition of seeking opportunity and admiring your neighbors’ success. The economy is not a poker game with only a set amount of money, somebody wins, everyone else looses.
Free market economies create wealth; they make bigger and even more “economic pies” to increase everyone’s share. Entrepreneurs like Melanie have created 70% of the new jobs in the last 40 years and expanded our economy to an unparalleled abundance in history.
Entrepreneurs are the “golden geese” that provide the wealth that makes our state “Golden.” California regulators think otherwise and consider Melanie a threat to their power. They will not give up their power easily. Meanwhile, in today’s regulatory climate, neither a Madonna Inn nor a Hearst Castle could be built; it takes 18 months to obtain a permit to build a chain restaurant in California and 1 month in other states. Where do you think the new jobs are going to go?
Atascadero News - April 4, 2011
America at its Best by Al Fonzi
Melanie Blankenship is a hero. Melanie founded, owns and operates “Nature’s Touch Nursery and Harvest,” an organic food store in Templeton. A registered nurse, she had a dream of providing chemical free food, researched the product and market, and with $5000 in savings, plunged into the world of entrepreneurs. That was 10 years ago.
Today she has a thriving business and serves a local market and is fulfilling her dream. That’s America at its best. Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of America. They create the wealth that uplifts all of us and provides a level of prosperity never before enjoyed in history.
In late December, a Federal inspector darkened her doorway, advising her of new regulations requiring her to have a “food defense plan.” You know, against all those terrorists lurking on the outskirts of Templeton. Her written plan would require special outdoor lighting and a surveillance system, procedures to verify ID of workers and special storage procedures to prevent adulteration of food. Two weeks later another federal inspector showed up announcing she was seizing all of the meat products from one of her vendors, even though all of her products had been inspected and approved by the Department of Agriculture. “Why?” asked Melanie, among many questions the inspector couldn’t answer.
Melanie didn’t cave or back down in the slightest, but aggressively defended her product, her vendors and her operation. Turns out, the inspector didn’t have any good answers and eventually, completely backed off. It seems that somebody in the county was selling uninspected meat products door to door, so the federal answer was to harass every small operator, presumably until they found the culprit.
Overreach is seemingly the order of the day in most government agencies. Often, people become intimidated and meekly comply with the most outrageous demands, however stupid and incomprehensible. In Atascadero, like Melanie, we have leaders with “grit.” Due to regulatory agency intransience, Atascadero may be in for a fight with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City Council (unanimously) has refused to “cave” to outrageous demands that will have devastating financial impacts on our community, to include severe environmental damage, destruction of affordable housing policies and unwarranted expenditures at the expense of essential services, like loss of police officers, firefighters, and closure of parks, the zoo, et al, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
I hope the city will fight, but its time the people took the fight to a higher level. The Water Board, like many State agencies, is unelected and acts like it is unaccountable. It’s time for that to change and for powerful State agency commissioners to be elected and not appointed, lest the servant become the master of the served.
Atascadero News - March 21, 2011
Regional Regulatory Agency Plan Endangers Atascadero Trees by Al Fonzi
A report recently released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked California among the worst states in the country to do business due to its tax and regulatory climate. Overall, California accumulated three times the average number of “Poor” ratings than any other state. That should be cause for alarm, but looking at County and State government, it seems “business as usual” is the order of the day.
Within the last few weeks, 19,000 teachers were given notices of impending layoffs for next year. Building permits countywide are down more than 85%, statewide unemployment is holding steady at 12% or more, but state and county bureaucracies act as if it’s still boom times for taxpayers and business. The County had about 97 planners when developers were prospering; today, with an incredibly deep building slump, we still have 97 planners at the County. Why, with teachers being laid off, are all the regulators getting a pass? Well, they (local, state and federal) are working hard on imposing more regulatory requirements.
One is the Storm Water Management Plan which regulates the use of septic tanks. Atascadero has about 5000 homes on septic tanks. This plan, imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), will impose 100% expansions of septic tank leech fields, with an additional 100% area added for future expansion for residences. This will mean a lot of trees on private lots being cut down; Oak trees come to mind.
It seems that trees love leech fields, but septic systems don’t fare well with tree roots intruding. If we had a dire problem in need of fixing, I would understand. But nobody has identified any problems in Atascadero; to the contrary, the City submitted evidence that we didn’t have a problem. That doesn’t seem to matter to the RWQCB. They rejected out of hand all of the City’s suggestions to address their concerns while retaining Atascadero’s unique status as a “Tree City,” versus resembling a logging clear cut area.
The City requested the scientific data supporting the RWQCB’s position; the RWQCB refused to provide any information. Like virtually every regulatory agency in the State, the RWQCB is not elected and is virtually unaccountable to the voters. This is normal operating procedure for the RWQCB. They don’t like people asking questions; they don’t like people asking “What’s the impact of this policy?” as Mayor Tom O’Malley used to do before environmental extremists forced his removal from the Board last year. The City will likely have to file a lawsuit to get any answers from the RWQCB, an expensive and stupid way to do business. But this is what we want, right? A perfect world, perfectly regulated at any cost, creating an absolutely perfect hell. Or do we?
Atascadero News - March 6, 2011
Where's Robin Hood when we need him? by Al Fonzi
For several weeks now I’ve written about the burden of regulations on our community and the state. Well, for once, some good news. Since I last wrote, the County Planning Commission gave approval to the Solar Energy project in Carrisa Plains. We need to develop alternative energy sources; actually, we need to develop all of our energy sources.
The Carrisa Plains project is a good start. I know there are some folks unhappy about this project, due to the proximity of Kangaroo Rat habitat, but I can’t help but think that some folks are just born unhappy and are determined to ensure that everyone else is unhappy as well.
No doubt, some will continue to object, lawyers will file lawsuits and in another 10 years we might have an operating solar energy plant, or not. Similar projects have not fared so well; the Mojave Desert project was halted due to the Desert Tortoise living in the Desert. I think a biologist found as many as 10 tortoises near the project. So, we can’t find a suitable home for 10 critters and still build a solar energy plant? As the “governator” allegedly said when apprised of this situation, “if we can’t build a solar energy plant in the desert, where in the (blank) can we build them?!”
A wind farm in Massachusetts suffered a similar fate when it interfered with the sailing habits of a certain famous U.S. Senator. It took ten years for that project to obtain approval.
As gas prices skyrocket, over $4.00/gal now and projected to be $5.00 by Fall, the Huasna Valley Oil Field project in South County is approaching it’s fourth year of the application process, to reactivate two previously operated wells on land. The application is 10 inches thick and weighs about 10 lbs.
Locally, State regulators launched a reign of terror upon local beauty shops just before Christmas. Swooping down upon Atascadero and Paso Robles, a state inspector held court for shop after shop, finding such heinous deficiencies as Christmas cards partially obscuring a business license, ($100 fine) and an uncovered trash can in a back storage room ($500 fine) accumulating about $1200 to $1600 of fines per shop.
Did a single mom attempting to support herself see a week’s pay go to Sacramento in fines for trivial offenses that may have warranted a simple on the spot correction? Did a child do without at Christmas because a state bureaucrat wanted to make a point? Does this bring to mind Hollywood plots about Robin Hood and tyranny? A conservative estimate is that about $50,000 in revenue (fines) from local beauty shops went to Sacramento between November and December 2010. I’m sure the state spent it well. Merry Christmas indeed!
Atascadero News - February 20, 2011
Regulatory unintended consequences... by Al Fonzi
By the time you read this article, Hoover’s restaurant will have closed its doors, after 45 years, for good. It is just another example of how a combination of economic factors, not a little of which is dithering by previous city councils, has contributed to the overall economic decline.
Hoover’s owners reported a 30% reduction in business when the old theatre and complex across the street closed for the construction of Colony Square and a new theatre. A project that should have taken 18 months, has stretched into five years. Folks, they built the Empire State Building in about 33 months. We mobilized a nation’s industry, fighting and winning WWII in less time than Colony Square has been under construction.
On the corner of the K-Mart complex is a vacant corner, up for lease for decades, but no takers. It seems that previous councils imposed road improvements upon anyone foolish enough to lease and build on that site. The cost, last time I looked, was about $300,000 of mandated improvements before a shovel of dirt can be moved.
Businesses are in the business of making money. If they can’t, they won’t build, hire or open anything that could generate new tax dollars for libraries, schools, or any other important priority. Californians seem not to learn. We shot down Prop 23 and reaffirmed our desire to impose AB 32’s onerous and impossible standards of emission reductions.
In Fresno, SC Johnson Company closed its Ziploc factory last week, laying off 70 workers. Last year, Intel Corp announced an expansion outside of California and stated they weren’t interested in expanding California operations. Whether low or high end jobs, businesses are leaving California and our small towns.
Extreme environmental policies devastated Central Valley farmers for the last two years, denying them the water essential to operate. The Delta Smelt, a minnow requiring “saving” at the expense of the Central Valley’s economy, isn’t going to be saved after all. Seems there was something else at work, not the water being pumped out of the Delta, allegedly threatening Smelt habitat. Junk science strikes again, but the people are left out in the cold.
I last wrote that Atascadero had dodged a bullet concerning a Level III drought severity designation. I received an e-mail from a local consultant, detailing mitigation proposals from the County Planning Department. The restrictions being imposed on the Paso Robles Basin require “molecule for molecule retrofitting…similar to Los Osos.” This level of detail wasn’t brought up at the Board of Supervisors meeting. No doubt, this would be a “legal wedge” to use against a Wal Mart project, or any other significant future project.
Eventually, we may have a perfect, pristine environment with a sole, environmental caretaker to watch over it for us. We, the great “unwashed” will have long since been removed to someplace else.
Atascadero News - February 7, 2011
Extreme positions have consequences... by Al Fonzi
Atascadero dodged a bullet at the February 1st Board of Supervisors meeting. Supervisor Gibson called the shots; the BoS seemed determined to find a reason to impose a “Level 3” of severity water overdraft certification on Atascadero.
Hydrogeologists confirmed the existence of a geologic barrier between Atascadero and the Paso Robles water basin, negating need for such a classification, but the BoS seemed to be looking for reasons to impose the most severe rating upon Atascadero. The Board finally settled for a level 1 classification and “monitoring”, which the City had previously implemented. A “level 3” rating could be used to challenge the WalMart EIR and halt any other project that doesn’t provide supplemental water. Extreme positions have consequences, especially when the impact on people is discounted.
Last week, my critics implied that those who disagree are uneducated on the “facts” of climate science. To the contrary, I too once believed, except that a lifelong habit of reading the other point of view has convinced me that the current state of climate science, particularly that anthropogenic causes are the primary source of climate change, is more fantasy than fact and dominated by people: (a) standing to make great sums of money or (b) fear for their personal prestige if proven wrong.
Policy decisions that fail to incorporate impact upon humanity, is a “crime against humanity” as stipulated by a federal judge last year in denying imposition of further restrictions on water use in the Central Valley, now experiencing unemployment up to 40% in some locales.
Forty years ago, the Nixon administration’s EPA director imposed a ban on the pesticide DDT. This eliminated a major weapon against the spread of Malaria and was opposed by the National Academy of Sciences. 35 million people died in the third world from malaria directly as a result of that decision. Nixon thought it was a good political decision and upheld the ban, which was not lifted by the World Health Organization until 2007.
Prop 23, an attempt to suspend AB 32, which requires California to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, was defeated and outspent 3 to 1 by big money dependent upon massive government subsidies for alternative energy projects. AB 32 (the target of Prop 23) will cost California hundreds of millions of dollars a year and accomplish zero in eliminating greenhouse gasses worldwide.
California will lose jobs to overseas competitors with no benefit to the people of California. Until economic impacts, the impact upon people, is given equal weight as the impact upon minnows, I will continue to speak out, however outraged my critics may be. To my critics, I will gladly attend another forum on climate change, as I did before, and listen politely.
P.S. I have four earned degrees from public and private institutions, so please, stop picking on the public school teachers; they did a good job of teaching me to think for myself.
Atascadero News - January 23, 2011
Facts Matter by Al Fonzi
What is it about conservatives that so irritates liberal progressives and vice versa? Perhaps it’s the way we see the world. An example of the conservative mind might be to see conservatives in the image of “Detective Joe Friday” (Dragnet) stating to a witness, “Just the facts ma’am.” I like facts. An emotional argument stating “we just can’t take the risk” has lost my attention.
The climate change/global warming non-debate (No debate allowed, “it’s settled science.”) is a classical example of non debate. The refusal of conservatives to accept what is so obviously true to liberals on this subject is a current point of heated opposition. Facts are important!
Liberals claim that western civilization is destroying the planet; a drastic reordering of the economic structure is required. Millions of people must give up their hopes and dreams or their “selfishness will destroy the earth.”
Ok, first some facts. Climates change. The geological and historical records show this to be true for millenniums, without significant impact from human involvement. Greenland, that ice covered continent northeast of North America, used to be able to grow grapes, as did northern Britain.
A mini-Ice Age ended that adventure abruptly around the 12th century. No industrial Revolution was involved. Could the Sun, which emits so much energy in a second that it would take the planet’s entire GNP energy output for 7 million years to reproduce an equivalent amount have any impact? No, not according to the global warming alarmist industry; only human activity could cause the current changes to our climate. Solar cycles are irrelevant, or so they say.
Dissenting scientists (“Deniers”) find themselves unemployed, as did the state climatologists for four states when liberal governors were elected. In Academia, scientists suddenly find their dissenting papers unpublished as an iron curtain of censorship clamps down on any contrary research.
True believers demand that CO2 emissions be drastically curtailed. We emit about 30 billion tons of CO2 now and it’s projected we will emit about 7 trillion tons of CO2 over the next century. It takes the reduction of 1 trillion tons of emissions to reduce the earth’s temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit. Therefore, it will only take 33 years of zero emissions (no cars, electrical use) to achieve this modest goal. Guess that means no jobs either.
Locally, we face similar mandates, like in water and land use. An extreme agenda is set and their political allies implement restrictive policies, “just in case, for our own good.” Never mind the facts or the potential economic impact. The alarmist industry’s policies will cause severe economic hardship for Americans; it means literal death for millions more in underdeveloped countries.
Conservatives like facts because people and facts matter.
Annual Holiday Dinner
and Membership Meeting
December 9th, 2010 at the Madonna Inn
Membership Meeting from 5:00pm-6:00pm
Annual Holiday Dinner from 6:00pm-9:00pm
Mark your calendars for December 9, 2010. The Lincoln Club will be hosting their Annual Holiday DInner and Membership Meeting and encourage you to bring family and friends to celebrate the holiday season. The event is located in San Luis Obispo's historic hotel the Madonna Inn, from 6:00pm-9:00pm. Cost to attend is $50.00 per person. For the holiday dinner selection, members and guests may choose prime rib or chicken breast.
When mailing or calling to RSVP, please indicated how many members and guests will be attending, names, and each individual's dinner selection. Please make checks payable to Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo County. Credit cards are also accepted. Indicate VISA, MASTERCARD, AMERICAN EXPRESS and include the credit card number, expiration date, and your signature.
Mail RSVP/payments by December 2, 2010:
Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo
Elizabeth Van Note
P.O. Box 97, Templeton, CA 93465
To RSPV by phone contact:
Elizabeth Van Note (805) 712-5426
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March, 27 2010 Contact: Al Fonzi
SLO Lincoln Club Announces 2010 Ballot Recommendations
The Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo County is proud to announce our recommended candidate endorsements and our positions on the ballot initiatives. The California statewide primary election is on June 8, 2010 with five initiatives on the ballot. The Lincoln Club's Political Affairs Committee was responsible for developing the endorsement rules and the process of e-mailing an electronic ballot to all members of the club to gather a sense of the membership. With this research in hand, the Board of Directors met and discussed the candidates and initiatives and then took a vote. Our goal is to endorse candidates that are consistent with our principals of lower taxes, smaller, more efficient government and more personnel freedom. The Lincoln Club’s Board of Directors approved with a two-thirds vote of the Board, per the Club's endorsement rules, candidates and initiatives. The Club has not endorsed in certain primary races, such as Governor, Assembly and Sheriff where a two-thirds vote was not possible. We strongly encourage you to review this Voter Guide and pass it along to your families and friends and encourage them to vote on June 8. Our endorsements follow. Statewide Offices California Attorney General: John Eastman California Secretary of State: Damon Dunn California Treasurer: Mimi Walters California Controller: Tony Strickland Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines State Legislature- JUNE 22 SPECIAL ELECTION 15th State Senate District: Sam Blakeslee Supervisors Fourth District, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Mike Zimmerman PROPOSITION 13 – YES Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. PROPOSITION 14 - NO Elections. Open Primaries. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. PROPOSITION 15- NO California Fair Elections Act of 2008. PROPOSITION 17 – YES Auto Insurance - Continuous Coverage. For additional information please contact Lincoln Club Vice President Al Fonzi at 805-423-5482
# # #
Since its inception, the Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo County has been committed to educating the public and recruiting and supporting Republican candidates who will represent San Luis Obispo County. They support the platforms of the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party and seek to foster unity within the Republican Party by supporting and empowering the activities of other allied Republican organizations within the community.
P.O. Box 97
Templeton, CA 93465 (805) 434-5400
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March, 25 2010
SLO Lincoln Club Holds Republican Party Candidate Forum
SAN LUIS OBISPO—The Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo County is inviting members of the community to hear from Republican candidates running in the 33rd Assembly District on Tuesday, March 30, 2010.
The forum will include Republican Assembly candidates, Etta Waterfield, Matt Kokkonen, Katcho Achadjian and Fred Strong. The public is invited to attend this community forum as candidates for Assembly discuss the policies and issues confronting state government and San Luis Obispo County.
The event is free for all who attend and will be held from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm in the Atascadero City Hall Council Chambers located at 6707 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA.
# # #
Since its inception, the Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo County has been committed to educating the public and recruiting and supporting Republican candidates who will represent San Luis Obispo County. They support the platforms of the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party and seek to foster unity within the Republican Party by supporting and empowering the activities of other allied Republican organizations within the community.
Campaign Management School-San Luis Obispo
March 27th, 2010
9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
San Luis Obispo Country Club
Learn the intricacies and techniques of a complete political campaign by being taught about grassroots activities, direct voter contact, media, vote goals, voter files, communications, compliance and fundraising.
The course is designed to train and prepare candidates, managers and activists to run a political campaign and is geared toward candidates, campaign managers, and activists. Our intent is that graduates will be long-term participants in the Republican Party and support its goal to elect Republicans to office or decide to run for office themselves or as a Republican candidate. We will accept 50 participants. There is not a requirement to bring a laptop but it is suggested.
When: 9:00 am - 3:00 pm, Saturday, March 27th 2010
Where: San Luis Obispo Country Club
255 Country Club Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Cost: Registration Fee is $40 per person (class materials and lunch included)
Please reserve your space at Campaign School by pre-registering. Please send a check for $40.00 made payable to the Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo and send to:
Lincoln Club of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 97
Templeton, California 93465
If you have any additional questions please contact:
John Peschong at 805-434-5400 or John@slolincolnclub.com
P.O. Box 97
Templeton, CA 93465