But What About The Other Side?

By | |

A grab into the email-bag left me with some pins in my hands, the pins that were sticking out of the dolls of California state lawmakers. I listened closely, and realized they needed me to say something which I’ve not mentioned strongly before, and that’s the problem of assertions made without presenting the opposing side’s reasoning.

So here’s the mail, this time piece by piece as I try to address each issue:

This is what we get from elected officials. They all should be fired

Why wouldn’t you want to move to sunny California?

CA Legislative Year Closed on Friday….So what did they Accomplish ?
You Won’t Believe Some of the New CA LAWS!! Check out #13…the last one

Update today from Jeff Stone, Republican state senator on the further progressive destruction of California:

Fellow Californians:

Friday will be the end of this legislative year — Here are some of the highlights of this session:

1. SB-1: increases your gas taxes by approximately 20 Cents (Nov 1) and your vehicle license fees by an average of $100 (Jan 1st).

I found SB-1, and it does appear to have something to do with transit and taxes, but I don’t read legalese well enough to judge this author’s interpretation. Let’s stipulate it, and then guess what – I applaud it.

Why?

Something that’s been noodling around in my brain recently has been the idea that humanity is awful when it comes to questions of scale. As an engineer, I’ve run across a great deal of code that handled, say, 10 items just fine, but when faced with 100,000, its performance is unacceptable. This sensitivity to increases in the number of items is often unnecessary, but it comes about because the engineer fails to consider the possibility of increasing volume of data.

Similarly, I think humans in general remain unaware of how the volume of people can impact the environment in unforeseen, negative ways. So when I see a tax such as this, I discard the automatic Oh God It’s A Tax reaction, and I ask what this does. In this case, it increases the cost of ownership of cars. We already subsidize fossil fuels, which, since it’s through general taxation, nixes the emotional impact the true price of fossil fuels – which results in us driving cars more rather than using other forms of transit. Remember, cars are identified as one of the bigger sources of pollution and climate change gases, not to mention the more that are bought, the more roads must be built – to the discouragement of the environment.

This isn’t social engineering – this is an attempt to bring to the attention of drivers the true costs of being drivers.

2. Passed Cap N Tax which will increase gas 0.63 to 0.93 cents a gallon change and the taxes that go with it. So do the math projection….
(0.12 + 0.63 = 0.75/gallon + current $3.10/gallon = $3.85/gallon)

See #1 response.

3. Proposed increase on a new tax every residence will pay for tap water in the State!

Oh, this merits an exclamation point! But what’s the justification? Via The Mercury News of San Jose:

For the first time Californians would pay a tax on drinking water — 95 cents per month — under legislation aimed at fixing hundreds of public water systems with unsafe tap water.

Senate Bill 623, backed by a strange-bedfellows coalition of the agricultural lobby and environmental groups but opposed by water districts, would generate $2 billion over the next 15 years to clean up contaminated groundwater and improve faulty water systems and wells. The problem is most pervasive in rural areas with agricultural runoff.

“My message is short and direct: We are not Flint, Michigan,” co-author Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, said at a Wednesday rally outside the Capitol, where demonstrators held signs reading “Clean water is not a luxury” and “Water is a human right.”

California has become notorious in recent years for its floods, droughts and wildfires. In fact, it strikes me as ridiculous that an attempt is being made to lampoon a tax which, in reality, will bring home to the consumers at least some of the cost of living in a State that is experiencing drought, not to mention questions about aquifers (I’ve written about California water problems starting here). This sounds like a good start.

4. A $3.46B parks bond to pay for parks in “disadvantaged communities” meaning Los Angeles The debt service will be over $200 million a year. The good news is some money goes to help fix the Salton Sea which should have always been a State responsibility!

US News mentions this:

It would aim to improve access to parks and open spaces in disadvantaged communities, said Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, the bill’s author.

“This park bond, throughout the process, has focused on making sure that we prioritize the areas that prior park bond investments forgot,” the Coachella Democrat said. “What we’re trying to accomplish here is to continue to highlight the beautiful parks, outdoors recreational opportunities that CA has to offer.”

No mention of Los Angeles, but then I didn’t see the point. While $3 billion sounds like a lot to me, California is a big and rich state, so maybe that much over 30 years isn’t so awful – despite reported Republican objections. So what?

5. Law to release any lifer (murder, rape , child molestation, etc.) who is 60 years old and has already spent 25 years in prison! Charles Manson would have qualified today. What about victims?

US News is on the case again:

Weber’s bill would write into law a 2014 federal court order that requires California to consider releasing inmates age 60 or older who have served at least 25 years. Death row and other no-parole inmates were excluded by the judges, and her bill further excludes cop killers and third-strike career criminals.

The clarification is enlightening, now isn’t it? Lot of exclusions not mentioned in the original mail as well as discovering this is a response to conform to a court order. As US News mentions, this would save money with little or no danger to the public. Seems reasonable to me, although I don’t think of 60 year olds as helpless cripples … any more.

6. A new $10 charge on all residents living in a mobile home parks to address living condition enforcement in those parks? Why does the left embrace these regressive taxes on the poor?

TruthOrFiction.com addressed this one, so I’ll just borrow it:

This one refers to Senate Bill 46. The bill doesn’t create a new $10 charge for all residents living in mobile homes — it would extend an existing charge of $4 per mobile home lot . The fee, which supports Department of Housing and Community Development inspections of mobile home parks, is already in place but was scheduled to sunset in 2019.

Incidentally, the link happens to be to TruthOrFiction’s analysis of a similar letter. Since I’m mostly through my own analysis, I’ll continue.

I’ll also point out that this is another illustration of GOP hypocrisy. Generally, they like to preach about personal responsibility, and certainly this tax would fall into that category – better living conditions paid for by those who live there. But, hey, it’s a chance to take a shot at the opposition, so shitcan the personal honesty and fire away, eh?

Also, this assumes those living in mobile home parks are poor. It’s certainly the stereotype – but I have to wonder, knowing at least one software engineer who chose to live in a mobile home park, and thought it was superior to the traditional home.

I wonder if he still feels that way.

7. We picked an official dinosaur of the State of California. Really ? Yes!

I won’t even look this one up. I’ll just say – too damn cool! Which one is it!?

8. Blackmail Tesla to either unionize with the United Auto Workers Union or forfeit State incentives to buy their electric cars! Just another Union Grab!

Not precisely accurate. From The Sacramento Bee:

But the legislation, amended late Monday to be ready for votes before lawmakers adjourn for the year on Friday, also would inject the state into an increasingly acrimonious union organizing campaign at automaker Tesla’s Fremont plant. Beginning in July 2018, manufacturers that want to be eligible for state zero-emission vehicle rebates – a major driver of Tesla sales – would need to be certified by the state labor secretary “as fair and responsible in the treatment of their workers.”

The United Auto Workers union has set out to organize thousands of Tesla workers, some of whom allege that the company had illegally intimidated them. The National Labor Relations Board’s Oakland regional office filed a complaint against the company late last month. 

“We believe this language presents several constitutional, legal and enforceability concerns but, more importantly, is counterproductive to building a sustainable market for zero emission vehicles in California,” wrote Damon Shelby Porter, the association’s director of state government affairs.

Steve Smith, a spokesman for the California Labor Federation, disagreed. “We think it’s important for the Legislature to send a message that we can create jobs, reduce emissions and protect workers at the same time,” he said.

More complex than presented, isn’t it? Still, if Tesla is intimidating workers, it needs to be slapped down. A properly handled relationship with a non-corrupt union can be an asset, not a burden. I wonder if Tesla realizes that.

And I say that as a potential future Tesla owner.

9. Reduce from a felony to a misdemeanor the purposeful intent to transmit the AIDS virus to a unknowing partner.

From the Los Angeles Times:

SB 239, which now goes to the governor, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who said the current law discriminated against those who have human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, the precursor to AIDS, because exposure to other communicable diseases is a misdemeanor.

So all they’re doing is bringing treatment of HIV in the legal framework into line with other diseases. Keep in mind that HIV has moved from a death sentence to a disease that can be treated as a chronic condition with little effect on health or lifetime. So why the outrage?

10. Give preferential treatment to prisoners convicted of serious crimes that are less than 25 years old because their brains are not mature enough to understand right from wrong. Whaaat? If the brains of our kids don’t mature until 25, why do we allow them to vote ?

I didn’t find a notice of an actual law being passed, but here’s a report on the proposed law from 89.3 KPCC:

At the other end of the age spectrum, lawmakers approved a bill expanding the state’s youthful parole program. State law already requires that inmates who were under 23 when they committed their crimes be considered for parole after serving at least 15 years. AB1308 raises the age to 25.

The age for such consideration was 18 when lawmakers passed the first youth offender parole law in 2012.

“That gap in the middle is shrinking, it seems, every year,” Hoffman said.

Paroling younger inmates is more concerning to law enforcement than freeing older criminals, he said, because they are more likely to be healthy enough to commit new crimes. Statistics show less than one-third of California inmates paroled when they were 60 or older were back behind bars within three years compared to more than 50 percent of those 18-24.

It’s an interesting question – why do we let 18 year olds vote? Science has been researching when the brain stops maturing, and it ain’t at 18, folks – it’s more in the late 20s for males, a little earlier for females. (Before some dude gets up and suggests that makes guys more mature, just sit down and try to think – I know it hurts, but try. What you’re trying to suggest just doesn’t follow.)

This may be the most accurate of the bunch in here, given the statistical reference. Hey, one worth being concerned over!

11. A bill to require our true sex be omitted from drivers licenses? Whaaat?

I found a mention of this on TruthOrFiction, but no link to a news source. So I went Internet hunting … and didn’t find any news sources talking about it. There were a lot of conservative web sites proclaiming this to be another symptom of the destruction of California … but I rather suspect nothing awful will come of it. It’s just the conservative web sites tapping on the fear & loathing wires in the brains of other conservatives.

Me? I’d just say suck it up and don’t worry about it. Why did they require your sex on your license way back when, anyways?

12. Free legal services for illegal immigrants…of course !!

So it appears this passed, according to the Los Angeles Times:

California state lawmakers approved $45 million in a state budget plan to expand legal services for immigrants, a response to the Trump administration’s call to increase deportations.

The funds, greater than what Gov. Jerry Brown earmarked in May and which will be an ongoing allocation through 2020, will go to a coalition of legal services agencies, immigrant rights groups and faith-based organizations called One California.

Given the vital importance of illegal immigrants in agriculture, this actually makes a lot of sense. Without them, fresh produce would be more expensive – or simply not available, as early reports on the East Coast indicate real live Americans won’t actually do this sort of work, leaving crops to rot in the fields without the immigrants to pick them. It’s rare to find a rich – or even mildly well-off illegal immigrant, and when these are the people floating the agricultural boat, it makes sense to provide them with help when they need it.

13. Establish safe “injection zones” run by government to oversee people injecting heroin! You have to be kidding me? Yep, it passed!

Nope, it didn’t! From the Los Angeles Times:

A controversial proposal to allow certain California counties and cities to establish sites where people could inject drugs without legal consequences stumbled in the state Senate on Tuesday night.

The measure, by Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), would establish a first-in-the-nation program in which users of heroin and other intravenous drugs could inject in settings with clean needles and under the supervision of trained staff. The goal: to stave off overdoses in an era in which heroin use is on the rise.

San Francisco is already in discussions to develop an injection center, which is modeled after a site in Vancouver, Canada. State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat who represents San Francisco, said the proposal “gets to the core of who we are as a society in terms of how we respond to that public health crisis.”

“One thing that unites us on both sides of the aisle is we all want people to get off drugs and lead healthy, successful lives,” Wiener said on the Senate floor. “To my colleagues I would ask: How are we doing? How the heck are we doing? I think pretty darn poorly.”

It’s actually an interesting idea; the author of this mail does it a disservice in his frantic effort to sling mud at California. But it’s a discussion for another time …

May consider forwarding so All Californians can be Proud our Elected Officials

Not a bad idea, once you hear both sides of the story, now isn’t it? They’re working hard – harder than the author of this bit of slimy email.

And, in the unfortunate case my gentle reader actually received this mail, I hope that by now the reader, conservative or liberal, has learned to treat these sorts of claims with skepticism. This one has been a little different as most of the claims have some sort of veracity, if only partial, but they’ve been presented in such a way as to make them seem negative, when they’re really the products of generous and thoughtful Americans trying to solve hard problems.

And not futzing around.

Bookmark the permalink.

About Hue White

Former BBS operator; software engineer; cat lackey.

Comments are closed.