NEWS RELEASE
Lutz for Congress 2010
http://www.VoteRayLutz.com Media Contact: Brennan Purtzer, Media Director
619-447-3246 / brennan@VoteRayLutz.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lutz slams Filibuster of $30B Bill for Small Business
REPUBLICANS ARE "SABOTAGING" OUR ECONOMY FOR POLITICAL GAIN
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY VIOLATED BY REPUBLICANS, SAYS LUTZ
SAN DIEGO COUNTY (July 29, 2010) - "This is destructive and intentional: I'm telling you all - it's sabotage," said Ray Lutz, the Democratic Challenger to California's 52nd Congressional Seat (East San Diego County). Lutz was responding to Senate Republicans who filibustered a bill that would create a $30 billion lending fund for small businesses.
"These clowns are working against America, fighting a bill to help the small business fabric of America, the workhorse of job creation," Lutz said. "While they cater to their Wall Street masters, they are shirking their fiduciary duty to work FOR America. Republicans are hoping the recession "double-dips" before November, so they can 'win.' The fact that our political system produces officials who actively work against our economy shows us that the system is truly broken."
Lutz has proposed a green energy plan that would create 1.5 million jobs and cure the nation's dependency on foreign oil, pushing for solar and biofuel development in a modern "war on energy." "We have plenty of work to do, plenty of jobs in our new green economy, but we need to embrace the future and move away from our broken past. My opponent, Duncan D. Hunter, is part of that past and part of the 'just say no' Republican Party that is betting against our country."
The Lutz campaign has a VIP and fundraiser event tomorrow, Friday, July 30, 4-7p.m., in San Diego's Gaslamp District at the Tequila 100 Bar & Grill, 756 Fifth Ave. Everyone is invited.
Yesterday’s Democratic Senate caucus meeting – combined with Majority Leader Reid’s push on this issue, combined with President Obama’s leadership, combined with a clear demand by the public for action – has given comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation a major boost as we head towards the 4th of July recess. Clearly, at this point, there’s a better path to 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation than ever before. We are that close to making history, let’s make sure we seize this moment!
With all that in mind, a recent national survey by Al Quinlan of Greenburg Quinlan Rosner Research has potentially powerful implications for the 2010 elections, providing yet more evidence that climate legislation – despite a fallacious "mainstream media" narrative arguing otherwise – is actually good politics. The key findings are threefold (note: the document talks about strategy for the Democratic Party, but could apply to Republicans as well):
Small businesses “are among America’s most popular entities,” with an eye-popping 44:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio (“the highest we have ever seen in our polling on any topic”)
Generating support from small business owners, for either political party, is a key to success in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Small business owners strongly agree “that a move to clean energy will help restart the economy and lead to job creation by small businesses.” In fact, according to Greenburg Quinlan, “One of the most surprising findings of the survey is that despite the fact that nearly two thirds of business owners believe it would increase costs for their businesses, a majority still want to move forward on clean energy and climate policy.”
As if that’s not evidence enough that there’s broad support out there for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation, how about this Benenson Survey Group survey, conducted in late May/early June 2010? The key findings of this poll are:
65% of “likely 2010 voters” believe that “the federal government should invest much more than it currently invests [or] somewhat more than it currently invests .”
63% of “likely 2010 voters” support an energy bill that would “limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy…in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas.”
Among “undecided voters,” “62% support the bill and just 21% oppose.”
There is also strong evidence from this polling that voters – including independent voters by a 2.5:1 margin – are strongly inclined, by around a 2:1 margin, to be “more likely to re-elect” their Senator if he or she voted for a strong, comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill.
In sum, solid majorities of small businesspeople and the public at large both support comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Which is why, once again – as we pointed out yesterday – the “mainstream media” narrative, that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics, is just dead wrong. To the contrary, victory this November could go to the candidates – and the party – that seizes this issue and makes it their own. Ideally, it would be great to see both Republicans and Democrats fighting to be the “greenest” candidate, and not just in terms of how much money they raise.
UPDATE: Add another poll to the list, this one by WSJ-NBC indicating that “Respondents favored comprehensive energy and carbon pollution reduction legislation by 63 percent to 31 percent – a two to one margin.”
The Weekly Standard ran a cover story this week called, "In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign." Despite the cute play on words about who is denying what, the article got it all wrong. Climate change legislation is not dead--not as long as publications like this keep putting it on its cover.
On behalf of the City's small businesses, I am pleading with the Board of Supervisors to declare a moratorium on headline-grabbing legislation. We simply can't afford it. Small businesses are still fighting through the economic downturn. At the same time, the City is struggling to close a $500 million budget deficit, laying off thousands of workers and fighting to keep vital services available. In this climate, there's just no room for politics-as-usual. But they're at it again. This time, the Small Business Commission on Monday will decide whether to support Mayor Gavin Newsom's idea that small business owners who sell mobile phones need to post San Francisco-specific product labels for customers. In the words of one public health official, if the government starts requiring warnings on everything with undefined risks, everything "from apples to xylophones" would have to be labeled. The last thing we need is the City getting into the business of mandating product labels in convenience stores, dry cleaners, and restaurants for all kinds of different products. What's next? Will I need to get my labels approved by the government with information on what ingredients are in the hair product I sell? As many as 15,000 city workers are facing lay-offs. Nine hundred school workers, including 10 percent of the City's teachers, are facing lay-offs. Metered parking may be extended to Sundays. The City's police force faces $30 million in cuts. We just don't have the luxury of spending money on silly nannny-state ordinances. San Francisco politics is a circus. We all know that. We all know that won't change. But on behalf of small businesses, we're asking that our political leaders stop the merry-go-round at least until we've weathered the economic storm.
(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies
Los Angeles County - As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California's landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points--from 1.4 to 1.7 percent--in 2020. In a case study which examines a real world small business--Border Grill restaurant--the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.
The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.
"Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable," said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report. "The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy."
The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.
I just came from the Capitol press conference on the sham of a report about the supposed cost of regulation in California. Not surprisingly conservatives and business groups are touting the study, as "evidence" that we need to de-regulate California and they took great glee in perpetuating a tired myth - California is a bad place to do business. The problems with the study are numerous, as noted in previous Calitics posts . The study takes much of its data from right-wing think tanks and Forbes magazine, not exactly subjective sources. It is purposefully vague in naming specific regulations that are supposedly so burdensome to business. It doesn't take into account the myriad benefits of California consumer, labor, environmental and wage protections. And many of the arguments it does make are completely misleading.
The familiar refrain that California is a high-tax, high-wage-state that drives businesses away is simply not supported by the facts.
MYTH: California has the highest taxes in the nation
FACT : California is a high-income state with a wide range of revenue sources. Besides local and state taxes, California collects fees, assessments and other taxes. Taking into account all of those sources of revenue, California has a very moderate tax rate. The percentage of average income Californians pay in all taxes, which is a measure of tax burden, is reasonable compared to other states. Using that measure of tax burden, California ranks number 17 behind states like Alaska, Wyoming and North Dakota that have a higher tax burden per capita.
MYTH: California's high-taxes and cost of doing business is driving businesses and jobs to states with fewer regulations
FACT: California loses very few jobs from businesses leaving the state. In fact, only 11,000 jobs leave the state annually out of a total of 18 million jobs. That's only 0.06% of California's total jobs that are lost by businesses moving out of state. The biggest job creation and loss engine are businesses opening, expanding, shrinking and closing within the state due to normal business cycles-very few businesses leave the state to our neighbors.
California has lost fewer jobs than our ostensibly "business-friendly" neighboring states. California does not rank in the Top 10 of states suffering job loss from 2008-09 and three of our five neighboring states lost more jobs than California. Our low-tax neighbors of Arizona, Nevada and Oregon had over 6.5% job loss, while California only had 4%. Even notoriously low-tax, little regulation states like Florida and the Carolinas have suffered more job losses than California.
MYTH: Businesses will not come to California because of our high-taxes and high-wages
FACT: Businesses chose their locations for many different reasons including the tax burden, but also based on other criteria such as infrastructure, education and skill level of the workforce, access to intellectual and natural resources and many others. In that regard, California has an advantage because of our natural and human resources and the high concentration of research and technology centers. In addition, California workers are among the most productive with an annual average output that is 13% higher than in other states.
However, we are in danger of losing our competitive edge. Budget cuts result in crumbling roads, under-funded education systems that fail to educate the workforce, traffic-clogged highways that slow delivery and inadequate housing stock. California businesses can't be globally competitive when they don't have the infrastructure to perform. That is what will drive business from the state.
MYTH: California already taxes everything
FACT: Actually, California has many untapped sources of revenue that other states regularly tax. We could raise billions from the following immediate changes, with little impact on small businesses:
$855 million: Oil Severance Tax of 9.9% on any oil pumping from California soil or water (California is the only oil-producing state without one.)
$2 billion: Close the corporate loophole on Proposition 13 and raise the rates on assessments of corporate property.
$1.1 billion: Impose a tax on services, similar to the sales tax. California only taxes 21 of a possible 168 services that many states tax. In contrast, Washington and New Mexico tax 158 different services.
$470 million: Raise the corporate income tax by only 0.46% which barely keeps pace with the 557% net profit corporations saw from 2001-05 in California.
TOTAL: $5.725 Billion
If there's one thing we've learned from our nation's deep financial crisis it's that when a group of Republicans come together and start scheming about de-regulation, everyone, including small business, should be concerned. Very concerned.
Around 11:00 this morning some senior Yacht Party members and their acolytes will stand in front of microphones in Sacramento trumpeting a report about state labor regulations and small businesses. They can be expected to say that the real problem with the California economy is all those gosh darn regulations, and if only businesses could free themselves from the iron boot of - I don't know, the 40-hour work week, child labor, the right to have an employee saw off his fingers in a lathe without responsibility, it's a different thing every week with these people - the state could be saved.
It's worth understanding what this report that makes them go ga-ga is all about. John Myers had a sketch of it the other day.
The document, wonkishly titled Cost of State Regulations on California Small Business Study, was quietly made public late yesterday. You can read it here [...]
The summary says it all, at least in the eyes of the business community:
The study finds that the total cost of [business]regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State's general fund budget, and almost a third of the State's gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State's population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.
Basically, regulations take your wives, enslave your children, throw your ice cream on the ground, and write "loser" on your chest in sun tan lotion when you fall asleep at the beach. It's amazing how in line this study is with standard conservative tropes about onerous regulations and big government. I wonder why that is? Here's Myers.
So how do (authors Sanjay Varshney and Dennis Tootelian) reach their conclusions? The 33 page report (85 pages if you include the charts) relies heavily on Forbes Magazine and its annual report of the best -- and worst -- states in which to do business. The 2008 report ranks California #40 in the nation, and that's the relative placement the authors used for their calculations.
"Forbes data is reliable," says the study, "in that it uses credible sources of secondary data that are well recognized and respected as credible independent research in the business world."
Perhaps, but Forbes' proprietary methodology isn't entirely transparent. Its website does note the sources for its rankings: data from both the federal government and nonprofits like the Tax Foundation and the conservative-leaning Pacific Research Institute.
This "academic" study cribbed their data from a MAGAZINE profile? One owned by a movement conservative, which includes materials from wingnut welfare think tanks? And we're supposed to just let that go?
Myers goes on to note that the way Varshney and Tootelian transform the Forbes data into dollar amounts is entirely inscrutable, but designed to advance the proposition that every single state's set of regulations are harmful to business. "Even Forbes' #1 state for business friendliness, Virginia, comes out with a regulatory climate that's a net loss to the state of $4.4 billion." The study also neglects to determine which regulations harm business more or less. It's a partisan mess of a report and it should not be taken seriously. Which is why the Yacht Party has taken to it so quickly, with classy headlines like "California Businesses Waterboarded by Governmental Overregulation."
Look, labor regulations serve a particular purpose. It's true that they have a cost to business, but they also provide a significant cost savings to the individual, to the public health system, to the overall quality of life for the laborer. We have made these trade-offs over hundreds of years. The Yacht Party may think that The Jungle is a fantasy utopia, but in my experience, Californians and pretty much everybody else appreciate safe food and clean air and the minimum wage.
You can get a good sense of the intellectual honesty of a politician - and the media - by seeing if they bite at this crap sandwich of a report.
If the Capitol Weekly is going to have a right-wing corporate shill on their editorial pages, the least they could do is get a good one. Because I don't know where anyone, even John Kabateck of the National Federation of Independent Business, gets the cajones, after the legislature just passed a cuts-only budget completely on the backs of poor people, to fret about the plight of possible taxes for the business community.
"Get the monkey off your back and relocate to Las Vegas", barks a new ad trying to lure hard-working small businesses away from California. If legislators don't listen, small businesses that have already been hit hard by the effects of a fragile economy and the billions in taxes that were passed earlier this year will go under.
Um, right, this "rich people and businesses are leaving California" Galt-ism is not true and has never been true. But do go on.
The Legislature is back and up to its old tricks. The budget that was passed in February and revised in July will need to be "fixed" again this fall. If history is our guide, we all know that it will be an uphill battle and an unpleasant environment for small businesses. There are currently $2 billion in tax hikes being proposed, including taxes on everything from gas, internet purchases and vehicle license fees.
Oh noes! Oil companies might have to pay for the natural resources they take out of California's ground for the first time in a century of drilling! Get the smelling salts! The vehicle license fee might return to still-well-below-the-average-percentage relative to every state in the nation! This is terrible!
You'll notice that Kabateck fails to mention the $2.5 billion annually in corporate tax cuts passed in the previous two budget agreements, which miraculously exceed the tax hikes - beaten back by the Yacht Party and the Governor in July - about which he is fretting so. These massive corporate tax cuts do nothing to keep the largest corporations in America doing business in California - they would hardly abandon a market of 38 million people. It's nothing more than a kickback for services rendered. And if that's a transaction of prostitution, then John Kabateck is the guy who cleans up the courtesan's antechamber afterward, eager to grab a buck for himself for the privilege of working for whores.
It's amazing how little the California office of the National Federation of Independent Business speaks for independent business. He could have written a nice little article about how corporate behemoths are screwing small businesses when it comes to state purchasing, which currently favors out-of-state multinationals. Instead, he offers the party line that the structural revenue gap is fine and leaving citizens out on the street to die is a small price to pay for protecting oil and cigarette companies. Kabateck doesn't seem to understand that this mentality is destroying the California economy, and with it all of those small businesses he claims to represent.
Hacktackular job, CapWeekly! With any luck, you'll get Jon Coupal or Joel Fox to offer a rebuttal.
It's hard to choose the most cruel or the most thoughtless among Arnold Schwarzenegger's line-item cuts added to the budget revision. But you could make a case for the slashing of all state funding for domestic violence centers, for a savings of about $16 million dollars. LAist profiles one center, in the Santa Clarita Valley, that will probably now have to close:
The Domestic Violence Center in the Santa Clarita Valley is the only agency that provides domestic violence services in the 200-square mile valley. As a result of Schwarzenegger's cut, which is immediate, they've lost 45%, or $207,222.00, of their annual funding, which they say will force them to close their doors later this year unless the community supports them with donations. In 2008, they served over 1,000 victims of domestic violence.
"As the Center's Executive Director, I think about every client who has come through our doors and their horrific stories of abuse - I cannot help but cry when I think about what the loss of our services will mean to victims," said Executive Director Nicole Shellcroft in a statement. "Those who walk through our doors have suffered through broken bones, beatings, strangulation, food deprivation, arson, torture, genital mutilation and unspeakable sexual violence. They have been thrown down flights of stairs, have been victim to violent physical attacks during pregnancy and have even faced the prospect of murder. Victims seek our services to escape incredible violence aimed at them and their children."
This is what we are talking about when we say that people will die from the decisions made by Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. The $16 million in cuts represent a pittance of the budget and far less than the $2 billion dollar annual tax cut for the largest corporations in America instituted back in February. But, we are told, those businesses would flee the state if they were forced to contribute a fair share of taxes for the commons that they use, so instead, women and their children will have practically nowhere to turn to save themselves from spousal abuse.
It turns out that some businesses are dismayed enough to consider leaving California - not because of the lack of tax breaks, because of all of the budget cuts and the impact on the workforce.
Wilbur D.Curtis invented the globular glass coffeepot, that staple of coffee counters everywhere, in 1940. Since then his son and grandsons have turned Wilbur Curtis Co. into a manufacturing concern that earns revenue approaching $100 million by turning out commercial coffee brewing equipment from a sprawling factory in Montebello.
But their long history in California doesn't exempt the Curtis family from the costs and hassles that give this state its reputation as one of the hardest places in the country to do business [...]
Yet it's plain that the state government has failed in precisely those areas where it can make a difference. Laws' main concern isn't strictly how much money the state spends -- it's that the bucks don't go where they count.
His two biggest issues are education and infrastructure. "We pay a fortune here to educate people on basic things like writing and math skills that they should have learned in high school," he says. The company, whose workforce is mostly Latino, also provides training in English as a second language -- including for some employees who came through the public schools [...]
Then there's that lifeblood of any firm whose products can't be shipped through cyberspace -- transport.
Traffic congestion in the L.A. basin has become a round-the-clock hassle. Laws says one of his biggest customers, a coffee company with a national reach, opened a local facility here to be near its own big customers, only to find that navigating the overstressed road system drove its costs to twice its expectations.
And these complaints about infrastructure and education exist before budget revisions that would decimate the future of higher education for a generation of students, and only harm the ability to create the infrastructure necessary for densely populated areas in the 21st century.
We're picking away at safety net programs and increasing the danger and suffering for a whole class of citizens, while protecting the largest corporations and the wealthiest campaign contributors. And the actual lifeblood of job creation, the small business community, would rather see investment than the current hijacking of state government by those who want to dismantle it.
Former-President Bill Clinton, during his initial race to the Presidency, had a saying, "It's the economy, stupid." The focus on the failings of the Bush economy lead to Clinton's election and swept the supply-side Republicans from office for eight years. Eight years of Democratic-lead prosperity, balanced budgets, and a peace-time economic bonanza for small business and working class families.
Now, America is faced with another economic debacle thanks to another member of the Bush family and to supply-side Republican economic policies that only benefit the rich and big business. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), presumptive Democratic nominee for the Presidency in Election 2008, has a detailed plan to strengthen the U.S. economy and to deliver us from eight years of mismanagement.
Obama's plan is especially needed in the Coachella Valley with California one of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis, predatory lending, and rising commodity prices, with Riverside County one of the hardest hit counties, and with the Inland Empire, the San Gorgonio Pass, and the Coachella Valley as some of the hardest hit local regions.
(Note: I posted this at Daily Kos recently, and based on a pretty good response I'm trying to give it a little more exposure. Hope you don't mind the crosspost)
John Edwards is pretty good when it comes to the credit card industry. To be sure, he has made an issue out of it, while I can't find much anything about the issue on either Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's websites. I'll give credit where it's due: He's willing to take on issues that matter to real Americans.
But then the flip-side of that is that I'm addressing this diary to him, and not to the others. They should listen too. But I think Edwards is the only one who might, and maybe is the one who can make the best political use as well.
So what is newly appointed Garden Grove City Council Member Steven Jones talking about, and why is everyone paying such close attention to it? And why is everyone looking at Garden Grove as if what happens in this town may change everything for working people in Orange County? Follow me after the flip for the answers, and much, much more...
I just got something in my email box from the Democratic Party of Orange County. And I guess since this is such a special event, I should share it with you. There will be a special screening of the eye-opening documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"...
And Co-producer Rick Jacobs, who also happens to chair the Courage Campaign, will be here to talk to us after the film about how Wal-Mart is affecting Orange County's economy and communities, as well as the entire rest of the nation.
Follow me after the flip for more on this special event...
