A Few Good Fits for Desperately Hungry Republicans

November 9, 2014 By Steven Greenhut 4 Comments

PHOTO BY RBERTEIG

The wave that swept Republicans back into power in blue states such as Colorado, Maryland, Maine, and Massachusetts didn’t quite reach California, the state that once produced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. In fact, every Republican candidate for statewide constitutional office lost. Governor Jerry Brown creamed his Republican opponent—and Brown didn’t even run a campaign. Democrats maintained strong majorities in both legislative houses. So why are California GOP officials so giddy about how the election played out?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Republicans won three critical state senate races and stopped the Democrats from holding a supermajority in that body. Election night results looked good for Republican prospects in the state assembly, too, though the final counts in two races will determine whether the GOP prevents a Democratic supermajority in the lower house. Democrats need at least two-thirds of those seats to meet the state constitution’s threshold for passing tax increases. Republicans, as a rule, oppose every new tax increase in a state that already has the nation’s highest individual income-tax rate.

Second, while it still has no idea how to win a statewide election, the California GOP has figured out how to win in targeted districts—even in some that lean Democratic. In the last legislative session, Democrats lost their supermajority in the state senate after scandal drove three legislators from office. One was convicted of voter fraud and perjury, and two others face federal corruption charges. But Republicans chose not to focus on Democratic foibles. Instead, under the leadership of former state senator Jim Brulte, the party put its resources into a handful of winnable races.

Sacramento-based GOP political consultant Jeff Randle said that the Republicans “had to show incremental progress [Tuesday] night and we did that by winning with really good candidates.” Randle, who helps recruit viable candidates through the Trailblazers program, credited the party’s successes to its newfound emphasis on “finding candidates that match their districts.” The best example may be Senator Andy Vidak, a Spanish-speaking cherry farmer from the San Joaquin Valley. Though Democrats enjoy a 20-point voter-registration edge in Vidak’s heavily Latino district, voters in the politically moderate farm region tend to favor independence. Vidak, a cowboy hat-wearing conservative populist, beat his Democratic rival, Fresno school board trustee Luis Chavez, by 10 points.

Republicans also held a senate seat that many pollsters and professional political operatives predicted they would lose. Anthony Cannella, the former mayor of the San Joaquin Valley city of Ceres and son of former Democratic state assemblyman Sal Cannella, prevailed in part by drawing union support away from his Democratic challenger, Shawn Bagley. And Republicans scored a key win in ethnically diverse and politically competitive central Orange County, where county supervisor Janet Nguyen won a state senate seat in a race in which Republicans effectively tapped Asian support. Asians now represent 12 percent of California voters, and they turn out in higher percentages than many other ethnic groups. So Nguyen was another GOP candidate who matched well with her district.

In the assembly, the Republicans did well in all but one of their targeted races. In the eastern Bay Area, the socially moderate Catherine Baker took a hard line on public-employee unions, strongly opposing the 2013 Bay Area Rapid Transit strike in a district that spans Orinda and Walnut Creek east of the Berkeley Hills to the Tri-Valley—in other words, a district full of voting commuters hard hit by two four-day work stoppages in July and October of last year. Pending a final count of absentee and provisional ballots, Baker leads Democrat and union activist Tim Sbranti in the contest for an open assembly seat. Retired police officer Tom Lackey unseated the Democratic incumbent in the Palmdale area, and Korean-American Young Kim, a former staffer for veteran Republican congressman Ed Royce, ousted incumbent assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, 56 percent to 44 percent, in northern Orange County.

One could argue, however, that the Democrats should never have held some of these seats in the first place. “It’s true Republicans did well, but that’s only because Democrats overreached so far,” said Grant Gillham, a political consultant and former Republican staffer. “You’re living in an alley, eating out of garbage cans and you find half of a Big Mac and you think you’ve hit the jackpot. That’s the situation with Republicans now,” he said, jokingly. He’s got a point, but half a Big Mac is looking pretty good to a desperately hungry party.

This piece was originally published on by City Journal.

Steven Greenhut is the California columnist for U-T San Diego. Write to him at steven.greenhut@utsandiego.com.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Assembly 65 swing-seat spending tops $5.2 million

November 1, 2014 By John Hrabe 1 Comment

 

Sharon Quirk SilvaTwo years ago, legislative Democrats pulled off an upset in the heart of conservative Orange County.

“I was a surprise win in the last election,” Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, said in a recent interview of her four-point victory over Republican Chris Norby. “And from the moment I won, there has been an effort to take back this seat.”

Quirk-Silva isn’t exactly giving up her seat without a fight.

As of October 18, the first-term Democrat had spent roughly $2.4 million this year to stave off her Republican challenger, Young Kim. To put that number into perspective, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire has spent roughly the same amount on her competitive re-election campaign, according to recent figures from the Associated Press.

young kimKim, a former aide to GOP Congressman Ed Royce, is no pauper either, having spent $1.4 million over the same period.

With its two fundraising powerhouses, the campaign for the 65th Assembly District is on track to be one of the most expensive races — at any level — in the country. Combined spending by both candidates, the two political parties and various independent expenditure committees is on pace to exceed $5.2 million.

Spending on the race had already surpassed the $4.7 million mark on October 18, when the candidates had another half-million dollars at their disposal in cash on hand. Those preliminary figures also don’t account for other late expenditures expected to be spent on this weekend’s get out the vote efforts.

Big labor, big business fund Quirk-Silva’s campaign

Just two years ago, Maplight estimated each member of the California State Assembly, on average, raised $708,371, an average of $970 every day during the 2012 cycle. So, where is all of this additional money coming from?

On Quirk-Silva’s side, the funds can be traced back to both big business and big labor through party committees. Of the $2.65 million raised for her campaign, nearly $2 million has come from either the California Democratic Party or various Democratic central committees throughout the state. Those Democratic committees have accepted large checks from special interest groups that routinely lobby the Legislature, including insurance companies, defense contractors, oil companies and labor unions.

Kim’s campaign, which has raised $1.8 million, owes a third of its support to the California Republican Party, which has relied heavily on political activist and physicist Charles Munger Jr. for its support.

Race to decide Assembly supermajority

Both sides have invested big money in the race that could decide whether Democrats hold a two-thirds supermajority in the lower house, and thus have the votes to raise taxes without any GOP defections. And understandably, tax issues have taken center stage in the race.

In its early endorsement of Kim, the Orange County Register highlighted her position on taxes. “Ms. Kim is the better choice when it comes to protecting taxpayers and restoring the beleaguered California economy,” the paper wrote. “In her bid to serve the residents, she has focused on fixing the education system, making California more business-friendly, improving public safety and dealing with California’s crippling water and infrastructure issues.”

Taxpayer groups have also played an active role in the campaign. Eariler this month, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, took umbrage with a mail piece from the Quirk-Silva campaign that implied an endorsement.

The first-term Orange County Democrat put her name alongside the taxpayer organization’s name, stating their shared support for Proposition 2, the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act. The not-so-subtle goal of the slick mailer was to associate Quirk-Silva with the state’s most trusted taxpayer group, which has endorsed Kim. Coupal described it as “the most unusual attempt at deception we’ve seen this election.”

Neither side forgetting grassroots

The questionable tactics by Quirk-Silva’s campaign demonstrate the challenge that Democrats have in holding the seat. Although Democrats have a 1.7 percentage-point advantage in voter registration, the district is considered a “lean Republican” seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness in the 2014 election.

The GOP’s hope for reclaiming the seat stems from a candidate who delivered a strong showing in the June primary. Kim, a first-generation Korean-American immigrant, earned the highest vote percentage of any GOP legislative challenger in the June 3rd primary, garnering 55 percent of the vote in the Democratic district.

She won voters over with her powerful immigrant success story.

“As many immigrant families did, my parents worked hard and struggled, but they also instilled in me the value of individual responsibility and living within a person’s means,” Kim wrote in a personal narrative featured in the Orange County Register earlier this year.

Kim’s message appears to be resonating with Asian voters, who have returned their absentee ballots at a slightly higher rate from two years ago. According to absentee ballot data from Political Data Inc., Asian absentee voting is up a point from 2012, while early voting by Latinos is down a point. The net gain of two points for Asian voters over Latino voters is expected to benefit Kim.

Political Data Ballot Tracker

Republicans are also optimistic about the party breakdown of returned absentee ballots. Of the 27,372 absentee ballots that have been returned, 45 percent have been from Republicans, an 8 percentage-point advantage over Democrats, according to Political Data’s ballot tracker. That’s an improvement from 2012, when Republicans held a 6 percentage-point edge in absentee ballots.

Enticing volunteers with Korean BBQ

But don’t think that Kim’s advantage in early voting has made her complacent. On Thursday afternoon, Kim’s campaign enticed Republican activists to participate in the final weekend’s “Get Out The Vote” efforts by offering Korean BBQ.

“We need as many volunteers as possible to contact voters and tell them to cast their ballots for Young Kim, and I’m hoping you can join us,” Kim’s campaign wrote in its latest email alert to supporters. “Our office will be open 9a-9p every day between now and Election Day, with 3-hour shifts of canvassing and phone banking.”

This piece was originally published on CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

CA Dems Battle on Key Issues

October 31, 2014 By James Poulos 3 Comments

 

 

Democrats fighting logoAlthough Democrats in California are eager to celebrate major victories next Tuesday, political fault lines lie under their party.

From anti-rape legislation, to education reform, to health costs and beyond, an anticipated left-leaning consensus has failed to materialize in the Golden State. The resulting controversies, disagreements and difficulties in politicking have thrown a suprising degree of doubt on Democrats’ broader election-year routine.

National Democrats had grown accustomed to a clear, reliable dividing line between identity politics and more general issues. The distinction helped strategists protest the status quo for allies with powerful institutional interests — while microtargeting voters based on criteria like race or ethnicity, sex or gender, age, immigrant status and sexual orientation.

But the new cleavages among California liberals have upset that carefully calibrated approach, leading to close scrutiny and, in some cases, close state elections.

Yes means yes

The phenomenon became hard to ignore when the national political media picked up on sharp disagreements over California’s new “yes means yes” legislation, which requires affirmative sexual consent at universities receiving state funding. Initially, the controversial bill seemed poised to become law without incident.

Outside the state, however, commentators influential among establishment liberals and progressives found themselves at loggerheads over the implications of its strict, invasive rules. As the Los Angeles Times observed, the scuffle — which drew in figures at publications ranging from Vox to The Nation to New York magazine — escalated into “a clash between those who believe the law is too intrusive and those who believe intrusiveness is the entire point.”

For Democrats, the political point has become clear: rather than helping cement a consensus among liberal voters about how to advance legislation concerning sex, “yes means yes” has given voters a stark reason to reassess what they want out of Democrats in that regard.

Given the significance Democrats have placed on the women’s vote in recent years, and the hope they have placed in rising generations of younger voters, the news is especially unwelcome.

Teachers unions

California also gave Democrats a preview of even broader and more fundamental divides on the left.

When Judge Rolf Treu handed down the Vergara ruling, which held public teacher tenure protections to unconstitutionally infringe students’ rights, Democrats split immediately. Some, like Gov. Jerry Brown, went to bat for the teachers unions.

Others, like U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, presented the ruling as a clarion call to improve educational opportunities for all students. Because many underperforming schools and teachers have been found in districts with substantial (or majority) minority populations, some Democrats recognized they could be forced into an uncomfortable choice.

On the one hand, Democrats wished to stand publicly for the interests of minority children and families. On the other, they wanted to defend teachers unions, which have long played a decisive role in Democrats’ political success, especially in California.

These broad political challenges quickly crystallized into a pitched battle over the tenure of one man: California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a dedicated ally of the teachers unions. Torlakson’s incumbency has become a referendum on his staunch opposition to the Vergara decision.

His challenger, former charter schools executive Marshall Tuck, also is a Democrat — creating an intra-party race as close and bitter as any in recent memory, even though officially the post is non-partisan.

If Tuck wins, an even bigger confrontation will arise, pitting him against Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris, his fellow Democrats, assuming both are re-elected. Brown handily is leading Republican challenger Neel Kashkari, who applauded the Vergara decision.

Harris filed the state’s appeal of Vergara on behalf of Brown. Her opponent is Republican Ronald Gold, who urged her not to appeal Vergara. He asked, “Is she with students, particularly inner city and economically disadvantaged ones, or is she with the teachers unions that support her campaign?”

Even after their expected victories next Tuesday, that’s the kind of headache California Democrats can do without.

Health insurance costs

Finally, the remarkable divides among California Democrats on Proposition 45 could establish another pattern of disagreement for liberals nationwide. It would give the California insurance commissioner the power of approval over changes in health-insurance rates — including over Covered California, the state’s implementation of Obamacare.

Prop. 45 is sponsored by the left-leaning Consumer Watchdog organization.

It comes down to this: Will Covered Care rates be set as part of the federal legislation, or by the state insurance commissioner because of Prop. 45?

The official Ballot Pamphlet from the California Secretary of State features the dueling liberal visions.

The Pro side insists: “Proposition 45 will lower healthcare costs by preventing health insurance companies from jacking up rates and passing on unreasonable costs to consumers.”

The Anti side retorts: “Prop. 45 creates even more expensive state bureaucracy, duplicating two other bureaucracies that oversee health insurance rates, causing costly confusion with other regulations and adding more red tape to the health care system.”

These political fault lines are just opening up, and are likely to get even larger.

This article was originally published on CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Challenge Libertarians Face to Win American Hearts

October 16, 2014 By Ed Ring 6 Comments

In California, the root cause of government waste, failed programs, high taxes, debt and deficits, regulatory abuse, civil rights abuse, and even corporate cronyism is public sector unions. Their agenda is intrinsically in conflict with the public at large because any government program, any government regulation, any tax and any new debt, benefits them regardless of the cost or benefit to society.

In California, public sector unions collect and spend over $1.0 billion per year in dues. Their combined political spending and lobbying easily exceeds a half-billion per two-year election cycle. They are by far the most powerful special interest in California. Businesses embrace cronyism because they have no choice. The unions rule. Businesses either make a deal with the unions who run the state and local agencies, so they can get a subsidy or favorable regulation, or they can fight an irresistible machine.

If you accept this premise, powerful allies are hard to find.

When searching for help in the cause of public sector union reform, one staunch and rising group are those individuals and organizations who characterize themselves as “free market.” Nearly all of them embrace libertarian ideology. Libertarian and fiscal conservative political agendas align insofar as they both want government to operate in a financially sustainable mode that is efficient and accountable.

When a so-called good government liberal examines the libertarian agenda, however, their support essentially peaks on the issues of civil liberties and then falls off the cliff on the economic issues. Good government liberals know something is wrong. They know the economy is rigged by cronyism. They know the government is corrupted by government unions. They want answers. Libertarians have an opportunity to provide those answers, but it won’t be easy.

Google any relevant term, “free market,” or “libertarian ideology,” and you’ll find endless discussions of libertarian principles. But if you don’t already believe in these principles, you aren’t likely to be converted. Here is an attempt at posing some questions – small, then larger – that libertarians have to answer with more than high-minded academic platitudes, if they want their movement to gain a wider following:

(1)  People working for large retail operations are not paid enough to survive on part-time work. So they have to take on two or more part-time jobs to support themselves and their families. But it is common now for large employers to use automated scheduling optimization programs that vary a worker’s part-time schedule from week to week. This makes it impossible for them to hold more than one job. Should any policy solution attempt to address this?

(2)  Automation is making it possible to remove increasing numbers of people from the workforce. Within a few decades, retail clerks, professional drivers, farmworkers – and a host of other jobs and professions ranging all the way to local sports and routine financial reporting – will be fully automated. Is the current wave of technology, one that has the potential to literally replace 50% or more of current jobs with machines, any different from past disruptions?

(3)  For the first time in history, the “population pyramid” of humanity is shifting from a population of primarily young people to one where the elderly constitute the largest percentage of individuals. One would think that automation displacing jobs would be good, since so many people will want to be retired. But what sort of market mechanism will enable all these retirees to survive with dignity?

There are endless permutations of these questions. Libertarians and conservatives are getting better at pointing out the difference between crony capitalism and competitive capitalism, or between engaging in casino finance and providing genuine financial services. They’re right that private enterprise almost always does a better job than government to provide cost-effective services. They’ve been explaining that the conventional notions of extreme left and extreme right are actually both authoritarian nightmares, and people are starting to listen. They need to emphasize more fully the win-win that is realized when businesses are permitted to compete to develop resources of land, water and energy, in order to lower the cost of living for everyone. But they don’t have all the answers. At least not yet.

Thrashing into the weeds of reality may not appeal to orthodox libertarians any more than it appeals to die-hard leftists. But that is the challenge that beckons, in order to debunk and defeat the rhetoric of the ruling class – the government unions and their crony capitalist allies – and to nurture the hopes and assuage the anxieties of millions of part-time workers, displaced workers, and aging workers.

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Covered CA Dissects Prop. 45, Doesn’t Oppose It

October 16, 2014 By Dave Roberts Leave a Comment

Officials at the Covered California insurance exchange, the state’s implementation of Obamacare, worry passage of Prop. 45 could damage its operations, potentially affecting insurance coverage for millions of Californians. But the board has chosen not to notify California voters of their concerns by formally opposing Prop. 45.

“The initiative could seriously undermine the work that we have underway, our operations, and could compromise the terrific movement and progress that we are making with implementing health reform in California,” said Covered California Board Member Kimberley Belshé at the board’s recent meeting (webcast here).

Board Member Diana Dooley agreed. “I personally have very serious concerns about the interaction of the plain language of this initiative and the work that we’ve invested in making the Affordable Care Act real in California and to some considerable degree somewhat successful,” she said.

Those concerns were confirmed in a report by Executive Director Peter Lee, which found, “Proposition 45 could have a significant detrimental impact on Covered California’s operations….”

Prop. 45

Known as the Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act, Prop. 45 would require health insurance rates to be approved by the state insurance commissioner, similar to the car insurance rate approval mandated by Proposition 103 in 1988.

Lee’s Prop. 45 analysis cited several concerns:

  • “Covered California’s role as an active [insurance] purchaser could be significantly undermined if health plans negotiating with Covered California are reluctant to consider or negotiate on factors other than price because of uncertainty about the subsequent price that will be approved (or ordered) by CDI [California Department of Insurance].
  • “If for any reason a new rate were not approved in time for open enrollment, plans would ‘default’ to the old rate for the entire next year.
  • “Current timelines under Proposition 103 [if applied to medical care under Prop. 45] would provide significant disruption to the offering of plans for the annual open enrollment.
  • “One risk that Covered California needs to be concerned about is the potential of health plans withdrawing in advance of or during the rate regulation process. To the extent a mandatory intervenor hearing process is unresolved in time to meet the open enrollment deadline, a plan’s proposed rate could not go forward.
  • “Almost 90% of Covered California’s consumers receive federal subsidies to reduce their net premiums…. [I]f the rate change sets a new ‘second lowest silver’ plan, some consumers could see their costs increase due to the adjustment of the prices used for the tax credit calculation and the potential reduction of the purchasing power of the tax credits.”

Warn voters?

The Covered California board members could have laid out their concerns in a resolution opposing Prop. 45 to help voters make a better informed decision ahead of the Nov. 4 election. But they unanimously declined to do so.

“I think the beauty and the right kind of influence of this board is to remain as apolitical as possible,” said Board Member Robert Ross. “I’m philosophically opposed to taking any formal position on this ballot measure or any other. I think there’s plenty of politics to go around. Let it go on and let’s try to keep it out of the deliberations of this body.”

The board’s decision to remain neutral on Prop. 45 was welcomed by more than a dozen Prop. 45 supporters who spoke at the meeting.

“People will differ in their analysis of whether Prop. 45 will make the world better for consumers or not better,” said Betsy Imholz, representing Consumers Union. “But one thing is indisputable, that the insurance industry is unanimously and vociferously opposed to it. Were you to align with that position, I think it would create a bad public image.

“And were it to pass, I think the public would be watching closely and questioning your implementation of the act. You don’t need that. None of us needs that. We just want to move forward with the very successful work that you’ve been doing over the past several years.”

Elizabeth Pataki, a retired intensive care nurse representing the California Alliance for Retired Americans, agreed.

“Since Covered California is prohibited under California and federal law from spending taxpayer money to campaign for the ballot initiatives, and since you negotiate with the powerful health care industry to ensure Californians must buy health care and have access to that care, as such it’s very important that you avoid taking sides and getting involved in a political fight with consumer advocates on one side and the health care industry on the other,” she said.

“We need Proposition 45 because there have been 185 percent increases in rates, which have caused severe difficulties. Those severe difficulties include working people and retired people going bankrupt. Proposition 45 will apply the same rates as car coverage. It does not undermine the Affordable Care Act. And it’s public, it’s transparent, it’s open. The public can see what’s happening.”

Concerns

Only one person argued that the board should make its concerns public about Prop. 45.

“We have substantial experience with Prop. 103,” said Steve Young, representing the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California. “From our position, Prop. 45 was a sham. What it is represented to be is not in fact what it would be. We believe and are sure that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the Prop. 103 rating law, or especially the public intervention process, has done anything to lower insurance costs in property casualty insurance.

“Our view is Covered California itself already has done and will continue to do more to temper and lower insurance costs for California consumers than Prop. 45 ever could. So our view, while we certainly understand your position, is that it would be appropriate for you to call a pig a pig, and take a position against Prop. 45.”

Although the Covered California board has sought to stay above the political fray, it has found itself mired in it anyway.  Consumer Watchdog, which is leading the campaign for Prop. 45, on Monday sent a letter to Attorney General Kamala Harris seeking an investigation of the agency’s no-bid contracts and suggesting Covered California is in collusion with insurance companies against Prop. 45:

“Covered California has refused for months to release information requested by Consumer Watchdog under the Public Records Act concerning the agency’s communications with insurance industry executives about Prop. 45 …. Californians deserve to know the truth about hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts and industry influence at Covered California before they vote November 4th.”

Dooley responded to criticism at the September Covered California meeting. “I … am deeply troubled by the politicization of the work that we’ve done and the suggestions that necessarily come up in a political campaign,” she said. “And the characterizations that have been made and may continue to be made that we are not a sufficient steward of consumers.

“I kind of take personal offense at that because I’m here because of my consumer commitment. And I think we have established a reputation of openness and evidence of consumer protection.”

Covered CA problems

In other action at the meeting, Lee told the board that many Californians who called Covered California in the previous month were put on hold for as long as 40 minutes while those whose citizenship was in question were moved to the front of the call line.

The number of suspected illegal residents, who were in danger of losing their insurance eligibility, had grown to 148,000. Prioritizing their cases reduced that to just 10,474 clients whose legal residency is still in question, according to a press release.

Lee told the board that, although the law requires illegal residents be dropped from coverage after 90 days, Covered California has extended their coverage “well beyond that.”

This article was originally published on CalWatchdog.com.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Neel Kashkari: Returning CA to Path of Prosperity

May 30, 2014 By Neel Kashkari 12 Comments

When I started thinking about running for governor more than a year ago, it was in large part because I was frustrated by the Democrats’ ascension to one-party rule in Sacramento. Their big-government policies have continually failed millions of middle-class families across the state; that was no surprise. Since then, we’ve also seen a culture of corruption revealed in Sacramento that underscores the urgency of electing new leaders to guide our state.

The truth is, California is in desperate need of fresh, bold leadership that is unafraid of taking our state in a new direction. California has the potential to be the best place to live, but the fact of the matter is that we have been in a downward spiral for years. If you were to listen to Governor Jerry Brown, however, you would think that things have never been better in the Golden State. But his claims of a “California comeback” ring hollow for families, businesses and communities up and down the state.

In fact, Governor Brown has completely lost sight of California’s priorities. At a time when the state ranks 47th in jobs, 46th in education and 1st in poverty, his focus continues to be on his legacy: A $68 billion high-speed rail project that Californians don’t want and can’t afford.

jerry brown tax increase

California is perennially listed as one of the worst places to do business – Chief Executive Magazine awarded us the dubious honor again just a few weeks ago – yet Sacramento politicians turn a blind eye to these troubling statistics and continue to pass laws and regulations that make it more and more difficult for small businesses to grow. It sometimes feels as though a California company talks about moving to, or expanding in, Texas every other day. Businesses should be flocking to the Golden State – not from it.

California has some of the highest taxes in the nation, yet the tax-and-spend culture in Sacramento continues to thrive. Politicians can’t wait to get their hands on taxpayer dollars to waste on frivolous government programs. I recently called on Governor Brown to repeal the sales tax increase portion of Proposition 30 in order to bring relief to middle-class Californians who are working tirelessly to make ends meet – but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We know our state’s taxes are too high, they’re poorly designed and we’re not getting our money’s worth for the taxes we pay. And the ones who are struggling most as a result? Millions of middle-class families – and it’s time we held Governor Brown accountable.

The good news is that we know how to turn this around. We know how to unleash the private sector and to improve our schools. All across the nation, Republican leaders have implemented bold reforms that have produced remarkable results. We know that this can work – but it does require a willingness to challenge the status quo.

My first order of business as governor will be to cancel the high-speed rail project and instead invest it in water storage to help prepare for our state’s next, inevitable drought. I want to create incentives for companies that open manufacturing facilities and create jobs here. By safely tapping into our state’s natural resources, we can create thousands of jobs. Regulatory reform can make a huge difference in making our state friendlier to job creators.

Reforming our education system starts by giving control back to parents and teachers. Our kids aren’t all one size, so our policies shouldn’t be either. Giving schools and parents much more control over their budgets and how they educate their students provides them the opportunity to innovate in ways that can lift student achievement. Likewise, making higher education more accessible opens up doors to social mobility that can help close the inequality gap that’s grown ever larger in recent years.

As Election Day approaches, I am more convinced than ever that Republicans can take back Sacramento. Californians are fed up with the same tired rhetoric from career politicians who have run this state into the ground. The task won’t be easy, but I am up for the challenge. With voters’ support, we can win in November and return California to the path of prosperity.

Neel Kashkari, Republican candidate for governor, previously served in the U.S. Treasury Department during former President George W. Bush

Editor’s note: A column by state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, Republican candidate for governor, will be published Saturday on CAPoliticalReview.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,