?? Who’s Pulling The Strings Mr. Nestande ??
Assemblyman Brian Nestande is out with his latest screed entitled
“RESTORING CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY: YOU DECIDE !”
Of course the Assemblyman doesn’t want you to decide on the basis of facts and/or logic. He wants you to decide based on deliberate misrepresentations, misleading ‘facts’ and, in some cases, outright lies embedded in his flyer.
On the inside of this slickly designed flyer we find:
Legislative Update: Which Approach Do You Favor?
We find a chart listing four areas Mr. Nestande believes are of concern to Californians. Interestingly, some of these Californians have made substantial contributions to Mr. Nestande’s campaign ‘war chest’. Predictably we can ascertain who those Californians are by examining closely the wording in the columns titled “Proposals That Help” and “Proposals That Hurt”.
Make no mistake...these flyers are designed by professional “consultants”, (by the way, who pays for these “consultants” Mr. Nestande? Not us taxpayers, I would hope) experts at molding (read: ‘manipulating’) public opinion in favor of whomever has the fattest checkbook or connections to the levers of power in Sacramento.
The “Proposals That Help” section is presented in green (deliberately), a color that is neutral-to-friendly, while “Proposals That Hurt” is presented in black, a negative-to-unfriendly hue. To the untrained eye, the difference is imperceptible, but the deception begins there at this subtle, insidious level.
Topic #1 - Taxes Again, the placement of this topic is designed to draw the unwitting reader in at the most visceral level. Yelling “TAXES” goes right for the emotional solar-plexus - forget an unemotional, reasoned or intellectual discussion; people don’t like to pay taxes, even if they are Justified, even if they are necessary.
Mr. Nestande claims that elimination of the Minimum Franchise Tax on small businesses will somehow magically make it possible for them to expand their operations and hire new workers (AB 166). EXCEPT THAT IT WON’T !
Assemblyman Nestande’s reasoning is fatally flawed due to his lack of understanding of one of the most basic tenets of economics. Businesses ONLY expand their operations and hire new workers in response to an increase in DEMAND for their product or service. PERIOD. There is NO, repeat NO guarantee that passage of AB 166 would have the effect he claims. One outcome that IS certain is that foregoing the revenue that would be generated thereby would exacerbate our State’s fiscal woes.
Alternatively, the five year 1% increase in the State sales tax would move our budget closer to the ‘balance point’. And, that proposal “Hurts” us how? Please, Mr. Nestande, don’t insult our intelligence.
Topic #2 - Job Creation In the light of the abject failure of “Reaganomics” (G.H.W. Bush referred to it as ‘voodoo economics’) and the disastrous effect of Howard Jarvis’ Proposition 13 in the early 1980’s, it’s a miracle that our State was able to claim the distinction of being the WORLD’S 6th largest economy during the 1990’s. It is testament to the industry of our workforce coupled with an entrepreneurial climate not found in any of the other 49 states that such came to pass. It may be good policy to provide tax incentives to companies, businesses and corporations that move their headquarters here (AB 303), but I would suggest that a BETTER policy is one that rewards those same companies, businesses, etc. who actually bring JOBS, workers, you know, to the state. It’s of little benefit having headquarters here while the jobs are outsourced to cheap labor ghettos like India, China, Indonesia and the profits also ‘offshored’ to places like Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.
Mr. Nestande’s assertion that imposition of an oil severance tax (AB 1326)“may” result in the loss of 10,000 jobs is little more than a scare tactic, in light of the already enormous tax breaks, government subsidies, write-offs, ad infinitum to an industry that reports the highest profits in it’s history. Beware caveats like “may”. They are a tip-off that speculation is behind the scenes, in this writer’s opinion a red flag warning of deception. Also, in my opinion a major portion of such revenue generated would wisely be directed to the implementation of procedures to insure against repeat of the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe of 2010. This is just good common sense, as we all have been witness to the deplorable actions of BP.
Topic #3 - State Regulations Requiring the California Small Business Board to review the effects proposed regulations would have on small businesses (AB 541) is tantamount to giving the fox the keys to the henhouse AND a recipe book for fried chicken to boot. This is a blatant stall tactic, and worse, INCREASES costs to the taxpayer through another layer of bureaucracy.
On the other hand, AB 341’s required mandate of 75% of solid waste generated here is source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 is reasonable considering the 8-year time frame into the future. This goal is commendable, and is fully in line with Californian’s desire to be responsible stewards of our environment. It is, in this writer’s opinion a boon, and will solidify further build-out of ‘green’ industries here in the Golden State. Here in the Coachella Valley, one of my favorites is Burr-Tec Industries; another is Sunline Transit, both have achieved national notoriety for their commitment to a cleaner environment.
Topic #4 - Growth Of Government This topic is “red meat” to conservatives here in district 64. Actually, conservatives everywhere rail against the boogeyman of ‘big gummint’. To repeal State laws and regulations (AB 425)sounds commendable on the surface, but, in fact will result in yet another layer of bureaucracy and thus, ADDED COST to the taxpayer. I’m interested in knowing which of Mr. Nestande’s friends and/or supporters would be serving on such a board, panel, commission. Is this a plum for those people, Mr. Nestande?
So, finally, we come to the “Proposals That Hurt” category, and, predictably the Assemblyman takes aim at SB 810, asserting that spending $200 billion to create a State agency to administer a government operated health care system is evil. There is a stealth linkage to our DMV, as if that would be the framework of the proposed system. Such confabulation is intellectually dishonest on it’s face. Could it be that Assemblyman Nestande would prefer that Californians continue to be gouged by the for-profit private insurance industry, represented by AHIP. I don’t know about you but I don’t appreciate a private company taking up to 30 cents of every premium dollar so their CEO’s could continue to enjoy multi-million dollar bonuses, then turn around and drop me should it be necessary to file a claim. Now I have Medicare, which has only a 3-cent per dollar ‘overhead’, meaning that 97 cents of every dollar goes for diagnosis, treatment, even follow-up. AND I cannot be dropped for simply filing a claim. Finally, to sweeten the deal, I assert that the same innovative energy that has set my state head-and-shoulders above all others will come to the fore and make our state-run system a model for others to emulate. A price of $200 billion will be a bargain and show that California is a state that truly places the needs of it’s citizens first.
Yes, Assemblyman Nestande, there is a real difference in philosophy up there in Sacramento. Some are trapped in the past, wedded to the thoroughly discredited “trickle-down” economics, while others, like myself subscribe to the “bubble-up” scenario, where economic empowerment of the working and middle classes results in an ever-expanding field of play for those willing to work hard and play fair. You might be interested to know that such viewpoint was put forth by Malcolm Forbes, one of the greatest capitalists our country has produced. It was he who stated, “...money is like manure. Gather it together into a great pile and all it does is sit there and stink. But, start to spread it around and things begin to grown all over the place...”. Who would have thought that Steve Forbes’ father was a Keynesian?
On the back page of your flyer you allude to the loss of millions of dollars with the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Wow! How ironic! You are aware, sir, that Solyndra had it’s genesis during the Bush administration - I believe the year was 2007. Even then, it was apparent to auditors that the financial underpinnings were dicey, at best. Yet the Bush administration attempted to get Solyndra rolling, even when alarm bells were going off in the governments’ offices overseeing (enabling?) it’s creation. Please elucidate me, Mr. Nestande - if government “...should not be in the business of picking winners and losers...”, why do we have the SBA? Or maybe you would have us do away with it as well. The guy that owns the little bike shop I know probably would not agree with you, as it was an SBA-backed financial agreement to got him started. Would you change your mind if he were to contribute a few thousand $$$ to your campaign fund? But, of course, by doing so, he couldn’t afford to expand his business or hire any additional workers. Sort of a catch-22, huh?
So, here we are.
I’m still wondering, who’s pulling the strings, Assemblyman Nestande?
Is it the National Chamber of Commerce? They’ve got incredibly deep pockets and worldwide ‘connections’. Certainly, they could come up with 30 pieces of silver.
Or, is it the Oil companies? (Isn’t Chevron-Texaco headquartered here in California?)
Perhaps it is AHIP, the health insurance lobby that would be most threatened by passage of SB 810. Certainly, passage of that legislation could be a death-knell for them.
It all comes down to Money, the ‘mother’s milk of politics’.
When will you make full public disclosure of those who are funding you, Mr. Assembly man?
We, the people would like to know.
