George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my bi-weekly KVMR-FM 85.9 commentary aired earlier this evening (20 August 2010).  NC Media Watch adds to the relevancy argument here.]

By now everyone has heard of AB32, California’s new law to implement statewide energy cap and trade regulations.  Governor Schwarzenegger signed it and turned it over to the California Air Resources Board or CARB to implement through new regulations, bureaucracies, and fees levied on all levels of life in the Golden State.  The debate about its effect on the state’s economy, already heated before AB32 passed, now became torrid.

The wealth creating businesses and jurisdictions, with energy price sensitive economies, have analyzed and argued that AB32 would devastate an already ailing California economy, and further harm a business climate that puts California at or near the bottom of nationwide economic rankings.  But organizations and jurisdictions that hope for federal subsidies, and subsidy dependent investors hoping to create ‘green’ jobs, are the vocal proponents of larger government and increased taxes and fees that AB32 implementation would entail.  For good or ill, both sides are in solid agreement that AB32 would impact every facet of business and life in our state.

The battle lines were drawn when our Assemblyman Dan Logue introduced AB118 to suspend the implementation of most of AB32 until our 12.3% unemployment rate would come down again to a tolerable and more historical 5.5%.  Logue’s argument was that AB32, no matter how implemented, would be a serious drag on our economy, and to recover we needed less regulation and taxation, not more.  Many studies and analyses supported this argument.  But Logue’s bill failed in tax-and-spend Sacramento.  However, the public opposition to AB32 was overwhelming, enough to morph AB118 into Proposition 23 which we will all vote on in November.  Naturally, this started the pro/con Prop23 war, which brings us to the present.

CARB commissioned an economic study by an exposed academic fraudster to promote AB32.  He claimed it would create half million new ‘green’ jobs.  CARB also expanded its already huge staff to write new regulations and oversee implementation.  The discredited study was duly re-credited by the media, and has now become part of the left’s mantra in opposing Prop23.  The study has also allowed certain office holders and wannabes to abandon principle for politics.

In the meanwhile, various business and government associations have joined their voices in support of Prop23 to suspend AB32.  One of these important governmental organizations – the Regional Council of Rural Counties or RCRC – met this Wednesday in Sacramento to consider Prop23.  Nevada County is a member of RCRC, and voted with the majority to support Prop23.  The vote was an astounding 21 counties voting for Prop23, none against with Napa abstaining.
 
Another important aspect of RCRC’s public support of Prop23 is the related appraisal that AB32 will impact the economies of all rural northern California counties.  And also that the passage or defeat of Prop23 is clearly relevant to all residents and businesses in the RCRC region.

So now we come to Nevada County and its Board of Supervisors who will soon have an opportunity to declare their position on Prop23.   The Board has a stated policy not to take a position on issues that are not directly relevant to Nevada County.  I agree that they should abstain from resolutions concerning gay marriage, or the mid-east conflicts, or the gulf oil spill, or the mosque at Ground Zero, or even Arizona’s illegal alien law.

But I do maintain that the overwhelming number of Nevada County voters want to see their Supervisors take a stand on Prop23, simply because AB32 will affect all of us here in the mountains.  And most likely, it will affect us more than the folks living in the flats.  It would be a sad day if the Board ducks the issue using, for example, the lame ploy that resolving to support or oppose Prop23 would violate their ‘relevance policy’.  That is one shaky leg they should not attempt to stand on.

I am George Rebane and I also expand on these and other issues in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.