By now you probably know that Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on the use of trans fats in restaurant food and in bakeries.  Think of it as the “Use margarine, go to jail” law, although the maximum penalty will only be $1,000. 

What next, laws mandating that we all eat all our fruits and vegetables every day or forfeit our soon to come government health insurance benefits?  Why not?  It’s good for us and we know that our government only wants what’s best for us, liberty be damned. 

As with all bills of this nature, I voted “no.”  The Sacramento Bee story for today at http://www.sacbee.com/117/story/1110963.html quoted me in opposition to this move that will increase costs at restaurants:

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said the new law “goes way beyond any reasonable role for government.”

“It says no longer is it the individual’s responsibility to take care of their own body,” DeVore said. “Now we have to have government telling us what we can and cannot eat.”

California…  Where my 16 and 11-year-old daughters can legally get abortions without my knowledge but soon won’t be able to buy bakery products with shortening in them.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
http://www.chuckdevore.com/
www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-DeVore/22771210763

High energy costs and a desire to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions has caused Californians to shift their opinion in favor of nuclear power for the first time in more than 30 years, according to a just-released Field Poll.  The San Francisco Chronicle covered this story today in a piece entitled, “Nuclear plants, offshore drilling gain support.”  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MN0511QA3H.DTL

The article mentions my two-year effort to lift California’s 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants:

California law prohibits new nuclear plants within the state until the country has a long-term solution for handling radioactive waste. But Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said Californians are starting to see the technology as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. For the past two years, he has pushed legislation to lift the moratorium and says he will do so again.

‘Not physically possible’

“Clearly, opinion is beginning to shift, and I’m delighted,” said DeVore, R-Irvine. “Physics and economics dictate that we can’t generate the amount of power we’ll need in this state without nuclear power if you want these kinds of greenhouse gas reductions. It’s not physically possible.”

Physics, if course, the reason why we need nuclear power as it and hydroelectric are the only large scale sources of 24/7 baseload power that do not also produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide.  In fact, nuclear power is about 6.5 million times more powerful, pound-for-pound, than coal. 

Lastly, some critics openly question how nuclear power can be a solution for our high oil and natural gas costs.  It’s simple, really.  Energy, like oil, is fairly fungible; meaning that one source of energy can often displace another.  In California, it goes like this: we burn natural gas to make 42 percent of our power, increased use of nuclear power to make electricity can offset additional natural gas use while also charging electric cars at night with the surplus electricity, natural gas not used to make electricity can then power CNG cars, trucks and buses at a lower cost.  It’s all supply and demand. 

Also, please consider becoming a supporter of mine on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-DeVore/22771210763.  Being a supporter will make it easier for us to keep in touch.  Obama uses Facebook as a major online tool in his campaign (he has about 1.1 million supporters on Facebook). 

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District

I wish I could take some measure of joy in saying, “I told you so.” But, I can’t.  In fact, I’m just angry.

What happened?  Scott Carpenter, one of my field representatives, was pulled over yesterday morning by one of Irvine’s finest.  The crime?  Violating section 23123 of the Vehicle Code by talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device while driving.

The trouble was, Mr. Carpenter wasn’t on his cell phone, he simply had his left hand up by his left ear at a stop light.  From behind the car and to the left it certainly LOOKED like Mr. Carpenter may have been violating the new law, but he wasn’t.  You can see the potential for confusion from this series of three photos I took of Mr. Carpenter in his car.

As the police car’s lights flashed from behind, Mr. Carpenter wondered, “What could I have done?”  He pulled over.  The cop walked up to the car and said, “I noticed you were on your cell phone.”  A violation of section 23123 is punishable by a $76 fine ($20 for the fine and another $56 for “penalty assessments”) for a first offense.

Mr. Carpenter replied, “With all due respect, I think you’re mistaken.  I was not on my cell phone.”

The officer smugly replied, “I saw you.  I was right behind you.”

Mr. Carpenter politely responded, “Well, sir, my hand was just at my ear.  I’ll show you my call log, if you like.”

The cop said, “Sure, let’s have a look.”

After looking at Mr. Carpenter’s cell phone, and seeing that the last call was at least 20 minutes prior, the officer, disappointment written on his face, said, “I must have been mistaken.  But you know that’s the new law, so be careful.”

Mr. Carpenter speculated that the traffic officer was looking to write his first cell phone ticket.  Regardless, this exchange shows what can begin to happen as we cede more and more of our personal responsibility to the state.  Law enforcement officers begin the long migration from people whose main job is to catch criminals to people who become our keepers - minding our safety, telling us what to do.

Imagine if Mr. Carpenter challenged the officer and took his cell phone ticket to court.  What a supreme waste of time and public safety money.

Unfortunately, the bill that outlawed some cell phone usage, SB 1613 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006 after being supported by five Republicans in the Assembly and one in the Senate.  I argued at the time that existing law was sufficient to the task of public safety, since Section 23103 of the Vehicle Code already makes it a crime to drive “…a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property…” meaning that police officers already had the right to pull over a driver when their actual bad driving endangered other people.

To make matters worse, the new law won’t have the public safety benefit it was touted to have, since studies published in the British Medical Journal, the “Human Factors” journal and others show that just talking while in a car, especially to someone not in the car, increases distraction, hands-free device or no.

Of course, some drivers appear to be able to drive and talk at the same time, which is why I thought Section 23103 on reckless driving was adequate to the task.

I’ll offer this prediction: after Californians spend millions of dollars to buy all those wireless attachments for their cell phones, a study will come out showing no difference in California’s accident rate, leading to another new law that will simply ban all cell phone use by drivers.  Thus, liberty withers, bit by bit, as we use the law to compensate for our lack of common sense and personal responsibility.

Almost five years ago on July 29, 2003 the Legislature passed a $70.8 billion General Fund budget.  A few months later, Gov. Gray Davis was recalled.

Today, we find out that California overspent its 2007-08 budget by $3.9 billion for a total of $107.3 billion, a 51.6 percent increase in government spending over the approved budget five years ago.

So, how did we spend almost $4 billion more than budgeted last year?  If the past is any guide, most of the overspending will be in two categories: entitlement spending and the prisons system.

Entitlement spending usually constitutes the bulk of the overspending because, based on income and other factors, some people are “entitled” to tax-funded government health or welfare services.  Since they are “entitled,” they must be served, regardless of what was budgeted.  Government simply gives benefits to all who apply and adds the bills up afterward; then we all pay.  Since California has among the most generous health and welfare eligibility thresholds in the nation, a lot of people qualify for benefits.

If California is to have any chance at getting its budget under control, it must reform its health and welfare system starting with eligibility criteria.

Well, here we go again.  After years of overspending and borrowing to pay for it, California’s Democratic lawmakers have proposed a massive $9 billion tax hike to partially cover a $15 billion deficit.  And, while they want to increase taxes to cover their overspending, they have the gall to propose spending even more at a time when most Californians are struggling to live within their means. Specifically, Democrats propose to increase taxes on the “wealthy” and on companies.  But, California already has the highest taxes on the “rich” in America.  That’s one of the reasons why our tax revenue is so volatile, jumping up and diving down year after year. 

In addition, most small business owners pay taxes on their earning as individuals; having the nation’s highest personal income tax rate acts as a powerful disincentive to job creation and economic activity in California.  Rather than raising taxes, we should be cutting tax rates to encourage job creation in California. 

Lastly, while the Democrats propose spending billions more for welfare, including expanded taxpayer handouts to illegal immigrants, they propose cutting funds to public safety, threatening the loss of more than 1,000 front-line police officers.  In addition, their idea to save money on inmate parolees would have thousands of major offenders go unsupervised on our streets without having to check in with their parole officer.

I’ll be going on the John & Ken Show on KFI 640 AM at 5 PM today to discuss the budget and taxes.  You can listen live by going to: http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st

Politics is all fun and games - until someone gets hurt.  I’ve been warning for some time now that California’s environmental and energy policy were going to cause a big spike in electrical rates, a spike that would hurt hard working Californians and drive jobs out of state.  Today’s Los Angeles Times contains further proof of this concern. 

In an article entitled, “Sparks fly over rate plan by Southern California Edison,” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ratehike2-2008jul02,0,801347.story tells of SCE’s proposed 16% plus rate hike for 2009, with more hikes planned for 2010 and 2011.  The article nails the main reason for this, “…Edison bills will go up because of the soaring cost of natural gas, which runs most of California’s power plants.”  As of last year, 42 percent of California’s power to be exact.

Meanwhile, to the north, Pacific Gas and Electric announced an 11 percent increase in electricity costs from January of this year to January of next.  (I blogged about that here: http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/11/power-costs-to-increase-11-percent-year-over-year/.)

The Los Angeles Times article covered a hearing at Compton City Hall where residents packed a room to protest the proposed rate increase.  Due to increasing electrical costs and increasingly challenging economic times in California, Edison’s past-due delinquencies increased by 14 percent last year.  

The proposed rate hike would add more than $7 a month to the average customer’s bill.  Many elderly and poor would be shielded from the rate increase, though, because current law dragoons utilities into yet another government program designed to transfer wealth from the middle class to the less-fortunate - a form of off-the-books welfare that liberals are trying to expand at every turn. 

Most of the electrical rate hikes have so far been due to the rapidly rising cost of natural gas, most of which must be imported into the state.  However, an increasing amount of the price hikes are due to California’s environmental mandates for renewable energy, such as costly solar and unreliable wind.  And soon, a big chunk of the high cost of electricity will be driven by California’s global warming law. 

So, while hard working Californians, such as those who packed Compton City Hall yesterday, suffer, California’s political elites fiddle around, trying vainly to solve a worldwide issue: global warming. 

If only they would display a modicum of vision and courage and agree to lift California’s archaic 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants, each one of which would supply 5 percent of California’s electrical needs while saving $2 billion a year worth of natural gas and preventing the emission of almost 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Simply put, more nuclear power is a “threefer” for California, since, by reducing the consumption of natural gas, we can reduce electrical rate hikes, dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and import less natural gas from overseas, keeping dollars here at home. 

Perhaps soon elected representatives from Los Angeles, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley will care more for their hard working constituents than they do for the Sierra Club and other elitist groups who have welcomed recent energy price hikes.