I am a candidate for the United States Senate in 2010. California deserves strong, active, and conservative representation in Washington, D.C. By 2010, an entire generation of Californians will have been born and grown to voting age, never having known a principled conservative — to say nothing of a Republican — representing them in the United States Senate. In 2010, we will change that.

 

I am a candidate for the United States Senate because I love America and its founding principles.  My politics and my public career testify to my belief in those principles. 

 

• I believe our natural rights are inherent to our humanity, not a grant from government.

 

• I believe the role of government is limited to securing our rights from external danger and internal lawlessness. 

 

• I believe that when government exceeds this mandate, our liberty is at risk.  As George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

 

• I believe that for too long now, our elected representatives have softly encouraged us to give up our independence to government.  Year after year, we see government’s responsibilities grow while our personal liberty shrinks. 

 

This terrible progression of state power at the expense of our natural liberties is not purely the fault of Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans who bear blame as well — as we have seen here in California, and in Washington, D.C., over the past decade.

 

But only the Republicans can turn the tide.

 

• Only the Republicans have the bedrock foundation of dedication to a proper Constitutional order.

 

• Only the Republicans have a record of fiscal responsibility.

 

• Only the Republicans have a sound commitment to national defense.

 

• Only the Republicans have an understanding of what business and entrepreneurs need to create jobs for working Californians.

 

• And only the Republicans have a conservative tradition that calls us back — however far we have strayed — however tattered our banner — to the principles that made California the greatest state in the Union.

 

I am proud to say that I have been true to those principles and that conservative tradition over my 22 years of public service.

 

It’s a long way from here to the general election in 24 months. We have a primary to win, and then a fight against Barbara Boxer and her far-left friends that will demand everything we’ve got.

 

I am confident we will win that fight. I am confident that when Californians have a real choice between me and Barbara Boxer — it will be an easy choice for them.

 

• You see, I want Californians to keep their hard-earned money.

 

• I want to lower fuel and energy costs by producing more of America’s oil, and building modern, safe and reliable nuclear power plants.

 

• I want to rein in runaway Federal spending.

 

• I want to bring a conservative leadership to Washington, D.C., that actually works.

 

And what does Barbara Boxer want?

 

• She wants more of the same from Washington, D.C.

 

• She wants to take more of your money for her own plans.

 

• She wants to forfeit your children’s future to enlarge an over $6 trillion national debt.

 

• She has no plan to make good on an unsustainable $86 trillion entitlements system that puts our children’s future at risk.

 

• She wants to keep fuel prices high, with no oil drilling, and no new nuclear power plants.

 

I will put my record against hers any day. And when we do, in November 2010 — I know the people of California will make the right decision.

 

California is my home, and I love it second only to my God and my family. Like so many, I came here as a child, when my family decided to earn their piece of the California dream. I worked my way through that dream, paying for my own college as a union carpenter, and serving in the United States Army. That dream has been good to us, and I am a candidate for the United States Senate because I want to restore it and defend it.

 

We have a long road ahead. But I know that with the grace of God, the courage of our convictions, and the blessings of the good people of California, our best days are yet to come.

 

Thank you, and may God bless our great state.

Cen-sor, n.  A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

For much of the time since being elected, I have been asked by the Los Angeles Times-owned Daily Pilot (yes, the same Los Angeles Times that refuses to release the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi destroy Israel love fest video) to write short opinion pieces for their “That’s Debatable” feature.   The “That’s Debatable” comes with a short word count limit, usually 150 words, to which I always comply.

Several times over the past few years, after asking for my opinion, the Daily Pilot unilaterally edits my pieces, changing the meaning and content of my opinion.  Every time this has happened, I call or email Paul Anderson, the Daily Pilot’s editor, to complain.  I usually say to Paul that, unlike one of his staff writers, I should not have my opinion pieces subject to editing without my permission.  A staff writer is supposed to write an unbiased account of something that happened - I was asked for my opinion as an elected official, if the paper changes my response, then the readers don’t see my opinion.

When a political statement is changed by someone else empowered to make that change, we call that censorship.  While writing for the American University in Cairo campus newspaper in Egypt 24 years ago,  I once had a piece on the Egypt-Israel peace treaty completely expunged by the paper - that was an extreme version of censorship.  Now, I never expected to have censorship happen to me in America, but today, after at least the sixth time the Daily Pilot has cut my “That’s Debatable” column to shreds, I’m beginning to wonder.   What happened?

Along with my Democrat opponent, I was asked to submit a “That’s Debatable” piece of no more than 150 words on the Governor’s proposed Lottery modernization proposal.  My submitted piece was 149 words.  Imagine my shock and disappointment when I see that my submitted piece was cut by 1/3 to 103 words while my liberal lawyer opponent’s piece weighed in at 183 words - 33 over the proscribed limit!  I guess the liberal media needed to trim my piece by 46 words so my Democrat opponent could have the extra space for 33 words.  So, not only did the Daily Pilot cut my opinion (is it still my opinion then?) they managed to give my opponent almost double the space to make his case.  Liberal media bias?  Or just editorial sloppiness?  Imagine if, during a debate, my opponent and I were asked for two minute responses to questions.  In the middle of my two minute response, the moderator turns off my microphone for 40 seconds, then turns around and gives my opponent my 40 seconds.   That’s what happened over at the Daily Pilot.

Here’s the actual “That’s Debatable” column in today’s newspaper.

Below that is my email to Pilot editor Paul Anderson.

THAT’S DEBATABLE:
How to handle poor lottery sales?
State lottery ticket sales dipped again this year, worrying school officials who depend on the revenue, and raising questions about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to borrow against future lottery revenue. State Supt. of Schools Jack O’Connell said officials should consider other ways to raise money, but the governor is confident that new lottery games will help goose profits. What should be done about lagging lottery sales?

The state-run lottery adds very little to education — about 1% of total K-12 spending. Many Californians erroneously think the lottery has solved education funding needs.

So, can the governor’s plan to contract out lottery operations help the budget? Yes. But at what cost to those who can least afford to play a game with poor odds?

Rather than expand the lottery, we should open up California’s territorial waters to new oil leases using modern slant drill methods from inland locations. We have more than 1 billion barrels of oil we know about in California’s waters. The royalty revenue would exceed any lottery scheme.

Chuck DeVore

Assemblyman

(R-Newport Beach)

It is absurd to promote gambling in order for kids to get a good education and satisfying jobs, which should help them avoid cheap thrills like gambling.

Before we can persuade the public to support more funding for education or increasing sales taxes, we have to convince the public that it is getting a good return on its investment.

Most of the public in the 70th Assembly District believes in quality education. They also believe that, for the most part, our schools are doing a good job, so they don’t see the need to increase taxes. But allowing weaker, less-productive schools to fail will affect O.C. schools.

Proposition 13 must be revised to fund local schools and government. We can keep protection for residential property and allow the market to dictate values and tax rates for other property.

Yes, it means higher property taxes for some. However, state sales and income taxes are among the highest in the nation, while property taxes rank 45th! It is not about “spreading the wealth.” It is about balancing revenue sources for all government services!

Michael Glover

Democratic candidate for 70th Assembly District

Email from Chuck DeVore to Daily Pilot editor Paul Anderson:

Subject: Paul, you have got to be kidding me

Look, you know as well as I do that most folks in print journalism today are liberal. That said, I always try to get my message out with a smile.

Today’s “That’s Debatable” takes the cake, however.  After repeated edits by your paper of my responses when it is always within the proscribed word count, and repeated assurances from you that it will not happen again — well, it’s happened again.  You wrote and asked me to submit a commentary that was 125-150 words max.  I did.  As I recall, I submitted a piece that was 149 words. So, imagine my “surprise” when I see that my piece was cut by 1/3 to 103 words, while my opponent’s piece is almost twice the length at 181 words — 31 more than the maximum you specified to me.  This is ridiculous!

I don’t even know why I try any more.

I’ll be calling you Thursday morning.  I cannot continue to have my “opinion” edited by someone who does not share my political views. 

Update at 12:45 pm on Oct. 30th:

Here is the original 147 word piece for the Daily Pilot.  I was told that my unedited piece would be put up on their website a couple of hours ago.  As of 11:52 am, it has not.  Notice how the eliminated lead paragraph expresses my reservations for the impact a lottery has on the poor – obviously a concern that the media does not like to associate with conservative Republicans such as myself.

I’ve never been a fan of a government-run lottery – at best, it is harmless entertainment, at worst, it is a tax on those who are bad with math or who can least afford to play.

Further, the state-run lottery adds very little to education — about 1% of total K-12 spending. Many Californians erroneously think the lottery has solved education funding needs.

So, can the governor’s plan to contract out lottery operations help the budget? Yes. But at what cost to those who can least afford to play a game with poor odds?

Rather than expand the lottery, we should open up California’s territorial waters – three miles and in – to new oil leases using modern slant drill methods from inland locations. We have more than 1 billion barrels of oil we know about in California’s waters (8 billion in federal). The royalty revenue would exceed any lottery scheme.

Chuck DeVore
Assemblyman
(R-Newport Beach)

Saturday’s Sacramento Bee had a story about the increasing heat from the Governor to raise taxes by $5 billion a year.  The paper quoted me:

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said the governor has little sway with GOP legislators because some of his closest advisers are Democrats, he is ineligible to run for re-election, and he has now broken his vow not to support a tax hike. 

“It’s like the final repudiation of his Republicanism,” DeVore said.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/1179657.html 

More taxes at this time is not the answer.  California is now the 4th highest taxed state in America.  We have the highest income tax, the highest state sales tax rate, the highest gas tax, the highest corporate tax in the West and our property taxes are only at the national average.  Is it any wonder that we have the 4th highest unemployment rate in the nation?  Raising taxes at this time will only worsen our economic situation.   

As for spending, our overall state spending has increased 40 percent since the recall in 2003, some $41 billion more in the general and special funds.  I cautioned about this coming train wreck two years ago when I implored my colleagues to restrain spending. (See: http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/a70/Index.aspx?page=VIDEO&id=68)  

For new revenue, I have proposed opening our state territorial waters (3 miles and in) to slant drilling to recover the $120 billion in oil we know about.  I have also proposed increasing the royalty rate to 22%.  This would yield more than $26 billion in new state revenue without raising taxes.  We could securitize this revenue stream if we wished, gaining us about $10 billion in the present fiscal year that we could use to completely close the deficit and build up a rainy day fund.  Majority Democrats are growing more interested in this idea.

I’ve had Op-Ed pieces published in the Asian Wall Street Journal, a sister paper of the Wall Street Journal, but don’t believe I’ve ever been quoted in one of America’s most influential papers.  Tuesday, in an article entitled “California Budget Impasse Persists As GOP Refuses Income-Tax Rise” I was quoted as saying: 

“I’m very skeptical of any politician claiming they want a temporary tax,” said Republican Assemblyman Chuck Devore. In the future, he said, legislators will argue that they have “grown accustomed to the tax and we need the revenue.” 

(see: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121910788425051709.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox)  

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in Monday’s paper, on Republican efforts to enact a true spending limit in California: 

Republicans called the plan meaningless, saying that the rules also allowed the Legislature to transfer the money out of the reserve fund on a simple majority vote.  

“We need a spending limit to force the state to save money,” said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine. 

The Republicans had proposed a state constitutional amendment to impose a “hard” budget spending cap that would have only allowed the budget to rise at the combined rate of the cost of living rate and the state’s population growth, but it was killed in committee Friday in a party-line vote. 

(see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/08/18/MN2712CUFE.DTL)  

Meanwhile, Democrats punished one of their own, Central Valley lawmaker Nicole Parra, for abstaining on the failed Sunday budget vote.  Ms. Parra and her staff were kicked out of her Capitol office within a day of withholding her vote on a budget that raised taxes by $8 billion, increased spending by $2 billion and cut law enforcement funds by $600 million while ignoring any attempt at building new water systems (Parra’s main concern).  This move certainly won’t make her any more likely to vote to approve the budget when that time finally comes, potentially increasing the number of Republican votes needed to achieve the two-thirds requirement to eight. 

A clearer illustration of the vast gulf separating Republicans from Democrats couldn’t be found than Friday’s Budget Committee hearing on Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 19, a bill to limit California state spending to inflation plus population growth. 

 

The purpose of the Republican-drafted bill was to keep the annual rate of spending increases in Sacramento at a steady and predictable pace so that sudden large influxes of revenue would not be immediately spent, but rather saved for a “rainy day” – such as the $16 billion fiscal flood we are now facing. 

 

Most other states do this which is why most other states have carried large cash reserves with them into this current economic slowdown.

 

California’s unemployment rate is at 7.3 percent, the fourth highest in the nation, with 400,000 more Californians out of work than at this time last year.  Now is not the time to be proposing to hammer the economy with an additional $9 billion in taxes, as the Democrats are proposing to do.  Raising taxes at this time will only deepen our economic slowdown and ensure that California will be among the last of the states to recover. 

 

Yet, in spite of the obviously negative effects of massive new taxes, the Democrats at Friday’s hearing were unanimous in their scorn for a spending cap.  Democrat after Democrat challenged the very concept that there should be any limits on government spending at all.  Several Democrats attacked ACA 19’s restrictive language dealing with emergencies, wherein the state spending cap could be lifted to deal with an enemy attack or “…fire, flood, drought, storm, civil disorder, earthquake, or volcanic eruption.”

 

“Wouldn’t you say that our educational system is in crisis…  …that it’s an emergency?” one Democrat asserted.  While another Democrat said the same of healthcare. 

 

This line of reasoning starkly illuminated the Democrat’s mindset: that every foreseeable “need” for larger government can be construed as an “emergency” requiring more spending, more taxes, and more borrowing. 

 

It became quite clear that the 40 percent increase in overall state spending since 2003 was not enough to satisfy any of the Democrats on the budget committee. 

 

So, while California has the highest income tax in the nation, the highest state sales tax rate, the highest gas tax, the highest corporate tax in the West, and with property taxes only at the national average, Democrats say it is not enough.  Democrats want higher taxes so government may grow without restraint.  Meanwhile, Forbes magazine recently listed California as having the highest business costs in the nation (a combination of tax, energy and labor costs) while the Tax Foundation says that California has the 47^th worst business tax climate in America (just ahead of New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island). 

 

Clearly, any additional state tax increases would only add to California’s economic woes – especially income tax increases, since there is nothing more mobile in the 21^st Century than the wealthy and their money.  Superstar Golfer Tiger Woods used to live in my district.  Now he lives in Florida because Florida has no income tax.  Or take the case of former California inventor Gilbert Hyatt, the creator of the modern computer chip.  Hyatt moved to Nevada in 1991 to escape California’s high taxes (as with Florida, Nevada has no income tax).  The state Franchise Tax Board unwisely pursued Hyatt, harassing him, going through his trash in Nevada, and generally making his life miserable.  In defense of their fellow Nevadan, a Nevada jury just returned a $388.1 million verdict against California for “invasion of privacy” and “emotional distress.” 

 

Rather than drive the most successful Americans out of California, our tax policies should welcome them – and their job-creating capital. 

 

One last example of what we are up against in Sacramento.  At the conclusion of the very able testimony from Assemblyman Roger Niello, a co-author of the bill, the Budget Committee heard from members of the public.  Only Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association spoke in favor of the proposed spending cap.  In contrast, the spending lobby was out in force with 23 of the 25 people lined up to speak against the spending cap representing government union members.  

25 to 1 vividly captures the challenge facing us in California.

 

 

All the best,

 

Chuck DeVore

California State Assemblyman, 70^th District

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