Slo Coast Journal Endorses Laird
by Jack McCurdy
Synopsis: The Central Coast has a golden opportunity to elect a state Senator who will reach out, listen to and actually get things done for this area, long neglected by our representatives in Sacramento. It's easy to get the invaluable one we need: everyone should vote for John Laird in the special election on August 17.
John Laird is a dream candidate, especially for the Central Coast.
Probably for the first time, San Luis Obispo County has a chance to be represented by someone in Sacramento who is dedicated to the best interests of residents and local businesses rather than the profits of corporations, who has vast experience and remarkable accomplishments in the Legislature, and who became one of the most influential decisionmakers in the Assembly—someone who is not just another well-meaning but unproven representative, but someone who can get things done and has a track record to prove it.
Laird is—simply put—a treasure. We are the ones who will profit if he is elected to the state Senate at the special election on August 17. He is running in the district that stretches from Santa Maria to Santa Cruz. Given his past history of listening to and systematically seeking out the views of all constituents during six years in the Assembly representing portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara Counties, this county can rest assured it won't get lost in the mix of that large Senatorial district.
Just as important as electing Laird is avoiding the alternative—Sam Blakeslee, who parades as a moderate and bipartisan member of the Assembly from this area but whose voting record demonstrates without the shadow of a doubt that he personifies everything hard-right Republicans stand for, including offshore oil drilling. He covertly had his support for offshore oil drilling expunged from the legislative record after it came to be unfashionable to support offshore oil drilling of any kind.
Blakeslee has signed a pledge with other Republicans never to raise taxes, as he watches—with few, if any, expressions of regret—our public schools crumble, tuition for state universities and colleges price-out untold numbers of would-be students, local governments being stripped of funds by the state, local police forces cut, child care and health services facing severe reductions, pending elimination of home care for the disabled, and the state itself edging toward the brink of a $19 billion deficit that beholds catastrophe. Why not at least offer gestures of sympathy at this agony for people? Because it is what he and Republicans want: less spending and smaller government—at any cost.
By contrast, Laird is ready to fight against these debilitating cuts and destruction of our way of life in California by proposing a tax on oil that could potentially produce many billions of dollars for use in rescuing the state. But it needs the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the state Senate, which Laird's election and that of one more Democrat in November (which appears promising) would produce. Blakeslee's election would seal our fate because all Republicans have taken the no-tax of any kind pledge, regardless of the consequences.
As the third largest oil producer in the nation, California is the only one of the 22 major oil states without an oil severance tax, which is a levy on every barrel that drillers take out of the California underground, according to Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik (See Article). Depending on the size of the tax, it could produce billions toward avoiding past and pending cuts in state services for children and the needy and would help to close the state's budget deficit long-term.
"While California is struggling with record deficits and education funding is being gutted, big oil is enjoying historic profits," Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont) pointed out.
As former state Assembly budget committee chair (one of the most eminent positions in Sacramento), Laird knows taxes in and out and how they affect the lives of ordinary people. This is why it is a safe bet he would never advocate or support general tax increases, especially during this recession, and why Blakeslee's political stroke to paint Laird as a "big spender" is groundless (unless big spender means supporting an oil severance tax).
A former Exxon oil executive, Blakeslee and other Republicans—in lock-step—call for cuts in state spending, rather than raising taxes on oil companies, from which, by the way, he has accepted more than $1 million in campaign contributions. But where does he and other others want to cut? You rarely, if ever, hear anything along those lines because Blakeslee isn't going to risk talking specifics, and the local media never ask such hard questions.
Yet, Blakeslee deserves substantial blame for the state's financial plight. He has been the minority Republican leader in the Assembly for the past year. During that time, his own campaign website says he was among a "group of legislative leaders that reaches final agreement on key issues such as the state budget." What did that accomplish? It sanctioned the cuts to schools, colleges, and the other services cited above. But they "did not raise taxes," the site proudly states.
While all nine newspapers outside the county have endorsed Laird, the local media have given Blakeslee a free ride, never reporting on his anti-environmental, pro-corporate voting record.
But Blakeslee's anti-environmental voting record is well documented. Just go to EcoVote and check out the League of Conservation Voters' scorecard on all state legislators. It reveals he has only a 25% lifetime pro-environmental rating by the California League of Conservation Voters.
And it shows that "Blakeslee has one of the worst records in the Assembly on the environment. His lifetime rating is less than half of a real GOP moderate on the conservation issues." This, according to Steven Maviglio, writing in the California Majority Report, a Democratic blog that is based not on opinion, but on voting records.
Yet before the June 22 primary election Blakeslee told the San Jose Mercury News, "I have been an environmental Republican throughout my service. I’ve never wavered on my protection of the coast."
But "as a member of the Assembly Budget subcommittee that approves all budget items for environment-related departments, Blakeslee consistently voted against any budget augmentation for the California Coastal Commission," according to the Santa Lucian, the official newsletter of the Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club, which covers the Central Coast area. The Coastal Commission is more responsible than any other institution or individual for preserving California's coast over the past 35 years.
"Blakeslee has voted to render enforcement of the California Coastal Act (which created the Coastal Commission) and sanctions against violators ineffective or impossible. He voted against every coastal bill that came before the legislature in 2009," the Santa Lucian said in its July/August issue. "''Fighting to protect our scenic coastline' is the least plausible environmental claim Blakeslee could make based on his record." A detailed critique of Blakeslee's environmental record is on Page 9.
In contrast, during "his six years in the State Assembly, John Laird scored 100 percent—every year, for six years," the newsletter reported.
But Blakeslee's voting record goes far beyond the environment. The Congress of California Seniors reported he had a 33% score on issues important to seniors, 30% on racial equality issues tracked by the Applied Research Center, 13% by the Consumer Federation of California and zero percent by NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice California on women's reproductive rights. In contrast, Abel Maldonado, now lieutenant governor and who Blakeslee and Laird are seeking to replace as state Senator, had a 100% score from the Pro-Choice California organization.
The only thing Blakeslee has ever remotely done to protect the coast was his successful bill in 2006 to require an assessment of the vulnerability of the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear plants to an earthquake. A second bill requiring PG&E to conduct a study of a newly-discovered fault in the ocean near Diablo Canyon was vetoed. Blakeslee's efforts resulted in the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility's Legal Fund endorsing him for state Senator.
However, the Alliance has made no mention of Blakelsee's failure to take a position on the highly-controversial proposed relicensing of the Diablo Canyon plant, which the Alliance is vigorously opposing because it is being sought by owner PG&E for 14 years before the current license to operate the plant is scheduled to expire. And, just as important, because PG&E is trying to win approval of the new license even before the study of the plant's vulnerability to an earthquake is conducted.
The first opportunity for local residents to compare Baird and Blakeslee was scheduled at Cuesta College last week on July 26, attended by Laird, independent candidate Jim Fitzgerald and libertarian candidate Mark Hinkle. But Blakeslee didn't show, saying he had an important budget meeting with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in Sacramento that day, even though the debate didn't start until 7 pm.
Afterward, Laird issued a statement saying "I have never before been in a campaign in which a major candidate has been hidden away from the public during the entire campaign, choosing negative mailers and television advertisements as his method of communication." "The voters deserve to be able to see a candidate in person," Laird added, and have an opportunity to hear his answers to questions about "one of the greatest crises in state government in modern times."
At the conclusion of the debate, Laird told the audience of more than 100 persons that, based on his many years of experience as an elected city council member, mayor, college trustee, and Assembly member, voters need and should "want someone who you can bring something to and who will follow up on it." Laird didn't have to say he would be that someone because his record shows it to be true.
Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state Senate district by six percent. So it's all about Democrats turning out to vote.
Let's make the dream come true by electing John Laird on August 17.
Laird's candidacy is supported by the Slo Coast Journal
|
