Capitol Punishment: Political Survival Overtakes Reason Guest Column by Gregory N. Lippe The purpose of my guest column is to inform readers of the many anti-job and anti-business bills our legislators are proposing and to present a scorecard of those Valley legislators who are voting for or against these bills. My goal is to assure that the next time readers vote on whether to re-elect their legislators, they will do so with a better understanding of the performance of these legislators regarding issues affecting jobs and businesses. “Vote for me! I will bring new ideas and positive change to our state government.” These or similar words are frequently said by candidates seeking to be elected to our state legislature. I am sure that many of those candidates, especially those that are new to politics, believe that they can deliver on their promises. Why then, has our state seen a number of new legislators in recent years, yet we haven’t seen new ideas or positive change? Why are new bills that are driving businesses and jobs out of California continuing to be introduced and passed? Why are most of our legislators voting strictly according to party lines instead of basing their decisions on what is good for the state? I interviewed legislators from both parties and found the answers to these questions to be quite disturbing and confirming of certain suspicions that I had. First, there are many who are beholden to special interests that provided significant funds to finance their campaigns. Second, term limits and redistricting have created a situation where legislators’ time is significantly consumed by campaigning for office, either their final term in their current office or for the next office, since they cannot continue in the one they have. Redistricting has resulted in so called “safe seats.” These seats are virtually guaranteed to continue with the same party, since the districts are established according to party lines. The seats are not, however, guaranteed to the incumbent candidate. Therefore, the key election for the incumbent is the primary. To be successful in the primary, he or she must have party support. To maintain party support, a Democrat cannot afford to be outflanked on the left by a Democratic challenger and a Republican cannot afford to be outflanked on the right. Third, is the “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours” concept. If a legislator wants support of others in his party for one or more of his bills, he must support the bills introduced by those whose support he needs. There are also forms of punishment that can be used by a party to deal with those who do not vote with the party. Two examples are found in the recent budget fiasco. First, Jim Brulte, the ranking Republican in the Senate, told his fellow Republicans that if any of them voted for increased income taxes, he would see that they did not get re-elected. Second, when Assemblymembers Keith Richman, R-Northridge, and Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, proposed a good business-sense budget compromise, neither received the support of their respective parties and Assemblymember Richman was passed over in the selection of the conference committee on workers’ compensation reform even though he was a major champion of reform. All this strongly suggests that the main reason many of our legislators vote as they do is to maintain and further their legislative careers, not to benefit the people of California. The following are two anti-business bills that I have chosen to profile this month: – AB 572: Provides that it is unlawful for an employer to subject an employee to an adverse employment action because the employee refuses to work under a condition or practice that the employee believes is unsafe or dangerous, even if no occupational health standard or order is being violated. Adds new grounds for retaliation suits against employers, increases penalties and adds personal liability to employers. The potential additional costs of insurance and litigation are a disincentive for the creation of jobs and an incentive to utilize fewer employees. Status: Passed Assembly June 2, 2003, failed in Senate committee Aug. 28, 2003. Valley Assemblymembers voting for bill: Frommer, Koretz, Levine, Montanez, Pavley Valley Assemblymembers voting against bill: Richman, Strickland – SB 18: Grants power to the Native American Heritage Commission to block a proposed development project or require expensive project changes or mitigation measures to protect an alleged Native American sacred site from a “substantial adverse change.” The sacred site, to be known as a Traditional Tribal Cultural Site (TTCS) may be either listed in a confidential TTCS Register or be “eligible for listing” in such Register. A Native American tribe could conceivably designate almost any land site as a TTCS eligible for listing in the Register. The commission would then make a final determination and a landowner would either be forced to abide by an adverse decision or go through a lengthy and costly consultation or appeals process with the hope of developing his property. This will potentially stifle development, create tremendous additional costs and cause a significant loss of jobs and decreased property values. Status: Passed Senate June 2, 2003, failed Assembly, Sept. 13, 2003, currently under reconsideration in Assembly with possible action in January 2004. Valley legislators voting for bill: Senate: Alarcon, Kuehl, Scott, Margett, Assembly: Koretz, Levine, Montanez, Pavley, Strickland Valley legislators voting against bill: Senate: Knight, Assembly: Richman Valley legislators absent, abstaining or not voting: Senate: none, Assembly: Frommer Gregory N. Lippe, CPA, is managing partner of the Woodland Hills-based CPA firm of Lever, Lippe, Hellie & Russell LLP (LLHR) and a director of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA).
