Stretching up the California coast from Lompoc and Vandenberg Air Force Base to the northern boundary of San Luis Obispo County, the state’s 33rd Assembly District is a land of contrasts and unique challenges.
Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) has represented the district since first elected in 2004. However, Blakeslee is set to term out in 2010 and is currently in the running for senator of the 15th District, an office being vacated by the departing Sen. Abel Maldonado.
There are five major candidates looking to replace him. Four Republicans—San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Katcho Achadjian; Santa Maria Planning Commissioner Etta Waterfield; San Luis Obispo financial planner Matt Kokkonen; and Paso Robles City Councilman Fred Strong—will face off in the June 8 primary. One Democrat, Santa Maria City Councilwoman Hilda Zacarias, is running unopposed.
The Sun contacted each of the hopefuls via e-mail and asked them the questions at the forefront for voters this election year and the issues awaiting the winner in Sacramento:
Q: What do you feel are the biggest challenges and issues facing your potential constituents in the 33rd District?
Achadjian: The most important issue today for the Central Coast—and all of California—is job creation. Creating work opportunities and growing the economy are important not only to get our 2.3 million unemployed back to work, but also to bring in the revenue we desire to fund the essential priorities of state government. Addressing California’s $19.1 billion budget deficit is also a significant challenge for our community. The actions the Legislature takes to balance the budget and get spending under control will have a significant impact on funding levels for statewide priorities like public safety and education. These decisions will also impact funding for local priorities like restoring funding for the Williamson Act to preserve farm land and open space.
Kokkonen: In my conversations with voters throughout the 33rd District, I find great concern being expressed over illegal immigration, out-of-control spending, and chronic deficits in Sacramento, as well as the mushrooming cost of public employee pensions. People are deeply worried about the future. They fear for their children and grandchildren as our country seems headed toward bankruptcy and economic catastrophe.
Strong: People are coping with the state of the economy and how it is affecting their previous and present personal and business/professional/student life. From the state’s perspective, this means every interference in their choices is an extreme irritant. I have taken a consistent stand, for more than 30 years, on the record in state and local hearings, against micro-management by the state of local and personal affairs and by the local government into people’s personal lives. Government must create the means by which people can help themselves not do it for them, except in the case of the severely disabled.
Waterfield: Jobs, the economy, and illegal immigration.
Zacarias: Families from Cambria to Lompoc, from Los Osos to Los Alamos, are feeling the economic crunch. We’ve all grown weary of lost jobs, pay cuts, tuition hikes, home foreclosures, and tight family budgets. Seniors are worried, and many feel the need to return to the workforce. People are looking for leaders who understand that government’s role is to energize the economy, not to interfere with it. That means balancing government budgets, reforming the way government does business, and understanding that helping small businesses survive and thrive is key to the region’s economic recovery.
Q: California is facing a projected $19 billion deficit for 2010, and some tough decisions have to be made in the state Legislature regarding which cuts to make in the budget. If you had the power to decide cuts, what areas would you cut and why? What would you consider vitally important to keep fully funded?
Achadjian: A state budget is a statement of California’s priorities. As a county supervisor, I have had experience balancing budgets in tough times. We planned ahead for the future, building reserves in the good times and making the tough but necessary cuts in lean times. Sacramento must do the same. As a state assemblyman, I would fight hard to protect the priorities of the Central Coast’s working families—particularly in the area of public safety. In facing a $19.1 billion deficit, every area of state spending must be on the table. Lawmakers must go through the entire budget—line by line—to find areas where we can cut spending while having as little impact as possible on the services deservedly expected by Californians. In these tough budget times, we must demand that state government spends your tax dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible. Passing reforms to end waste, fraud, and abuse in state government will help Sacramento get its priorities straight—focusing on the delivery of services relied upon by Californians—not funding a growing state bureaucracy.
Kokkonen: Due to the size of the problem, we have to look at every agency and department of state government. An across-the-board 10-percent cut in state spending would save $10 billion immediately. Getting control of our border and stopping benefits to illegal immigrants would save another $11 billion. Privatizing certain state services like CalTrans would save additional monies. There is also a tremendous misallocation of resources in our public school system where tax money is wasted on large, inefficient administrative bureaucracies instead of teacher salaries. We could also save billions of dollars just by returning to the old Gann spending limits in effect during the 1980s.
Strong: Significant cost containment takes years to achieve. We must balance the budget immediately through no new mandated programs without nexus funding, department consolidation, use of telecommuting and teleconferencing instead of travel, a hiring freeze (attrition), labor contract reforms, and maximizing the business climate to generate more income. We must contain costs by reducing non-essential entitlements and local micromanagement; by improving the criminal justice system; sensitive resource extraction; improved transportation systems; economic improvement zones; and tax freezes with indexing should improve revenue without new taxes. Long term we must reduce debt and regain control of the budget process.
Waterfield: We need to take a hard look at everything. Where there is waste and fraud, we need to cut that spending. Where there is unnecessary pork, we need to cut that. A full audit needs to be done of the state’s expenditures. Each department should be looked at to determine where spending can be cut. When I’m in the Assembly, we will look at everything. I would fight to protect public safety funding because I believe public safety must be a priority. We should be able to cut other spending so that we can preserve public safety funding and education.
Zacarias: As an accountant, auditor, small business owner, and nonprofit executive director, I know budgets are a reflection of our values. Investment in our educational system will pay dividends of individual achievement and a well-qualified and trained workforce and must be fully funded. I support safety-net programs that are cost effective and save taxpayers money in the long run. In-home Supportive Services for disabled seniors and child care to allow families to work are two such programs. I would eliminate salaries for political appointees that cost millions annually. And the Legislature must look deeper into every program—even the good ones—to eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency.
Q: Would you support ending the two-thirds majority vote currently required for passing a budget in the state Legislature?
Achadjian: I would not support ending the two-thirds majority vote for passing a budget. The two-thirds budget vote is key to ensure that the state budget reflects Republican input and the views of the hard-working taxpayers we represent in our district. A simple majority vote budget will also remove any check on passing the types of budgets with runaway spending that have nearly bankrupted our state. Paving the way for budgets with reckless overspending will also lead to the constant demand for higher taxes to pay for this unsustainable growth in government that taxpayers can’t afford.
Kokkonen: I absolutely would not support eliminating the two-thirds requirement, as that would only serve to increase taxes and spending even faster.
Strong: The question is too general. Before making such a decision, I’d need to know what change is proposed (up to 75 percent, down to 50 percent plus one, etc.). What are the unintended consequences? Are we only talking about the total budget? What about various specific areas of the budget? For instance, we currently have a two-thirds requirement to lower or suspend some specific education spending within the budget. Would that be changed also? Solutions to problems can only be achieved when reasonable people make rational decisions with full consideration of all options.
Waterfield: No. The two-thirds protects taxpayers from higher taxes. If there’s a good reason to raise taxes, then that reason should be able to gain a two-thirds vote.
Zacarias: In a democracy, all legislative actions must be determined by a majority vote. I will speak out forcefully in favor of an initiative that addresses this structural problem. I feel the most important problem we face in California is the inability to craft a budget, and the two-thirds majority requirement allows a small ideological group of legislators to hold California hostage for their special-interest purposes. The result feeds the general public’s perception of the California Legislature as dysfunctional without placing the blame where it belongs: on a small number of legislators who exert their minority view on the majority of Californians.
Q: In a general sense, what must be done in Sacramento to improve the local economy?
Achadjian: As a business owner myself, I know just how difficult Sacramento has made it to own and operate a business and create jobs in California. Bailouts, subsidizing jobs, and increasing the size of government, as some in Sacramento have proposed, is the wrong approach and will only increase the deficit. The key to improving our economy and inspiring entrepreneurs to create new jobs in our region is to get state government out of the way. High tax fees, costly mandates, and a toxic legal environment imposed by the Legislature are the main reasons why California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Lawmakers must make jobs their top priority by lowering costs, offering incentives, and creating an economic climate in California that welcomes jobs in California rather than driving them away.
Kokkonen: Fewer regulations and lower taxes would help make California businesses more competitive with neighboring states. We are losing thousands of businesses and jobs to Arizona, Nevada, and other states because of the anti-competitive nature of our tax and regulatory structure. For example, we ought to repeal AB 32, the so-called “cap and trade” legislation, and abolish the state tax on capital gains.
Strong: Remand as many areas of regulation as possible back to local government without micro-management from Sacramento. Eliminate as many mandates as possible without seriously jeopardizing the health or safety of our citizens. Create economic improvement areas that allow tax freezes or tax elimination for a specific period of time for specific areas of improvement or new ventures.
Waterfield: California needs to become business friendly, period. In order to increase revenues for our state, we must allow business to do business in California without constant government interference. That means we must cut taxes and regulations that hurt business. Reagan cut taxes across the board and the economy boomed.
Zacarias: Strengthening small business is critical to healing our economy. I support strategies that bring businesses together with nonprofits and the government sector to address issues. I support resources that provide technical assistance and access to funding through increased small business loans, and tax credits for creating jobs. I support sensible tax policies that reward success while ensuring fairness. I support the development of green technologies, alternative energy, and the infrastructure that will add to their successful operations and to the creation of 21st century jobs.
Q: Many Californians these days are fed up with wasteful spending by state legislators. If elected, what would you do to remedy this? Would you support a Constitutional Convention to address spending and budgeting issues?
Achadjian: Lawmakers must understand that we are spending the people’s money, not the Legislature’s money. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers we represent to spend the people’s money as wisely and efficiently as possible. As a county supervisor, I have led by example. When the county faced tough budget times, I cut my own salary and reduced my office budget. The Legislature should do the same. I believe the most important reform we can enact in Sacramento to truly end runaway spending is to pass a strict spending limit and build a strong rainy day fund reserve. A spending limit and rainy day fund will force the Legislature to never spend more than the state takes in, while setting aside money in the good times to plan for the future. I would not support a Constitutional Convention because I fear that it would be used as a forum to weaken Proposition 13 and other strong protections in the state Constitution against higher taxes.
Kokkonen: I don’t know that a Constitutional Convention is the answer. I think we need to elect legislators willing to make the tough decisions on cutting spending, lowering taxes, and eliminating regulations. Again, we ought to return to the Gann spending limit. If those limits had not been weakened in the early 1990s, California would enjoy a large budget surplus today.
Strong: Yes, they are fed up with spending that has been mandated by the courts, special interest initiatives, or the federal government. The Legislature controls less than 20 percent of the General Fund budget. The administration controls most of it. It is our responsibility to pay attention to detail, seek rational conclusions to problems and opportunities, and be willing to deal with everyone. I’m concerned about slash and burn tactics involving any area of government. The various possible outcomes of a Constitutional Convention depend on too many variables. I’m careful of what I wish for. I just might get it.
Waterfield: As mentioned above, California needs to stop spending more money than it brings in. As a legislator, I would make it a priority to balance the budget by cutting unnecessary spending. I would not support any Constitutional Convention.
Zacarias: We must understand that 92 percent of the state’s General Fund budget is restricted (43 percent K-12 education, 10 percent corrections, 25 percent health and social services, 14 percent higher education). California voters imposed many of those restrictions. Because of the recession, state revenues decreased 20 percent or $20 billion, so the current deficit is no surprise. That’s why it’s critical that the state reform its budget process. I support zero-based budgeting, a two-year budget process, and more rigorous oversight and accountability. I also support eliminating big-business tax breaks that disproportionately place the tax burden on middle-class families and small business. I support reform through the legislative process, not a Constitutional Convention.
Q: What are your thoughts on the state of the California public education system, and what can be done to improve the quality of local schools? Do you support reform of Proposition 98? Why or why not?
Achadjian: Improving the quality of public education in California will be one of my top priorities in the state Assembly. I believe we need to have a 21st century education system that prepares our kids to become the next generation of leaders in whatever field they choose. We need to fundamentally change the thinking in Sacramento on education and end the one-size-fits-all, top down mentality that is a disservice to our students. Parents and teachers know far better than Sacramento bureaucrats how to meet the needs of their kids. I will work hard to remove strings on state education dollars, so this money is spent in the classroom and not funding bureaucracy. We must also give local schools greater freedom to contract out with private firms for non-classroom services like yard maintenance, so we can free up even more dollars for the classroom.
Kokkonen: Public education in this state is a disgrace. More than $8,000 per student is spent and more than 40 percent of the state budget, yet we have high school students graduating who can’t even read their diplomas. A major problem is that the public schools are largely insulated from competition. If you had $8,000 per pupil automatically handed to you every year by taxpayers, would you feel the need to compete aggressively with private schools who rely on the limited pool of tuition money available from wealthier parents? Perhaps the better solution would be to give each parent or legal guardian that money directly and let them cash it in for their children’s education at a public, parochial, or private school. That would inject real competition into the system, which would result in better schools and better results.
Strong: The games being played with Proposition 98 must stop. We must take a look at the entire process. Changing gasoline sales taxes to excise taxes in order to slash education funding under “Test One” was deceptive and wrong. We must reduce or eliminate micro-management by eliminating most of the mandates and realigning categorical funding areas, flex programs, and options. The May revise included a $1.2 billion proposed cut in the state Department of Education. If it results in fewer unnecessary mandates, more local flex programs, and authorization for local discretionary use of categorical fund carryovers, it might work.
Waterfield: We need to bring it down to the local level. No other source knows what is needed other than the people of each district. It’s not a “one size fits all,” as it currently stands.
Zacarias: I will support proven reforms. We have ample research, both quantitative and qualitative, that clearly shows what works. This includes class-size reduction, qualified teachers in all core subjects, increasing the number of credentialed counselors, identifying and mitigating learning disabilities, and ensuring that high school equivalency examination allows for training and certification of students who excel in the trades, technical careers, and the service sector. I support Proposition 98, as passed by the voters of California, to guarantee funding of education to ensure all of California’s children are able to achieve.
Q: The California Jobs Initiative and other groups support suspending AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Are you in favor of suspending the law? Why or why not?
Achadjian: I support suspending AB 32. While I support efforts to improve our environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make California the home of green jobs of the future, we must not do so in a way that hurts the economy. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst recently issued a report that detailed that AB 32 would cause job losses in the short term. California’s economy simply cannot afford $143 billion in new taxes, which is what cap and trade would cost the state’s job creators. It’s time for the Legislature to go back to the drawing board on AB 32.
Kokkonen: I am in favor of repealing AB 32 permanently, not suspending it temporarily. So-called “man-made global warming” is based on junk science, and this legislation will bankrupt thousands of California farmers and businesses and raise prices to consumers. We should never enact legislation based on questionable and politically charged “scientific theories.”
Strong: In January, I proposed a one-year suspension of AB 32 and SB 375. I succeeded in getting approval of three out of four committees within the California League of Cities but was unable to get sufficient support on the Board of Directors. The support in the three committees was overwhelming with people of all political persuasions seeing the wisdom of not proceeding with specific programs that have NO FUNDING! You can’t spend what you don’t have, nor order someone else to spend what they don’t have. What part of “We have no money to do this!” don’t people understand?
Waterfield: Yes. This legislative piece will cost California a number of jobs that will in turn cost California families!
Zacarias: I support AB 32, although I would consider revising some of its provisions. I would not suspend it. Like the California Small Business Association, I want to be sure the timing and costs are appropriate and achievable. We may need to help small businesses comply—with tax credits or loans, perhaps. But AB 32 is about doing what we can in California to be part of the solution to global warming, and that’s something I support. AB 32 is not a job killer. In fact, it invites innovation and new technologies to support a clean environment for future generations.
Q: Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue with your would-be constituents. What, if anything, would you do to address the topic as an assemblymember? Do you support the E-Verify program? What is your stance on SB 1070, Arizona’s new immigration law, and would you like to see a similar law in California?
Achadjian: Illegal immigration, regardless of nationality or country of origin, is one of the most serious problems facing our state and nation. California’s budget deficit is fueled in part by the $10 billion we spend every year on illegal immigrant services. We need to secure our borders, remove magnet services that draw outsiders to California, and deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes to their country of origin. Ours is the most humanitarian country in the world. This is embodied in the quote from the inscription on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” However, our country’s generosity should not be taken for granted. Rather, it should be greatly valued by those who choose to immigrate to America. American immigration laws need to be abided by and respected. As a legal immigrant myself, I find it offensive that millions of people have jumped the line, ignoring legal requirements to get into this great country of ours. This is wrong, and something needs to be done about it that stays within the four corners of the Constitution and the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The hard work and sacrifice of legal immigrants merits our respect. I support legal immigration into our country. Enforcement of existing laws honors all legal immigrant families who have played by the rules for their chance to pursue the American Dream.
Kokkonen: I strongly support the Arizona law and have not flip-flopped on the issue like one of my opponents. I would seek to have similar legislation enacted in California. I also support E-Verify, as well as new measures to cut off benefits to illegal immigrants. Illegal aliens are coming to California not only for jobs, but because of the “magnets” of the welfare state: free schooling and free health care. This has to stop. I also would, as a member of the Assembly, support creation of a California Border Patrol and use of the California National Guard so that we can protect our own borders even if the federal government refuses to do so. I would also fight for a test case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning ending automatic citizenship for “anchor babies” under the 14th Amendment. I believe a legitimate reading of the text or background of the amendment (especially involving the clause referring to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) does not apply to people who have broken our laws to enter the country illegally, thus making their children ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth.
Strong: Laws must be enforced. Bad laws should be changed. If there are conflicts between various laws, they must be equitably resolved. What part of “illegal” don’t people understand? E-Verify is just one information system. There are also others. We are not the world’s parent with parental responsibilities. When the federal government doesn’t protect us from criminals, we must do so ourselves. Nations have boundaries. Those boundaries must be respected by the entire international community and enforced by the nation, or jurisdiction, whose borders are being violated by any invading force whether armed or not.
Waterfield: I fully support the Arizona new immigration law. Arizona passed a law that would simply enforce the current laws already on the books. As your representative, I will fight to secure our borders and place the National Guard at the border as well. We need to stop the funding of illegal immigrants. I support ending taxpayer-funded benefits for individuals here illegally. Once we control and secure our borders, we can control and secure our budget.
Zacarias: Immigration is an issue that rightfully belongs under the jurisdiction of the federal government and not the states. Unfortunately, the federal government has dropped the ball. Arizona’s law is the wrong approach. We must focus on stopping criminal activity—the drug trade and human trafficking, not taking away constitutional freedoms of movement. E-Verify has had bipartisan support for a reason—it helps small employers function within the law without burdening them with red tape and expense. It’s time for Congress and the president to do their jobs, adopt appropriate immigration reforms, and then the Legislature should carry out its responsibilities in implementing the law.
Q: In the wake of the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, what is your position on offshore oil drilling in California? Do you support forcing oil companies to share revenue obtained from offshore oil wells with local communities? Why or why not?
Achadjian: As a member of the California Coastal Commission, I have seen hundreds of instances that demand that we find a balance between economic interests and protection of the environment. I do support drilling for oil off the California coast. I believe that with today’s technologies and lessons learned from previous accidents we can discover a balance between drilling for oil and protecting the environment. Oil exploration off our coast also needs to be evaluated in light of its effects on other industries such as fishing, communications, and transportation, so as not to disrupt their operation. Local communities should not be bypassed, and in the interest of fairness these communities should share in revenues generated by offshore exploration.
Kokkonen: I continue to support oil and gas drilling because America needs energy independence and the additional revenue would not hurt our state either. In addition, it will create lots of well paying jobs. The majority of drilling in California can be done onshore by “slant drilling,” which would avoid the kind of disaster we have witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, obviously, revenues generated by the drilling should be used to help bolster the coffers of state and local governments. I support U.S. oil from U.S. soil.
Strong: The gulf breakdown has nothing to do with California. Young people don’t remember what it was like to have tar beaches here before offshore drilling relieved the seepage that killed wildlife on a daily basis. Children got whipped for tracking tar into the house on their bare feet from going to the beach. Responsible off shore drilling is good for the environment and economy. Petroleum is the basis for products from medicine, plastics, and building supplies to clothing, computers, and much more. That resource is an incentive for business to locate here. Revenue sharing options are negotiable.
Waterfield: I am a supporter of drilling offshore as well as onshore. We need to become oil independent from foreign countries who do not have our best interests. The technology of slant drilling has become very safe and effective. The difference between the platforms of the gulf and our coast are completely different. Our platforms are stationary and those of the gulf are not. The depths of the waters differ: Gulf is 5,000 feet, our coast is 1,000 feet.
Zacarias: I have consistently opposed new drilling off of the California coastline and off of the Central Coast specifically. The horrific Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion is evidence of the risks involved with drilling for oil. The oil spill is inflicting major damage to sensitive ecosystems, and there is no end in sight. We must seek energy alternatives that decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. This must be partnered with increased conservation practices to create sustainable communities. I support an oil extraction fee for big oil companies; California is one of only four states in the country that do not require these fees.
Q: In November, California voters will be deciding on the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act, a measure that would end the prohibition of marijuana. What are your thoughts on this measure? What is your opinion of the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the 33rd District?
Achadjian: I would not support this initiative. I do not believe the answer to California’s budget problems is legalizing marijuana and giving society’s OK to what can be a very destructive and harmful lifestyle. The societal costs of legalizing marijuana I believe would far outweigh any revenue the state would stand to gain by taxing marijuana. Here on the Central Coast, we must ensure that medical marijuana dispensaries are strictly regulated and operate fully within the law. We must have zero tolerance for those facilities that allow those without prescriptions to purchase marijuana in violation of the law.
Kokkonen: I would oppose efforts to legalize marijuana in this state, and I do not favor such dispensaries in our local communities.
Strong: I have close family that have severe medical problems controlled by that method. However, I’m very cautious about implementation because of abuses. We yield, on one hand, to restrictions on the use of tobacco while receiving pressure to ease restrictions on marijuana. Both may cause respiratory problems. Government should not interfere with people’s lifestyles if possible. I can support use and production in a restricted and controlled manner, as is done with tobacco. I do not agree with dispensaries instead of pharmacies, clinics, or doctors’ offices for distribution and treatment.
Waterfield: I oppose the legalization of marijuana for any reason. It’s an illegal and dangerous drug, and we need to support those on the frontlines in the war on drugs.
Zacarias: I support current law on medical marijuana. I’m reserving judgment on full legalization, but I remain concerned about its consequences. Growing and selling marijuana remains a federal crime. Are we creating more governmental dysfunction? Under current law, marijuana is treated like pseudoephedrine and prescription pain relievers. Proponents of the measure want to compare it to using tobacco. We’ve fought for years to reduce tobacco consumption, especially among our youth. How far will this set that effort back?
Q: The medical marijuana debate also brings up issues of states’ rights vs. federal rights. How important are states’ rights and state sovereignty to you?
Achadjian: States’ rights and state sovereignty are very important to me. However, there are areas where the power and responsibilities of the federal government clearly supersede those of states. National drug control policy is one of those areas.
Kokkonen: State sovereignty is supreme in my book. For decades, the states have been progressively losing their rights to the giant monolithic central government in Washington, D.C., whose tentacles have grown to touch and control almost every aspect of our lives. I am running to seek a return to the Tenth Amendment, which limits the central government only to certain enumerated powers, leaving all other powers with the states or people. I personally had a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on an issue involving state jurisdiction versus federal jurisdiction. I won a unanimous 9-0 decision in 1994 favoring state jurisdiction.
Strong: I believe it brings up the question of individual rights as well as states’ rights. As long as the product is produced and used within a single political jurisdiction, that jurisdiction has the only legitimate regulatory authorization, in my opinion. However, making that determination is difficult at best. The federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. All “rights” are important to me. I am cautious about what are claimed as “rights” but may really be desires or licenses, however.
Waterfield: State and federal laws should work together to find a balance in protecting citizens. When federal law refuses to enforce the laws, states should do whatever it takes to protect the citizens and enforce those laws. For example, Arizona is enforcing federal law. They have not created anything new, they are just enforcing what is already on the books. They are protecting their citizens from a threat, something the federal government has not been doing.
Zacarias: I believe creative tension between the rights and responsibilities of states and the federal government is in good balance. Neither are fully meeting their responsibilities right now, and I am running to help fix that. Without federal law, however, we would still have racially segregated restrooms and buses in some parts of the country. We would have a far wider disparity between the richest and poorest in this nation. And the environment doesn’t recognize state lines. On the other hand, California in particular has done a great job of prodding federal action—on air quality, consumer protection, and offshore drilling, for example. That creative tension works.
Contact Staff Writer Jeremy Thomas at jthomas@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 3-10, 2010.