Editorials - editorials's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Open season on campaign theft

PUBLISHED 10/3/08 ----

Mind if we kidnap your big-screen TV while you’re at work today? We’ll bring it back right after the football season. Promise. Oh, and can you manage without your spiffy little classic Porsche this weekend? A few days at the coast and we’ll have it back in your driveway without a scratch. Really. Assuming all goes well.

You may be under the impression that these confiscations of your property are theft. Sorry, you’ll have to prove we do not actually intend to return them. Because we will, honest.

Absurd? Well, of course it is. But these scenarios follow the bizarre logic established this week by Kern County District Attorney Ed Jagels. The DA has declined to prosecute KERN radio talk show host Scott Cox for “kidnapping” 15 campaign signs that belong to Kern High School District trustee Chad Vegas. Jagels is shocked — shocked! — that his staff can’t seem to find an applicable provision of the penal code.

Cox, who originally denied his involvement in the signs’ disappearances, now admits he and his son swiped the incumbent trustee’s signs as a prank. He says he planned to replace them and then take on-air credit for negotiating their release.

That would be funny if not for the fact campaign signs, by their nature, have value only for a limited time. They cost Vegas $35 apiece, or $525, when he bought them a month or so ago. They’ll be worth zip, or close to it, on Nov. 5 — the day after the election.

That gives them a discernible per-day value. Can we safely say Vegas was irreversibly deprived of $50 of their value? Maybe $75? Try “borrowing” $75 worth of merchandise from Wal-Mart and see where that lands you.

It took Vegas and a friend two days and half a tank of gas to put those signs out in the first place. Now they’re putting the same ones out again as time allows. What does that add to Vegas’ losses from this little prank?

Vegas, a controversial figure who is seeking a second term on the board of the state’s largest high school district, believes he’ll win reelection almost no matter what. The whole Cox fiasco probably does him no harm in terms of the campaign. In fact, the publicity probably helps both men. Cox might have even worked his day in court into an entertaining on-air bit — even if, as seems appropriate, this had been plea-bargained down to a slap on the wrist.

But, by passing this off as unprosecutable, the DA sends a bad message: “Borrow” others’ campaign signs at will. Stifle another person’s First Amendment rights as long as it’s in good fun. Thievery can be hilarious!

Does it help to be a popular radio personality tweaking an often-tweaked political figure? We’d hate to think so. But that’s one inescapable conclusion.

The only other possibility: It’s open season on campaign signs, big screen TVs and anything else you “plan to return.”

No on Proposition 7

PUBLISHED 10/02/08 ------

Seldom have we seen a ballot measure unite so many often-warring interests — utility companies, environmental groups, government energy regulators, alternative energy producers and both political parties.

The problem: Proposition 7 has united these groups in opposition.

Prop. 7 is so poorly written and the potential consequences so dire that groups that would normally support an alternative energy initiation are screaming: NO!

California voters should join this chorus of concern on Nov. 4. Vote NO on Prop. 7.
The initiative’s goals are admirable: reduce California’s dependence on fossil fuel and reduce global warming.

But the brainchild of Arizona billionaires John and Peter Sterling, the founders of the University of Phoenix, went off track at the start. They failed to adequately consult with groups long involved in California’s development of alternative energy. Instead they created a nightmare of consequences that could spike energy costs and set back the movement.

The initiative requires California utilities to obtain 50 percent of their energy from alternative sources — solar, wind, biomass, etc. — by 2025. California already is on track to increase these supplies. But 50 percent by 2025 is doubtful.

The initiative seems to exclude systems that generate less than 30 megawatts from the state’s renewable-power goal. Tough break for rooftop systems and smaller plants.
The initiative allows alternative producers to charge over 10 percent more than the going rate for their energy and locks utilities into 20-year contracts.

Enacting this flawed and complicated scheme through the initiative process requires a difficult two-thirds vote of the Legislature or voter approval to correct problems.
The out-of-state billionaires who concocted this scheme should have kept the $7.5 million they already have spent on the campaign in their pockets.

How does Interstate 7 sound?

PUBLISHED 10/01 -----

Now that the state’s budgetary smoke has begun to clear, expect the long-discussed conversion of Highway 99 from a state route to a federal interstate to come back to the table.

California Department of Transportation officials believe they can get a waiver on many of the requirements that would normally have been associated with transforming the San Joaquin Valley’s main artery into an interstate highway.

Back in 2005, Caltrans officials said the switch would run somewhere between $14 billion and $19 billion — a certain deal-breaker. Interstate freeway standards would require wider shoulders and taller overcrossings, to name just two issues.

But Federal Highway Administration officials are said to be considering exemptions that would forgive all but approximately $1 billion of the modifications that had previously been demanded of the 273-mile road.

That’s a more encouraging scenario, but even if the Central Valley gets that huge break, we have to wonder if the deal is worthwhile. New projects not yet on the board, as well as maintenance upgrades, would have to be built to higher interstate standards. The costs could tie up Kern County transportation funds for years to come, with few discernable advantages.

“We have not been able to document any benefits” from the upgrade of Highway 99 to interstate status, Ron Brummett, of the Kern Council of Governments, says. “You’ve got a group of Fresno business people who say the switch will help, but the economic development people up and down the valley say they don’t care. The only thing they care about: Is there a freeway and is there capacity to ship my goods?”

If the transition takes place, Central Valley cities will have to start getting used to Interstate 7 (or Interstate 9 — it’s much too early to say). Advocates of the transition say the lack of an easily accessible federal highway is one of the chief reasons national and international firms have been reluctant to locate in the Central Valley. The fat blue line that interstates represent on the maps, they say, can change that. Opponents say it would make little difference.

Unless Kern County approves a half-cent sales tax someday soon, changing the entire transportation funding dynamic (as has been the case in Fresno County and elsewhere in the valley), we can’t afford to endorse Highway 99’s conversion to an interstate. That is, unless the federal government accepts Kern County highways into the interstate family on an as-is basis and allows them to be incrementally improved over the next 50 years or so. We’re not holding our breath for that.

Quit posturing and get it done

PUBLISHED 9/30/08 -----

House Republicans gave voice to millions of angry, frustrated Americans when they voted Monday to reject the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

But in doing so, bailout opponents did nothing to stem the tide of economic peril facing this nation. In fact, they’ve waded deeper — taking us all with them in the process.
“The Dow just dropped by 600 points!” Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., shouted on the floor of the House as the outcome of the vote became evident. If only it were merely that bad: The Dow Jones Industrial Average went on to drop by 7 percent Monday — falling 777 points, the biggest single point drop in history.

Wall Street is hanging on every utterance, every bead of sweat that falls in Congress — and the volatile market reflects it. Now the nation’s financial markets must wait and wonder until Thursday, when Congress is scheduled to reconsider a bailout package of some sort.

The government — that is, all of us — can scarcely afford to become a major shareholder in the nation’s economic engines, but neither can we afford not to. The only outcome that matters is survival of Americans’ sources of wealth and income — from 401(k) accounts on up. And that is in serious jeopardy.

Monday’s vote seems to ignore that, as Wall Street’s reaction demonstrated. House Republicans have acted out of ideological discomfort. It’s better that markets sort themselves out alone, the reasoning goes, and government stay out of the way. That’s not going to work this time.

It hardly matters why we’re in this position, whether it’s greed, inattention, irresponsibility, or overreliance in a laissez faire model of regulation — circumstances demand strong, decisive action.

House Republicans’ concerns are understandable. Why should average Americans pay to rescue those who managed their own affairs so recklessly? But there will be no justice in this affair, no matter which course is taken. And there could be widespread ruin if Congress simply washes its hands and walks away.

The present credit crunch has financial institutions, investors and businesses alike hoarding cash out of fear and uncertainty. Many banks are shutting down existing lines of credit to otherwise healthy businesses. Solid, solvent, financially prudent companies are already paying a premium for short-term debt. And the costs will be passed onto consumers and employees. Ordinary taxpayers are watching their retirement accounts shrink even as it becomes harder to get mortgages and car loans.

Congress needs to take aggressive action, and immediately. The partisan grandstanding must end. Yes, taxpayers must be assured they’ll get equity out of the deal — but in any case there must be a deal.

Modified bailout must go forward

PUBLISHED 9/28/08 ----

Ordinary taxpayers have every right to be outraged by the prospect of the proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, even if they may reluctantly agree that such action is necessary.

Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe Congress should go ahead with the unprecedented intervention President Bush formally proposed to the nation last Wednesday, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll. But they have every right to be angry about it, and are correct to insist that lawmakers tailor the plan to better suit taxpayers’ interests.

Meaningful participation in the affairs of Wall Street is, for average Americans, often limited to the value of their 401(k) portfolios. Now even those are at risk because Wall Street got greedy and overplayed its hand.

The stakes for this proposed bailout are high: Bush laid out a scenario far more dire than anything we’ve heard described previously. He talked of a “danger” to the economy that could result in job losses potentially affecting “millions.” In other words, economic apocalypse the likes of which we haven’t seen since 1929.

This financial crisis was caused by integrity issues (including giving unqualified borrowers subprime housing loans), speculators, stock market short-sellers and an inattentive government wholly committed to a warts-and-all, hands-off, laissez-faire approach to the nation’s economic engines.

This is what that approach has wrought: A credit crunch that has financial institutions, investors and businesses alike hoarding cash out of fear and uncertainty. Many banks are shutting down existing lines of credit to otherwise healthy businesses. Solid, solvent, financially prudent companies like Caterpillar and Honda are already paying a premium for short-term debt — costs that will be passed onto consumers and employees.

And ordinary folks are getting it from all directions, watching their retirement accounts shrink even as it becomes harder to get mortgages and car loans.

Any bailout plan must ensure that taxpayers get some equity out of the deal, Congress maintains oversight and accountability, and corporate executives are barred from pocketing any portion of the “windfall.”

Ours is already a culture replete with caricatures of CEOs at the cash-out window. In the past 18 months alone, Countrywide Financial’s former chief executive officer, Angelo Mozilo, floated gently to earth with a $77.5 million golden parachute; Merrill Lynch’s ex-CEO, Stanley O’Neal, cashed a $161 million severance check; and Citigroup’s former CEO, Charles Prince, took home a $68 million farewell package.

It is precisely because of that perceived imbalance that the plan must attach stringent rules to the disbursement of bailout bucks.

It’s hard to fully accept the recommendation of an administration that, until Bush’s address last week, had been strangely silent on the issue, even as the signs of meltdown continued to grow. But dramatic steps are in order.

The government must start buying up the shaky assets of teetering financial firms in order to beat back a recession — or worse. That doesn’t mean we have to like the way the government goes about it. It just means we have to be supportive and attentive.

Tonight’s debate must go forward

PUBLISHED 9/26/08 -----

The government’s proposed bailout of Wall Street merits the attention of every legislator, economist and administration official in Washington. That doesn’t mean two senators can’t pull away from it for a half a day to take part in another important piece of the people’s business: the electing of a president.

Sen. John McCain suggested he and Sen. Barack Obama postpone tonight’s debate in order to weigh in on the nation’s economic meltdown. Obama, however, was not inclined to skip the debate, although on Thursday he met with President Bush and others, including McCain, to discuss the bailout.

Now it’s time for the two candidates to prove they can pull off the political equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Despite the breakdown in bailout talks Thursday night, the 90-minute debate should go forward at 6 p.m. local time tonight.

Tonight’s debate at the University of Mississippi will focus on foreign policy. That might seem anticlimactic or off-topic, given all the sudden, understandable attention to the economy, but Wall Street’s troubles have foreign policy implications, as the candidates should make clear tonight.

Tonight’s debate in Oxford, Miss., will be moderated by newsman Jim Lehrer, with the candidates seated alongside him at a table. The candidates will also have opportunities for direct exchanges.

The second presidential debate will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 7, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. Moderated by newsman Tom Brokaw, the debate will feature a town-hall format and wide-ranging questions provided by undecided voters in the Nashville area, as well as from e-mailers.

The third presidential debate will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Candidates will be seated around a table with the moderator, newsman Bob Schieffer. Domestic issues — no doubt starting with the unprecedented economic bailout — will be the focus.

The vice presidential candidates, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, will face each other in one debate on Thursday, Oct. 2, at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. Candidates will be seated around a table with the moderator, newswoman Gwen Ifill. They will address a wide range of questions about foreign policy and domestic issues.

Televised presidential debates date back to 1960, when 70 million people tuned in to watch Democrat John F. Kennedy debate Republican Richard Nixon. But they disappeared from the election scene for 16 years when President Lyndon Johnson refused to debate Republican challenger Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Nixon likewise refused to debate opponents in 1968 and 1972.

In 1976, incumbent President Gerald Ford challenged Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, returning debates to their rightful and essential role in helping voters weigh candidates’ qualification.

Once managed by the League of Women Voters, they are now overseen by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization established by the Republican and Democratic parties.

Some criticize the arrangement, contending it excludes third-party candidates. To be included, a candidate must show support from 15 percent of the electorate (as demonstrated in recognized polls).

The system may not be perfect. But these debates provide rare opportunities to assess candidates side-by-side. Perhaps this campaign, more than earlier ones, requires this type of scrutiny.

We have heard a lot of bickering about experience and knowledge in foreign and domestic fields. These debate will be a chance for the candidates to put their mouths where their campaign advertising dollars have been. Let’s all tune in and watch.

Safety must be top concern

PUBLISHED 9/25/08 -----

Lord knows, Kern County can use more jobs. And the money poured into the local economy from expansion of the Big West refinery would be a godsend in these dire economic times.

But the economic benefits of the refinery’s expansion cannot outweigh concerns for public safety.

The refinery has existed for decades on Rosedale Highway. Once on the outskirts of town, the refinery is now surrounded by homes, stores, schools and businesses.

Under its new owners, Big West, a subsidiary of Flying J, a $700 million expansion is being proposed. Company officials call it the “Clean Fuels Project” because it will allow the facility to boost gasoline and diesel output without increasing the volume of crude oil coming into the facility.

At first, the company proposed using hydrofluoric acid to boost this production. But that triggered a public outcry over the highly toxic chemical that would create a widespread killing zone if it escaped from the refinery.

In response, Big West changed its plans, calling for the use of modified hydrofluoric acid. Some refineries use sulfuric acid instead.

With concerns remaining over the use of both modified hydrofluoric and sulfuric acids, county planners and consultants have identified a less risky alternative that would convert gas oil into gasoline and diesel by building a new processing unit similar to one now operating at the refinery.

In addition to avoiding the use of higher-risk chemicals, it would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases and create less odor.

While Big West prefers its original plan to use hydrofluoric acid, company officials have acknowledged the county’s alternative is safer. However, it will make the expansion less profitable.

County staff also is requiring Big West to adjust its expansion plans to address the project’s environmental and safety impacts. These adjustments include the planting of 10,000 trees, and the installation of sophisticated monitoring and emergency response systems.

The additional requirements are similar to those that would be placed on recently constructed refineries, according to Ted James, Kern County’s planning director.
Tonight, Kern County planning commissioners will consider the company’s request to expand the Rosedale Highway refinery.

Commissioners will be advising the Kern County Board of Supervisors on Big West’s application for a precise development plan, height variance, and conditional-use permits to cover injection wells and storage tanks. Supervisors are expected to consider the project in late October.

In their deliberations, planning commissioners and supervisors are urged to place safety first.

Interior giving away millions

PUBLISHED 9/24/08 ----

The inappropriate exchange of money and favors between representatives of the oil industry and the U.S. Department of the Interior led to one of this country’s most memorable scandals.

Kickbacks and questionable loans from oil executives worth $5 million in today’s dollars led to the downfall and ultimate imprisonment of the Secretary of the Interior in the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s. Had President Warren G. Harding not died before the scandal fully revealed itself, he no doubt would have paid dearly at the polls. As it was, the scandal (which prominently involved the Elk Hills oil field near Bakersfield) marred Harding’s legacy irreparably.

But in the context of the battered George W. Bush presidency, a scandal with similar overtones barely rates raised eyebrows.

Officials from the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversees collection of billions in annual royalties from oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands, accepted gifts from and had sex with oil company contacts, according to the agency’s inspector general.

Now, Congress is asking representatives of Royal Dutch Shell Group, Chevron Corp. and Gary-Williams Energy Corp. what their top executives knew about gifts and inappropriate relationships with Interior Department officials.

This sort of scandal might be a shock under any other president, but given the Bush administration’s close, longstanding relationship with the oil industry, and its record of dubious governance on many fronts, it’s really just business as usual.

Consider these scandals and improprieties, from the Department of the Interior alone:

• Former Deputy Interior Secretary Stephen Griles is currently serving time in prison for lying about being the “guy in Interior” who answered to felonious super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

• Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald resigned for “personally reversing scientific findings, changing scientific conclusions to prevent endangered species from receiving protection, removing relevant information from a scientific document, and ordering the Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt her edits,” according to a Union of Concerned Scientists report. She also gave internal documents to oil companies and property rights groups.

• Two Interior Department employees have pleaded guilty in recent days to fixing bids. Most recent was Milton K. Dial, the Minerals Revenue Management division’s former deputy associate director. Dial arranged a contract for a former colleague and then took a job with that colleague within six months of his retirement, a violation of restrictions on such behavior.

• The Interior Department continues to allow two dozen oil companies to produce oil in the Gulf of Mexico without paying billions of dollars in royalties. Among those leading the way: Kerr-McGee, which at one point sought an astounding $28 billion in royalty relief from the government over a five-year period.

And the Interior Department would be in charge of supervising oil companies’ proposed expansion of offshore drilling operations? Scary.

First, we deserve to know more about oil companies’ degree of infiltration into the federal agency that’s supposed to be extracting royalties from this most profitable of industries.

Congress seems prepared to start asking. Rep. Edward J. Markey , D-Mass., the chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, wants to know:

• Did senior oil executives know employees were providing gifts to their counterparts at the Department of the Interior?

• Did top company executives instruct any employees to insinuate themselves into “inappropriately close relationships” with Interior officials?

• Did the oil companies set aside money to buy gifts for government employees, or any Bush administration officials?

New, pending legislation orders the Secretary of the Interior to initiate robust ethics training programs and puts in place a strict gift ban for government employees. Worthy of approval? That would seem to be a given.

Royalties are one of the largest sources of revenue for the federal government after taxes. Giving it away in broad daylight is bad enough. Apparently the Interior Department gives it away when the lights go out, too. It’s a sorry new low for the Bush administration.

Vote NO on Proposition 2

PUBLISHED 9/23/08 -----

Few can argue that animals, including farm animals raised to be eaten or to produce our food, should be treated humanely.

But Proposition 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot threatens to decimate an entire industry and substantially add to consumers’ sticker shock at the grocery checkout counter.
The initiative’s ballot summary:

Requires calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.

Prop. 2 pretends to address the treatment of calves raised for veal and pregnant pigs. But, it really targets egg producers. Little if any veal is raised in California. Swine producers have already changed their breeding and confining practices.

California ranks sixth in the nation for egg production. Rather than targeting larger producing states with confinement limits, animal rights activists placed Prop. 2 on the California ballot where they hope voters will be more sympathetic and more easily duped.

If voters pass Prop. 2, it will no longer be practical to house laying hens in cages. Egg production will be either cage-free or free-range.

Consumers primarily buy lower-cost eggs produced in caged environments. Cage-free, free-range or organic eggs cost much more. Most producers use all of these techniques, but note consumers demand the cheaper egg.

Producers contend caging laying hens avoids exposure to diseases that can be passed to consumers. Disputing hens are treated inhumanely by being caged, producers note that egg production decreases — and their profits drop — if the animals are stressed or abused.

If Prop. 2 passes, egg producers say they will have to close their operations or relocate out of state. Meeting increased caging requirements or allowing hens to be cage-free would add to operating costs, making California eggs less able to compete with cheaper out-of-state eggs. Nothing in Prop. 2 would prevent the importation of eggs to California from other states or Mexico.

This should concern consumers. California has some of the nation’s most stringent egg quality standards that do not apply other states.

Utility surcharge improves roads

PUBLISHED 9/21/08 -----

Do we like it? No. Was it the right thing to do? Yes. On a 5-2 vote, with Sue Benham and David Couch voting no, the Bakersfield City Council last week renewed a long-term franchise agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that will add a 1 percent surcharge to utility bills in the city.

The “new” money will be earmarked to help pay the city’s share of a massive construction project to unsnarl metropolitan Bakersfield’s roads.

At that same meeting, City Council members nearly doubled developer fees — money developers pay to build regional roads and other improvements to support their building projects and stretch municipal services impacted by their new home and commercial construction.

The increased developer fees and utility surcharge are part of the city’s efforts to pay its matching share of the more than $700 million in federal transportation dollars that former Rep. Bill Thomas corralled for his hometown before he retired from Congress.

But to use that money and to expand and improve the area’s much-needed roads, the city must cough up $400 million to match the Thomas funds and to complete related projects. The total cost of the building program is about $2 billion.

That’s a lot of money. Voters have rejected proposals to temporarily increase the local sales tax to help pay for these projects. And with other politicians — notably Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature — flirting with plans to temporarily raise the statewide sales tax to close a huge state budget deficit — the future of a local sales tax increase is bleak.

PG&E has a franchise agreement with Bakersfield to use the city’s right-of-way and for other concessions. The existing agreement, which expires in December, was signed in 1958. For about two years, the utility company and city officials have been negotiating a new long-term agreement.

Under the existing agreement, PG&E pays the city one-half percent of its city electricity sales and 1 percent of its gas sales. The new agreement City Council members approved last week will bring these payments into line with the higher fees PG&E now pays to other California cities.

The California Public Utilities Commission also now allows cities to add a 1 percent surcharge to local utility bills. The surcharge will appear on monthly bills. It will be applied by the utility, but passed along to customers. Low-income customers who qualify for subsidized programs will not pay the surcharge.

Under the revised franchise agreement, PG&E will pay Bakersfield $4.7 million a year — $1.5 million from the utility’s use of right-of-way, and $3.2 million from the surcharge, which still must be approved by the CPUC.

Even with this new money — which will go strictly to the roads projects — Bakersfield must vigorously search for additional matching funds.

Without the city’s match, the federal highway funds cannot be used and must be returned to the federal treasury for redistribution to other communities.

Clearly reluctant to approve a utility surcharge — which for most households will be just a few dollars a month — City Council members were correct to capture these local dollars. This is a rare opportunity to create a dedicated stream of money that cannot be ripped off at the whim of outside politicians, including those in Sacramento.

We all want safe roads, where traffic can move smoothly. For that to happen, we have to pay the price.

Councilwoman Irma Carson acknowledged last week’s vote will not be a popular one.

But for the sake of this community’s quality of life, it was a necessary one.