Politics & Government

Virtual Town Hall: 39th State Senate District – Patrick L. Marsh

The CPA says the state has enough revenues, but needs to manage the money better and wants the government to respect personal freedom.

Patch sent questionnaires to each of the candidates in races appearing on the June 5 primary ballot. The re-drawn 39th State Senate District includes Coronado, coastal San Diego and most areas north of state Route 94, Del Mar and Solana Beach. Democrat Patrick L. Marsh, a CPA and auditor, is seeking the seat. He faces two opponents, Democrat Marty Block and Republican George Plescia.

 

Patch: I’m a 37-year-old public school teacher, and every year I fear losing my job. Why should I vote for you?

Find out what's happening in La Jollawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Patrick Marsh: There should be no argument that California’s public education system needs help. However, we can’t argue that the problem is too many teachers.

Education budgeting is currently not conducive to spending efficiency. Since the portion of the budget dedicated to education is guaranteed by Proposition 98 (with some wiggle room), we start from a position that does not approximate needs. As such, “fixing” the budget and spending situation becomes problematic and often results in threats to teachers’ jobs when the budget situation becomes unworkable.

Find out what's happening in La Jollawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

It is my position that California’s revenue is adequate to support necessary expenditures, and that with fiscal discipline and strong oversight, the state can eliminate future tax and fee increases while not reducing service levels or sacrificing jobs. Unfortunately, tax increases are the go-to means to cover a lack of responsibility in the state government, and high profile professions like teachers get caught in the middle by having to support tax increases as a means to stay employed. The mere existence of this situation is a sure sign that the system needs an overhaul. Teachers (and any other interested party who performs a vital service to the state) should not be subject to these battles, and have to suffer public ridicule as a result.

All this said, it should be understood that I do not believe California’s educational system is well run. I believe that there is ample room to cut without affecting jobs or the educational experience. Further, I fully support efforts to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom with expedience, although I am not in full agreement that test results are an adequate predictor of teacher efficiency. I am more concerned with teachers who lack a professional understanding of the material, or who lack the ability to adequately transmit that information to young people.

However, if we can assume that a teacher in a California public school is conversant in the subject, and can communicate reasonably, I will take no measure to cause that person to lose his or her job.

As a final note, the relationship between the state and the teachers’ unions must change. I don’t believe that either side operates in the best interest of education. I strongly believe in the right of workers to organize, but I think that organization should come about as a result of a clearly defined need such as gross salary unfairness, workplace safety issues, workload concerns, and the like. I do not believe that unions should guide employer-employee relations to the extent that we see in society.

To remedy this, the state government has a long way to go to make the teaching profession one that does not immediately generate a need to unionize, and thus factionalize the entire process of education. When we do so, we naturally move away from the goal of educating children, and sometimes have those very children involved in the eternal struggle between union and government. I am prepared to support measures that reduce the burden on educators so that they can have more autonomy in the classroom, reduced reporting requirements, less need to teach to a test, and more time to dedicate to the profession and personal improvement.

Regardless of how the government-union relationship progresses over my term in the State Senate, I will not seek a reduction in the number of public school teachers, and will, in fact, work to ensure that we can increase their ranks.

If you are interested in a candidate that wants to protect teachers’ jobs, while working toward an educational system that costs less, but improves results, I am your candidate. If you are interested in a candidate that will work toward an educational system that focuses on teacher expertise, while expecting equal responsibility from parents and students, I am your candidate. If you are interested in having a person in state government that wants to work for an educational system that does not generate conflict between employer and employee, and instead honors, rewards, and trusts teachers, I am your candidate. If you believe that education can occur much more cost-effectively without sacrificing teacher salary, I am your candidate.


Patch: I’m 52 and own a greeting card shop, and this economy is still killing me. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: It is understandable to express frustration over the economy. However, we should ensure that we ask our government to respond appropriately. Placing the burden of “fixing” the economy on the government is unwise, as governments will interpret this as a call to take active measures that can be clearly seen and reported. In practice, this means funding injections or increased public sector hiring. To my mind, neither of these are the long-term solution.

Increasing government spending may provide a temporary benefit to the economy by funneling money through the system. Of course to reap a benefit, the government needs to micro-manage the spending to ensure it is widespread, and increase further spending in the private sector. This is extremely difficult to do successfully, and the government (and its bureaucracies by proxy) is entirely the wrong body to shoulder thatr esponsibility. This route is too likely to let the stimulus money accumulate in personal accounts or get spent in ways that do not push the statewide or national economies forward.

Likewise, increasing public hiring may have a temporary positive effect on the economy because more people will have money to spend. This is a terrible fix for the economy, as there is no guarantee that spending will actually occur (due to the economy; a vicious circle!), and the new public employees are a cost with no associated revenue. The end result here would be subsequent layoffs or requests for more taxes to pay these employees.

I prefer my government to take a less active approach. In this regard, it is less noticeable to the pubic, but offers the best long term results. Specifically, the government’s approach to the economy should be one of simple facilitation, and protecting the players under the law. The government should establish an adequate space for business, and permit it to operate in a manner that is not overly restrictive, but still protective of safety and the environment. Regulation of business is vital and necessary, but should be managed to permit reasonable activity in the community.
When we consider the needs of specific business sectors, some responsibility must beplaced on the business owner. In responding to the specifics of the original question,the paper greeting card industry is obviously subject to pressures from e-cards. As computers and the internet continue to have a greater effect on the economy, business owners must evolve to compete. The government can take action that will arguably put more money into the hands of consumers, but in the end, if a specific business is unable to attract that spending, it will suffer regardless of the economic situation.

If you prefer a candidate who will work realistically within the limits of our economic system to encourage the free flow of capital throughout the society, and who prefers a less active government in matters of economics, then I am your candidate. Of course it should be understood that throughout the history of economic systems similar to ours, there has yet to be shown a solution that ensures all players are cared for without direct government intervention, and since we do not have a system that supports economic dictatorial power, we must understand that in business and economics, there are going to be losers. As such, I encourage all voters to take this into account, and not expect your government to come up with a solution to the economy. I believe that active economic fixes are more prone to backfire down the road than are passive approaches that let the economy sort itself. But in either case, I don’t believe that there should be the expectation that our system will be perfected any more than it is today.

So to my mind it comes down to that argument – do you prefer an active or passive government approach? We will have fraud, influence peddling, regulation-ignoring, and waste under either approach taken by the government. But can we deal with the potential negatives of an active approach? I would argue no. If you agree with that, then I am your candidate. And understand – I want a society that maximizes self-care into old age, so that those in need have ample funding available from the government. To achieve this end, I need a society with a more effective economy, and I believe a passive approach is most appropriate.

Patch: I’m 45 and been out of work for 14 months. I’m educated, butemployers won’t even give me a look. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: This is a tough position for many workers in the state. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in our system to provide for any particular worker regardless of experience or age. As an elected member of the State Legislature, my job will be to work within the existing environment to make life more livable for all citizens of California. This precludes any direct governmental assistance to place workers in a given job.

The only reasonable solution for a case such as this is to have more jobs available. Of course, this is the stated goal of the vast majority of politicians, although they are rather ill-equipped to create such results. Of course job creation in the public sector is as easy as making it so. While this alleviates unemployment immediately, it is not a long term solution since those positions are not paid for by generating ongoing and self-sustaining economic activity in most cases.

In our system, we need a functional government, but real job growth must exist in the private sector. Here is where it gets difficult for government to have meaningful results. Private sector jobs are only created when demand is such that additional workers are required to make an existing business run, or when individuals take the personal risk to start a new company from scratch, and neither of these circumstances are guaranteed to create new jobs. Businesses will often make do with fewer employees than they would ideally like to have, simply because payroll is such a large portion of total expenses, and if fewer employees can still do the job, then profit is increased, all else being equal. For startups, there is a segment of them that do not require any employees outside of the owner, and many are very small, and thus do not materially affect the unemployment rate.

In the end, our economy survives by having capital flow freely throughout the system, ideally permitting individuals to keep some portion thereof for themselves. Since the government is not charged with regulating the economy to the point where all individuals are provided with money for survival and a job that best suits their skill set, we will be left with a situation where unemployment is unavoidable, many will work at jobs that do not suit tastes or provide for more than subsistence existence, and any number of counterintuitive situations will exist (working multiple jobs when some have none, jobs that pay millions to people with no decent education, white collar crime and fraud, working incredible distances from home, etc.).

My candidacy is one that supports a less active approach to the economy that ideally makes the free flow of capital through the system easier. But that is not of much use to people in the near term. As such, I feel it is government’s responsibility to ensure that those who actively seek work but are unable to find it are cared for adequately.The entire system of public assistance in California is in dire need of reform, as there are too many forms of assistance, it is too frequently awarded when not absolutely necessary, and an element of fraud is almost expected, if not guaranteed. In my mind, public assistance should only be single sourced, and need should be documented and throughly vetted, but assistance for the unemployed would certainly be a part of such a system. As unemployment is built into our system, and given that the public supports the system as-is, the public (by way of the government) has an obligation to care forthose that are left out.
As such, I would be an ideal candidate for people who seek a government that is less directly active in business affairs (environmental, safety, and consumer protection regulations notwithstanding), and that is willing to provide assistance to the unemployed under strict anti-fraud guidelines, with the understanding that unemployment is a necessary by-product of our economic system.

Patch: I’m 18 and getting into the state university system is harder than ever—and more expensive. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: In my opinion, admittance to a State University should be a well-earned achievement, and thus, there should be an element of difficulty. University education should be a rigorous task reserved for those students most dedicated to learning and intellectual growth.

I believe the best path forward for our society is to make education a bigger part of our lives, and to make a college degree something that can be obtained by all equally, but something that requires significant work. I am not interested in making California’s Universities easier to get into. Our substantial population in state schools is evidence that meeting current admissions standards is an achievable goal, and students should be prepared to meet those qualifications if they expect to gain admission.
That said, there are two reasons in opposition to simply establishing a high bar for State University admission. First, all students are not afforded the same educational experience in California. Unless all schools have a comparable learning environment, meeting the minimal requirements of a State University will be inherently unfair. If students are not able to excel equally, they can not be reasonably compared for admission. Second, our society has made a college degree an almost universal minimal standard for middling or better employment, and since education and employment are intrinsically connected, to keep the system running, we need to keep a large population of college-educated individuals flowing into the applicant pool every year.

For me, the solution here is to reform the educational system from the ground up. This is no small task, because to do so in a cost-effective manner would require numerous structural changes and simplification, and a vast increase of personal responsibility on the part of parents and students, many of whom opt for a passive role in the educational experience. But it is not out of reach. I do not support a solution that seeks to create enough university space for every Californian who simply feels the desire to get a degree. When the time comes that we can demonstrate that we have an excess of highly qualified students that do not have space in the current system, that is when we move to add new universities.

On the point of affordability, though, that is an area that demands immediate attention. Since my candidacy is based on California meeting its obligations with current revenue, I am firmly against increasing state revenue, as I believe it to be unnecessary given a government with sound financial oversight. This obviously includes State University tuition and fees. Education costs can be controllable, and I seek a system with such controls in place.

If you are interested in a candidate that wants no restrictions on who can qualify to attend university, and improves the chances of all students to do so, but wishes to maintain the university as an institution that caters to individuals who truly seek intellectual growth, I am your candidate. I am not the candidate who favors adding campuses merely to facilitate those who feel entitled to higher education.

Of course this is not to denigrate those who do not attend college, or who do not meet admission guidelines. I prefer a broad system of education that caters to individual training needs in a cost effective way. Additionally, I am not in agreement with the almost mandatory requirement by employers that employees have a college education. There are adequately intelligent people who have no degree, and can be trained for many positions, and there are college educated people who lack a basic skill set.
I think we can attribute the degree requirement in many companies to the fact that we have constant unemployment, and thus an oversupply of candidates for many positions. As such, employers have the luxury of upping the standards to weed out the assumed-to-be-less-qualified individuals. As mentioned, I believe that many jobs can be adequately performed by a person lacking a degree, but who receives sufficient training for the position.

So to students, I prefer that we keep admission standards in place, and hope that you excel to the degree that you qualify for admission. And understand that with an excess of well qualified students, the government should provide additional campuses. But I consider higher education to be something earned rather than an entitlement.

Patch: I’m 44 and my commute to work is close to an hour. So these gas prices really pinch. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: The potential for relatively high gasoline prices is an unfortunate by-product of the system under which we live. In fact, this is true for any product. But gasoline tends to hit particularly hard because it is a need, especially for people who travel by car to work. When the commute is an hour, there are likely very few alternative forms of travel that would reduce gasoline usage.

Sadly, there is little a State Legislator can do to materially affect the price of gasoline in the near term. To help control the cost of gasoline’s largest cost component (the cost of crude oil), the state could add a refinery, and to that end, the state’s environmental regulations could be made more amenable to builders. However, there are still Federal standards and permits to deal with, and given our recent history, there is little chance that simply lowering regulatory standards in the state will have an impact that the consumer will feel in the near term.

There are currently two refineries in the permitting/building process, and these are the first since the mid 1970s. The initial permit application for the Arizona plant started in the late 1990s, demonstrating how long that process can take. Yet even if California added refineries, there is no way to guarantee that per gallon prices will decrease, given changes in demand, and where the crude oil is sourced, as we still import crude for refinement, and that crude may be subject to the international markets. I would be open to an assessment of regulatory standards, but I am extremely tough
where the environment is concerned, so I am not a candidate for people who want the environment to suffer for oil refining. That said, given the state’s regulatory environment, there are likely many cases where cost savings can be generated without environmental destruction, and I am open to considering these as an option.

Price fixing is another alternative, establishing a cap on prices or margin, but doing so would be a departure from the economic system we have in place, and I do not believe that elected politicians are charged with manipulating the system. For me this is a total non-starter.
The state could potentially pass a law requiring tougher fuel economy standards for cars sold in California, but this would not help anyone’s situation today, and for people with limited disposable income, may never be a help at all. I could support such a measure, but such a law could not get my support until a cost-effective production method was developed to obtain the required gains. I do not support establishing standards without a reasonable means to achieve them.

Perhaps the best solution I would offer a person in this position is my stance on taxes. California has the second highest gas tax at $0.353 per gallon, exclusive of sales taxes. My personal charge as a legislator will be to work toward ensuring that the state’s financial needs are met with current revenues, thus reducing the need of the state to frequently request tax and fee increases. I should be differentiated from garden variety anti-tax legislators, as I believe that the state has real financial responsibilities to the populace, including care for those who truly need it to support access to adequate food, water, shelter, medical care, and quality of life. I am anti-tax with the belief that the state’s needs can be met with current revenue, and that tax and fee increases are a tool of people who do not wish to enforce fiscal responsibility.

To this end, I will do everything in my power as a legislator to reduce the tax burden on gasoline. I doubt that this will be a significant benefit to the consumer given that gas currently is over $4.00 per gallon, but it is a start. Given our refining capabilities and the price of refined product on the international market, we will likely be stuck with these prices unless we collectively work toward reducing demand, which of course is difficult for people who need to drive a lot.

I am reluctant to immediately move toward increases US drilling and refining, as I would need to weigh the benefits of increasing temporarily our supply of a finite resource with the permanent effects on the environment. All signs point to alternative fuels for transportation, but the benefits these may provide may be as far off as the benefit we could one day get from adding refineries.

If you are looking for a state legislator that will immediately bring down the price of gasoline by direct price manipulation, I will not be your choice. If you are comfortable with a candidate who will look objectively at barriers to refining, while not compromising on the environment, and who will actively seek tax decreases in the near term, I am your candidate.

Patch: I’m retiring in 10 years, but I see little chance of Social Security lasting my lifetime. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: Social Security is a Federal government program, and as such, the California legislature is not in a position to enact changes to increase its longevity. Yet even if Social Security does survive for the current generation, the state of California must assess whether the benefits provided by Social Security are sufficient to ensure a reasonable way of life for its citizens.

My philosophy for the state government asserts that the government has basic responsibilities to its citizens. In addition to protection and education of the citizens, the government must also ensure that those in financial need are adequately cared for. Where Social Security fails in this regard, the state must ensure that citizens have sufficient resources for a reasonable existence. How this is to be defined is open, but it certainly includes adequate food, clean water, shelter, and medical services.
Obviously, to achieve such a goal, drastic changes would be required in both assessing needs and distributing funds. However, I believe that the answer is within the budget. My goal is to ensure that no citizen goes without basic needs and an adequate level of comfort to the end of life.
If you are looking for a candidate that wants to ensure that citizens are cared for in times of need, and expects increased personal responsibility and honesty from the populace to make it happen, I would be your choice.

Patch: I’m 39 and worried about our country’s moral fabric, since it is moving toward gay marriage and marijuana legalization. My church is my main source of strength. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: I completely support the ability of an individual to worship as he or she sees fit. However, I do not assess social acceptability of behavior based on religious tenets. I prefer a society based on the idea of freedom. To me, that means the ability to act, speak, express oneself, and utilize one’s resources in any manner so long as the same freedom of another is not infringed, and a demonstrable and observable societal harm is not occurring. This purposefully excludes perceived societal harm, often identified by way of personal disagreement with the morality of an action.
Under such a system, we should expect that gay marriage would be legalized. Two consenting adults forming a marriage partnership clearly does not infringe on the rights of another in any way. You are still able to carry on with your life, and do everything you would do anyway, if marriage rights were extended to same-sex couples. And while opponents surely feel that society will fall apart if these marriages exist, there is no demonstrable social harm, at least in a way different from a heterosexual marriage. Both offer the potential for divorce or other relationship issue. Any harm is perceived based on disapproval.

Marijuana legalization is a slightly different story. Under a philosophy of freedom, I would have no issue whatsoever with an individual cultivating and using marijuanafor personal use. In doing so, and assuming responsible use, no other individuals are affected, and there is no social effect (that can be differentiated from any number of other “unhealthy” but legal activities). One could then argue that this same argument could be applied to all illicit drugs, and I agree, but with a prohibitive caveat – I do not believe society to be sufficiently responsible to handle this freedom, and the consequences could be dire for others. Complicating this is the fact that most drugs cannot be as easily produced in the home as marijuana, meaning the dangers that exist in the world due to drugs, including ample infringement on freedom, will still exist.

As such, I would find no issue with gay marriage whatsoever, but where drugs are concerned, I would only support legalizing those that can be safely produced at home for personal use, with provisions for personal responsibility.

I appreciate the fact that we have a variety of definitions of morality in this state, but because morality is so varied, there is no reasonable manner to use it as a basis for law. People are still free to disapprove of behavior, and should be able to organize against whatever they like, provided no freedom is infringed in the process.

If your version of morality drives a belief that said morality should hold legal sway over the actions of others, including situations when the behavior of others in no way infringes anyone’s freedom, and does no demonstrable social harm, or are of the
opinion that a religious basis should be applied to lawmaking, I am likely not your ideal candidate. However, I would assert that I would be a staunch supporter and protector of your private ability to express your religion.

If you prefer a government that listens to the religious viewpoint, but does not make legislative decisions strictly on the basis of religion or an individual morality, I am your candidate. If you prefer the moral decisions to be based on a framework that fits with real human existence and need, and promotes expansion of freedom, I am your candidate.

Patch: I’m 30 and drive a Prius. I hear about Big Oil and “clean coal,” but manmade climate change is leading to more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes. Why should I vote foryou?

Marsh: I am not interested in fighting the battle for climate change/global warming. There is a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that human activity is having an effect on climate, and although the opposition may be fewer in number, they are at least equally vocal in their denial of the science. This is an argument not likely to be decisively won in my lifetime.

So instead of arguing for the theoretical, I prefer to argue against the clear harmful effects of pollution on our environment. To put it simply, I detest polluters and will actively seek to make California a cleaner place in the air, water, and land.

Unfortunately, as with most sensible reforms, our system tends to encourage contrary behavior. Dealing with pollution is a cost for businesses that generates no revenue, and as such is always a hit to the bottom line. As profit is at or near the top of the priority list, it should follow that businesses will avoid cleaning the pollution they create. This is unacceptable, and I will do anything in my power in the Senate to avoid harm to the air, water, and land that creates lasting damage. I don’t want to get caught up in an argument over whether a certain pollutant might cause an increase in extreme weather. We are currently unable to prevent the distribution of pollutants that have clearly and demonstrably observable effects on the environment.

On the topic of man-made climate change, however, I would assert this –the science is most definitely leaning in the direction of proving a causal relationship between human activity and changes in the climate that have the potential for real harm at some point in the future. Although the argument is not at the top of my worry list, it is rising, and we should be prepared, as a society, to adopt reforms as the science clarifies. I am not in favor of unnecessarily harming California industry with onerous emission standards, though, if the rest of the world does not similarly comply. Should man-made global warming become “proven” I would defer to the Federal government to set the standards, as uneven application of emission limits, would not have the desired effect.

If you are interested in a candidate that cares deeply about pollution, will actively work to prevent future pollution events and clean existing pollution situations, and has an open mind where man-made global warming is concerned, I am your choice.

Patch: I’m a 47-year-old musician and I’m losing my house to foreclosure. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: It is always unfortunate to lose one’s home. Without more details in this specific example, it is difficult to assert the appropriate governmental remedy should one exist, but there are some points to be made on this topic.

The recent National Mortgage Settlement has a provision for nationwide reforms to mortgage servicing standards. The California State Senate has introduced SB 900 which simply asserts a desire to enact legislation that will make the Settlement’s standards a permanent part of California law. If I were a legislator voting on this bill, I would have cast an abstention vote, as any bill taking valuable time to simply assert a desire to do something in the future is a total waste of effort. I would only cast votes on bills that have an actual effect in California, and I have a strong distaste for bills that are simple resolutions or statements of intent. That said, I am all for any changes to law that improve foreclosure law for homeowners. When such a law is drafted and presented, I would be a likely supporter. SB 900 passed the Assembly (it was amended in Assembly from a bill on Regional Water Boards to this topic), but failed in the Senate.

Home ownership is a puzzling aspect of American culture. From one perspective, it is almost the definition of the American dream, there is a prestige associated with it, and governments seem to use ownership rates as a gauge of social progress. At the sametime, it is a mammoth financial risk for the vast majority of people, and the agreements to facilitate ownership are often not owner-friendly. Foreclosure may mean ruined credit, and bankruptcy may ensue. Those who do manage to make on time payments, sometimes over the course of a generation, succeed in making their lender highly profitable, but are subject to valuations that could make the resale value less than what was invested in real terms.

These aspects are difficult to reconcile, and our economic system is not conducive to such reconciliation. The government is not entitled to set home prices, nor is it permitted to nullify non-fraudulent contracts. The sad reality is that some honest individuals will find themselves in a position where they can no longer afford to make a house payment under the terms of the initial agreement. In such circumstances, provided that the agreement and subsequent foreclosure proceedings were lawful, it is an inevitability that the homeowner will have to move to a new location that is affordable.

Government’s role in these arrangements is to ensure that citizens are treated fairly and humanely in the process, and if a homeowner is no longer able to make payments,the government should ensure that foreclosure law allows for a reasonable transition period.
If you are interested in a candidate that will criminalize foreclosures as we know them, or have the government pay off mortgages when the owners can no longer afford them, I am not the right candidate. However if you seek a candidate that supports lawful and humane behavior by lenders, and who ultimately wants a society that adequately houses all individuals, then I would be your choice. The issue of housing in our global society is incredibly inefficient. We have created a world that permits single individuals to own massive tracts of land for personal habitation while countless others have no housing to speak of whatsoever. In my opinion, this is a sign of a great failing in our system. Granted, there may be some hearty individuals that simply wish to live outside. However, the vast majority would certainly prefer a warm residence.

While I am not the candidate to make government rescue homeowners who can no longer afford payments, I am the candidate who seeks a society where no individual is truly homeless. I consider adequate housing to be a minimal obligation of the government, and I believe it to be a reachable goal.

Patch: I’m 35 and see nothing happening in Sacramento to solve my problems. All I see are the extreme wings of both parties blaming each other and getting nothing done. Why should I vote for you?

Marsh: I believe that I am a different type of legislator. Of course, most candidates assert this, but consider the facts on which I base this opinion.
As a legislator, my main goal is to find the means by which California can satisfy its financial requirements to the citizens by using current revenue. Although I believe firmly that the system under which we live creates absolute responsibility for the government to ensure that all citizens have an adequate standard of living, I am at once disappointed that the legislative answer to the state’s financial obligations is the frequent tax or fee increase. The members of the state government do not appear to be of a mind to ensure that the money they appropriate via the budget and various legislation is spent in an efficient manner. Instead, those responsibilities fall to the various bureaucracies, and all too frequently, we get waste, fraud, and inefficiently-targeted spending, and since we all know that budgets must be spent to ensure they are fully replaced the following year, there is little incentive at the bureaucracy level to ensure money is spent wisely and efficiently.

I propose to be the legislator that will work toward bridging the gap between the state’s financial responsibilities and its revenue. As a CPA with a strong background in audit, internal controls, and sound financial principles, I believe I am adequately prepared to assume this responsibility. In no way do I promise to make the fixes necessary to avoid future tax increases, but we need someone in the state government to take this duty, and I will be that person.

This should not be interpreted that I coincide with Conservative lawmakers, who tend toward anti-tax policies. My political beliefs are more in line with Progressive thinking. I may be anti-tax, but only because I believe we have ample resources already to satisf your needs without sacrificing jobs or services. The problem is mismanagement, and I intend to make that my focus. I am not anti-tax merely for political credibility. I am anti-tax with a solution that will not hurt anyone.

Secondarily, and to the point of “getting things done,” when I look to Sacramento, I do not see a legislature that has a direction for the state. Many laws get passed each year, but I struggle to se the overarching plan for the state. Our laws appear to be more a patchwork of temporary fixes and narrowly targeted rules that to some extent do not appear to be adequate in dealing with real needs of the state. Unfortunately, politicians do not tend to have well-defined political philosophies, and as such, they are difficult to pin down, and can be unpredictable, especially when we consider the influential effect of outside money. I would like to counter this by presenting myself as a politician who will legislate in accordance with personal philosophy, and thus attempt to give direction to the law-making body, or at least show the electorate clearly where other legislators veer from my philosophy.

Because this is a lofty goal, I propose to start small and simply and establish my personal philosophy as a single point as an example for other that can be easily documented. Specifically, my voting record in the Senate will reflect a desire to promote my personal ideal of individual freedom, which I define as the ability to speak, act, express oneself, and utilize personal resources in a manner that that the individual sees fit, provided that by doing so, no other individual has the same freedom infringed, and the action does not inflict a demonstrable negative effect on society. This is the general statement, and I fully admit that exceptions are possible. For example, unlimited personal spending to support a political candidate should certainly be acceptable under such a philosophy, however, I believe that money’s influence on political candidates is so poisonous that it should be almost completely removed. I personally do not accept donations from the public or private business, and purposefully keep expenditures minimal to demonstrate my adherence to this belief. In cases where my decision making veers from my stated philosophy, I will clearly explain to the public why such a departure occurred and how I fit the departure into a bigger framework.

To further the last point, I propose to establish a frequent and direct line of communication between myself and the public at large, both in District 39, and any other interested party including the media. I wish to report, on a daily basis, actions of the legislature with a clear analysis that anyone can understand. I will make such communications via podcast, webcast, blog or other method easily available to the general public, entirely at my own expense. I doubt this will make me very popular in the Capitol, but I am not going there to become anyone’s crony, political ally, or a careerist (I am looking for only the single four year term). The need to understand information is vital for the public in a state with such a large budget and such inadequate oversight (as demonstrated by continual state revenue increases).

If you are interested in furthering progressive ideals such as adequate care for the needy (which are an absolute certainty under our economic system), ensuring that people can be free do as they see fit provided they do not infringe others’ freedom (including such obvious actions as marrying the consenting adult of your choice), establishing spending controls that make constant tax and fee increases a thing of the past, and are open to the idea that California’s current revenue may be adequate to satisfy spending requirements (assuming major changes to oversight) I am likely your candidate.

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here