View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Steve Knight: It’s time for a new approach

Posted: May 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

In the 1976 movie “Network,” Peter Finch delivers the famous line, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

Taxpayers and businesses are reaching that point of frustration – even though voters allowed their taxes to be raised in 2012 to help California balance its budget. Couple that with the fact that the majority continues to erode California’s economy by introducing dozens of “job killing” legislation each year, and it’s clear that they have no interest in trying to keep your taxes low nor to expand the opportunities for private business to grow and create jobs.

Study after study proves that California continues to be one of the most expensive places to do business. Just this week, Toyota announced that it will be moving its sales and marketing headquarters, which employs more than 5,000 residents, form Torrance, Calif., to Texas. Instead of introducing legislation that kills more jobs in California, this Legislature should be removing regulations that burden job creation.

Let’s look at this year, for example. In January, the governor announced a state budget that saw $6 billion in revenues finally exceeding the state’s estimated expenditures. While Republicans were urging that the state use some of your taxpayer dollars to pay down its “wall of debt” that has amassed over years, the majority party has introduced new bills to spend every last penny of that surplus – and more.

To pay for that additional spending, the majority party has introduced legislation that again takes aim at your pocketbook, including new gas and oil taxes.

If that weren’t enough, despite an unemployment rate at 8.1 percent and more than 1.5 million California residents in need of a job, liberal legislators have introduced more than two dozen bills deemed “job killers” by the California Chamber of Commerce.

Consider this: if California could make it easier for small businesses to hire just one more person, that would mean more than 650,000 would have an opportunity to get to back to work, giving our state one of the lowest jobless rates in the nation.

I’m hopeful that the taxpayers and private sector business owners who are reaching the frustration level of Peter Finch and myself are ready to do something about it. We need more legislation like Senate Bill 415 and Assembly Bill 777, which will provide favorable regulatory and tax treatment for California’s booming private aerospace industry.

We also need to look at our future generations and prepare them for aerospace and other tech jobs so California can continue to compete on a global level. It’s imperative to keep children interested and engaged in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in order to create a generation of tech savvy employees who may compete for these well-paying jobs on a global scale.

Once such program I introduced to my District schools is TEALS, which is sponsored by Microsoft and stands for Technology Education and Literacy in Schools. This innovative program bridges the gap between the shortage of skilled computer science graduates and the growing demand for computer science job opportunities by bringing technology professionals into local classrooms. To date, five schools have been selected in the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys, and I look forward to assisting more school’s applications in the coming years.

So, we can get “mad,” but the action we take is what really counts. Lawmakers who recognize the benefits of a family and business-friendly state through creative legislation and programs will help bring the “Golden” back to California.

Senator Steve Knight (R-Palmdale, represents the 21st Senate District in the California Legislature, which includes the communities throughout the Antelope, Santa Clarita, and Victor Valleys.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: May 2, 2014 7:14 a.m.

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take THIS anymore" actually. Dirty energy should be taxed to pay for mitigating the destruction caused by extraction industries, and to steer people toward less deadly forms of propulsion. Otherwise your rant is long on emotion and short on specifics.


OldReliable: Posted: May 2, 2014 7:40 a.m.

Wondering who actually wrote this piece and wondering why out of the clear blue we are seeing Knight's opinions here? Is there an election coming?


philellis: Posted: May 2, 2014 8:15 a.m.

OR, there is always an election coming. But Knight is our elected Senator. Columns from our elected officals do not seem to be "out of the blue" unlike columns from those outside our district.


Lotus8: Posted: May 2, 2014 9:25 a.m.

Republicans are a minority in this state. They have had very little to no power or influence for a long, long time. Unless your representative is a democrat in this state you get hosed because he/she isn't waiting in line to kiss the ring. So we can have all the good intent and reason that we want on our side here in a republican valley, but all we are going to wind up with at the state and county level is a big fat bag of nothing to show for it.

I'm not advocating a vote for any party. I'm just trying to bring this call for action back to reality. Small business owners don't normally line up to donate to democrats, so they aren't going to get any favorable legislation passed. Like usual, productive folks in this state have to fight not only the daily business battle but the battle against adversarial legislators as well. At a certain point, you can only tax people until they don't have another penny or they get fed up and bolt the state. What will we do when we run out of other people's money to spend?


ricketzz: Posted: May 3, 2014 6:52 a.m.

Go to the beach...


OldReliable: Posted: May 3, 2014 7:21 a.m.

Well said, Lotus8 & your words are a reality check.


tech: Posted: May 3, 2014 3:07 p.m.

"Go to the beach..." -ricketzz

Because you're contributing nothing to the dialog here, you first. It's an excellent place for you to pound sand.

Lotus8: Do you think the 1st step is breaking the single Party monopoly that exists in Sacramento?


Indy: Posted: May 3, 2014 3:44 p.m.

Knight wrote: If that weren’t enough, despite an unemployment rate at 8.1 percent and more than 1.5 million California residents in need of a job, liberal legislators have introduced more than two dozen bills deemed “job killers” by the California Chamber of Commerce.

Indy: Indeed, the Chamber has a link to what it considers ‘job killers’ but please, Steve, what regulations do you wish to remove from our state?

Let’s stop the generalized approach and ‘get specific’.

Do you want to remove ‘child labor laws’?

Do you want to remove regulations that allow companies to pollute more?

Personally, I like ‘clean air and clean water’ to come home to ‘after work’.

So please, Steve, update your website with the regulations you wish to rescind so we ‘the public’ can judge your ‘judgment’.

Thanks.


Indy: Posted: May 3, 2014 3:47 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I'm just trying to bring this call for action back to reality. Small business owners don't normally line up to donate to democrats, so they aren't going to get any favorable legislation passed.

Indy: Same question to you, what regulations do you see as ‘JOB KILLERS’?

I’d like to know what regulations republicans see as vital to eliminate . . .


tech: Posted: May 4, 2014 9:13 p.m.

"Do you want to remove ‘child labor laws’?

Do you want to remove regulations that allow companies to pollute more?" - Indy

Neither, Mr. Straw Man. This infantile tactic of yours is so tiresome.

How about one that's, you know, actually listed as a "job killer" on the Chamber of Commerce site?

Here's one:

SB 1372 (DeSaulnier; D-Concord) Increased Tax Rate — Threatens to significantly increase the corporate tax rate on publicly held corporations and financial institutions up to 15% according to the wages paid to employees in the United States, and threatens to increase that rate by 50% thereafter, if the corporation or institution reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors.


therightstuff: Posted: May 4, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Indy: """Do you want to remove regulations that allow companies to pollute more?"""

Wasn't there a story in the news years ago that liberals hired scientists to tell people that pollution did not harm them? I can't recall where I read that but I'm sure I did once...therefore it must be true.


ricketzz: Posted: May 4, 2014 6:31 a.m.

Tech continues to eat a diet of carefully crafted PR, as opposed to real news.

There is no "the liberals". If there is, I can't find it. What I do see is a very sane faction of middle of the road Americans fighting the Globalists and their minions (which includes all the propaganda babies who get their marching orders from Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Crown Prince Wahleed (owners of Fox News).

These self-styled "conservatives" are Useful Idiots for the New World Order and will have no home on either side of the struggle, regardless who wins. They are spineless opportunists looking for an inside track to the big bonzos; i.e lazy Americans (at best).


tech: Posted: May 4, 2014 8:26 a.m.

Rather than an ad hominem, why don't you comment on an actual proposed regulation, i.e. reality, such as the one I posted, ricketzz?


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 3:50 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Do you want to remove ‘child labor laws’?

Do you want to remove regulations that allow companies to pollute more?" - Indy

Neither, Mr. Straw Man. This infantile tactic of yours is so tiresome.

Indy: Still doesn’t address why Knight speaks in generalities . . . with no specifics. Why not just list them?

Tech wrote: How about one that's, you know, actually listed as a "job killer" on the Chamber of Commerce site?

Here's one:

SB 1372 (DeSaulnier; D-Concord) Increased Tax Rate — Threatens to significantly increase the corporate tax rate on publicly held corporations and financial institutions up to 15% according to the wages paid to employees in the United States, and threatens to increase that rate by 50% thereafter, if the corporation or institution reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors.

Indy: Question: why doesn’t Knight just raise the personal income tax to get the funding required for our state’s government programs that the citizens ‘demand and expect’?


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:07 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Do you want to remove regulations that allow companies to pollute more?"""

Wasn't there a story in the news years ago that liberals hired scientists to tell people that pollution did not harm them? I can't recall where I read that but I'm sure I did once...therefore it must be true.

Indy: I hope you find that your approach of mocking history is somehow useful . . . but indeed your belief that for-profit companies don’t influence our legislation through lobbyist that as we saw with the tobacco industry, fought for decades while people were dying from smoking yet conservatives fought for the ‘free market’ and didn’t feel that a regulation that banned something that obvsiously was killing people was a ‘job killer’ if you will.

I did find a good site that gave a fairly concise summary of the tobacco industry fight to sell a dangerous deadly product: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Tobacco_Industry.aspx

And here’s a site shows the conservative group ALEC and their involvement with the tobacco industry: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10787/alec-and-tobacco-industry

Most of the public has moved on from this issue but the tactics being used by the Koch Brothers to distort the climate change issue with ‘junk science’ is very analogous to the same approach used by the tobacco industry.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:11 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Tech continues to eat a diet of carefully crafted PR, as opposed to real news.

There is no "the liberals". If there is, I can't find it. What I do see is a very sane faction of middle of the road Americans fighting the Globalists and their minions (which includes all the propaganda babies who get their marching orders from Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Crown Prince Wahleed (owners of Fox News).

These self-styled "conservatives" are Useful Idiots for the New World Order and will have no home on either side of the struggle, regardless who wins. They are spineless opportunists looking for an inside track to the big bonzos; i.e lazy Americans (at best).

Indy: Couldn’t say it any better . . . but that’s the appeal of libertarian market fundamentalism that plays to itself through as you noted, the ‘endless’ loop of ideology based ‘innuendo and speculation’ that ‘herds’ the non-thinker to the conclusions expected by those who tend to profit the most.

And sadly, 'both' parties are now effected by this motivation to 'fund' their campaigns and say anything that they are 'instructed' to recite to stay in office . . . consequences be damned!

Money is the new reality that now ‘governs’ America and sadly, the ‘media’ is now owned by the same folks . . .


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:37 p.m.

Tech wrote: How about one that's, you know, actually listed as a "job killer" on the Chamber of Commerce site?

Here's one:

SB 1372 (DeSaulnier; D-Concord) Increased Tax Rate — Threatens to significantly increase the corporate tax rate on publicly held corporations and financial institutions up to 15% according to the wages paid to employees in the United States, and threatens to increase that rate by 50% thereafter, if the corporation or institution reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors.

Indy: Question: why doesn’t Knight just raise the personal income tax to get the funding required for our state’s government programs that the citizens ‘demand and expect’?

Question: Why deflect from the job killing proposed regulation, one of many specifics Knight alluded to with his CA Chamber of Commerce reference and default to your "solution" of choice, i.e. tax increases?

In case you have difficulty in locating the link with the specifics:

http://www.calchamber.com/governmentrelations/pages/job-killers-2014.aspx


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:52 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: How about one that's, you know, actually listed as a "job killer" on the Chamber of Commerce site?

Here's one:

SB 1372 (DeSaulnier; D-Concord) Increased Tax Rate — Threatens to significantly increase the corporate tax rate on publicly held corporations and financial institutions up to 15% according to the wages paid to employees in the United States, and threatens to increase that rate by 50% thereafter, if the corporation or institution reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors.

Indy: Question: why doesn’t Knight just raise the personal income tax to get the funding required for our state’s government programs that the citizens ‘demand and expect’?

Question: Why deflect from the job killing proposed regulation, one of many specifics Knight alluded to with his CA Chamber of Commerce reference and default to your "solution" of choice, i.e. tax increases?

Indy: It’s important to help this poster understand the economics in play as if ‘taxes’ that are required can just be ‘deregulated’ away . . .

And notice the poster didn’t even acknowledge that taxes not paid by business have to be paid by the public.

In fact, this is the governing concept employed by the House republicans where everything has to be ‘paid for’!

In any event, taxes are not a ‘growth engine’. They only exists to provide the mechanism to fund government.

If you don’t want to tax businesses, then tax the public. It’s really that simple.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:17 p.m.

"And notice the poster didn’t even acknowledge that taxes not paid by business have to be paid by the public." - Indy

Notice that you don't recognize that taxes paid by business are passed along to the consuming public like any other cost. When you tax a business, the public pays them. Clueless about simple business economics, aren't you? It's really that simple.

So, how about the job killing nature of a specific regulation, i.e. SB 1372? What's your specific opinion on that? Be specific on why you support this punitive job killer and taxing citizens further.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Tech wrote: "And notice the poster didn’t even acknowledge that taxes not paid by business have to be paid by the public." - Indy

Notice that you don't recognize that taxes paid by business are passed along to the consuming public like any other cost. When you tax a business, the public pays them. Clueless about simple business economics, aren't you? It's really that simple.

Indy: You again miss the point . . . one reason I keep asking your educational background and if includes any economics, business, or management courses.

The question on the table was simple: If businesses don’t pay the tax, the public does directly.

If as you suggest and is indeed correct, that businesses ‘pass along’ any taxes to the public, why is there an issue with the regulation you stated?

Do you have any evidence that the business would lose jobs or just ‘presume’ to do so?

Thus, we’re back to the economics you so struggle with and I’m here to help you . . .

If the business had to raise their prices, then yes, they may lose sales and thus let people go.

But why not be upfront about that?

Why just ‘whine and cry’ about regulations versus ‘educating’ the public on them?

What have you got to hide?

Tech wrote: So, how about the job killing nature of a specific regulation, i.e. SB 1372? What's your specific opinion on that? Be specific on why you support this punitive job killer and taxing citizens further.

Indy: Again, public services provided by the government required funding through taxes . . . thus I keep asking you to call out for ‘help’ when you need to understand such a simple and rudimentary process.

In any event, did you forget how to spell technologist?


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 7:09 p.m.

"If as you suggest and is indeed correct, that businesses ‘pass along’ any taxes to the public, why is there an issue with the regulation you stated?" - Indy

Do you dispute that businesses pass along taxes and regulatory costs to consumers? Or that if such costs exceed the perceived value received by the customer for anything beyond basic necessities, businesses would lose sales and kill jobs to cut costs? Or a business that is declining in sales volume may lose economies of scale? What are you, remedial?

What's your justification for the proposed job killing regulation of SB 1372? What gives the Legislature the right to control a corporation or institution that reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors? Because you need explanations, it's really about controlling business behavior with punitive taxation threats to favor organized labor.

Be specific.


ricketzz: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:27 a.m.

BY all means the consumers should pay more to raise wages. Ask them. They agree.


tech: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:48 a.m.

That "logic" is akin to positing a hamster running on its wheel faster will reach it's destination sooner, ricketzz.


therightstuff: Posted: May 6, 2014 10:22 a.m.

Indy, we are actually agreed about the tobacco industry but why did you have to make up the story about conservatives hiring scientists to tell the public that smoking doesn't harm people? Why not just admit that you misspoke?


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:24 p.m.

trs, I may have missed it, but I don't think that's what he said ("conservatives hiring scientists..."). I think what he said, and what was true, was that the tobacco industry hired erstwhile scientists to spread disinformation about tobacco being carcinogenic.

To what extent conservative politicians played along may be up for debate, but it's well documented that the tobacco industry did that (and we see the same thing now with the energy companies viz-a-viz the science of global warming).


ricketzz: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:23 a.m.

tech. That made no sense whatsoever. Don't hide you logical inconsistencies behind $5 words, it makes you look odd. People are willing to spend a quarter a meal more if it means a living wage for the people who serve us food. Unlike the nouveau riche "individuals" with their California bankrolls, people at street level still care about each other.


therightstuff: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:59 a.m.

Steve, I think it's always cute when you come to Indy's defense when he has no answers. Here are his exact words as he was referring to conservatives: """the 'scientist' hired by them provided the 'evidence' that smoking didn't harm you"""

Just like you when someone posts something that sounds absurd, I asked for the evidence of his accusation. When it became obvious that he had none, I then asked why he couldn't just admit that he misspoke? You jumped in to try to clean up his mess. When you guys have proven me wrong, I have admitted it and even thanked you for setting me straight. Why is honesty and intellectual integrity not an option for the left?


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:34 a.m.

"tech. That made no sense whatsoever. Don't hide you logical inconsistencies behind $5 words, it makes you look odd." - ricketzz

Your limited vocabulary doesn't appear to affect anyone else. Use a dictionary if needed, former journalist.

I'll spell your "logic" out for you:

Every employer pays Mary a "living wage" = increased cost of goods/services for those least able to afford it = 0 increase in purchasing power for Mary and thus her standard of living remains static or declines.

Unions (and the politicians they own) support this because they frequently have contracts with pay scale provisions tied to the minimum wage and they're desperate to reverse the decline in private sector unionization. That's why they organize, pay and bus "protesters" in for staged events.

This has nothing to do with "…people at street level still care about each other." It's about avoiding populist manipulation by special interests.


ricketzz: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:16 a.m.

You are hiding behind theory. Wage inflation is absurd to use an excuse. The people have been losing ground since Reagan. My suspicion is that you are a mean person who enjoys seeing people struggle; thinks they deserve it. That's how you talk.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 12:33 p.m.

Your inability to support your assertions with a cogent argument and rebut mine is noted, ricketzz. That you resort to a personal attack speaks for itself. Lashing out when error is exposed reveals a lack of intellectual rigor.

Deconstructing specious arguments is a service to our community and isn't "mean". Thoughtful people focus on solving real problems and avoid creating new ones.


ricketzz: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:16 a.m.

You are incapable of being mean to me; I was talking about your attitude concerning society.


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 9:27 a.m.

It no doubt comes as a surprise but it's not about you, ricketzz. Reread the last sentence of my prior post.


ricketzz: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:46 a.m.

That's kind of dumb and obvious. I said your attitude toward the great unwashed shows no love. It appears you are also a bully. I don't care what you and your ilk think of normal people like me. You will always be clueless.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 3:11 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Steve, I think it's always cute when you come to Indy's defense when he has no answers. Here are his exact words as he was referring to conservatives: """the 'scientist' hired by them provided the 'evidence' that smoking didn't harm you"""

Indy: Yes, the scientist that are funded through the conservative lobbying network created the false conclusion that killed many people by encouraging them to smoke.

This is no different than say the Koch Brothers today ‘funding’ climate change ‘denial studies’ then having republicans ‘parrot’ the results in the media.

As I said before, find one republican at that time that disagreed with the tobacco industry . . . JUST ONE . . .

Therightstuff wrote: Just like you when someone posts something that sounds absurd, I asked for the evidence of his accusation. When it became obvious that he had none, I then asked why he couldn't just admit that he misspoke? You jumped in to try to clean up his mess. When you guys have proven me wrong, I have admitted it and even thanked you for setting me straight. Why is honesty and intellectual integrity not an option for the left?

Indy: Anyone that discounts the effect of lobbyist is seriously out of touch with modern politics.


CaptGene: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:22 p.m.

ricketzz: "...normal people like me"

Laugh out loud funny, thanks ricketzz.


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 5:05 p.m.

Indy: """Yes, the scientist that are funded through the conservative lobbying network created the false conclusion that killed many people by encouraging them to smoke."""

Oh my...we're back to this again? I asked you for evidence and all I got in return was more personal attacks.

Dude, where's your proof that conservatives hired scientists to tell people smoking did not harm them? Just like your leader in Washington, you can't tell the truth from a lie anymore.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...