ONE NANNY BILL DOWN; MANY MORE TO GO
By State Senator George Runner

July 13, 2007
[Publisher's Note: As part of an ongoing effort to bring original, thoughtful commentary to you here at the FlashReport, I am pleased to present this column from State Senator George Runner. Senator Runner is the Chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus... Flash.]

If you are new to the FlashReport, please check out the main site and the acclaimed FlashReport Weblog on California politics.

Californians can rest easy now that the so-called Healthy Pets Act was killed by its author this week in the Senate Local Government Committee.

This is good news to California pet owners and anyone who relishes a life unfettered by government interference, but we must stay alert and focused, as I have no doubt the proponents of the measure are going back to the drawing board to rethink their strategy for next year.

I applaud the thousands of California citizens who summoned the courage and determination of our founding fathers to kill Assembly Bill 1634, by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). They came from all over the state and from all walks of life sending a strong message that they will not stand idle while Sacramento bureaucrats attempt to tread on their freedom.

I wish we saw more of this type of activism in Sacramento to help us defeat all the other busy-body legislation that pervades the Capitol.

Don't get me wrong; I am happy that the "Spay and Neuter" bill was laid to rest. But keep in mind this is just one nanny bill down, with many more still to defeat.

Here is a look at other meddling bills that deserve a good protest here at the Capitol:

* Assembly Bill 1467, by Mark DeSaulnier (D-Martinez), bans smoking nearly everywhere, even in owner-operated businesses that don’t employ other people. That means if a married couple, for example, runs a small business and they want to smoke and in the process harm no one, the government will still take away their cigarettes because Big Brother knows what’s best for everyone.
...
...
...

Anyone who thinks that Republicans will protect them from tobacco tax increases better start rethinking. Republicans control both houses of the legislature in Florida and Florida also has a Republican governor. Yet they've all decided that smokers should bear the brunt of reduced state revenues by forking over $1.00 per pack more.

I always suspected Republicans were as nanny state as any Democrat. Now I'm sure of it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/state/epaper/2009/04/28/0429flabud.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=0

This video from Glenn Beck's program Friday night explains the Dem/Rep conundrum we are seeing now - very good explanation of the political system we have now.
...

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for your recent correspondence expressing opposition to Senate Bill 600 (Padilla), the proposal to increase the taxes on tobacco products. I have consistently opposed and voted against all efforts to raise taxes and fees and will continue to fight against proposed tax increases as we struggle to get through the current economic downturn.

The majority party in the Legislature must understand that tax increases will simply not stimulate our economy. Moreover, it is uncertain that increased tobacco tax would generate the revenues that are claimed. If the intended effect is to curb smoking then the revenues would simply not be there. Additionally, it is very likely that many smokers would obtain tobacco products outside California in order to avoid the higher state taxes.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern to you. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.

Sincerely,

GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District

-----Original Message-----
From: xxx@xxx
Date sent: 04/29/2009 10:45 am

I Oppose SB 600. The Bill states, quote,"Tobacco use costs Californians more than $8.6 billion in medical expenses every year." I dispute this figure and demand that the figure be based Not on total costs including on-staff personnel, but Strictly on the materials costs. We heard this talk back when Rob Reiner pitched it and all Meathead did was increase his bank account making anti-smoking ads by charging us smokers for his God-Damned Free Speech. These attacks on my habit violate my 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment, the Constitution's prohibition against alliances and confederacies conducted at the State level, the Uniform Tax Clause, and the Equal Privilege Clause, as well as the State Constitution Article 1 Section 7(b). The antismokers have a privilege in overtaxing tobacco use that the tobacco users are not allowed to share equally. The issue at hand is not about tobacco, but about State revenue and the usual unrelated programs, and all taxes MUST BE LEVIED EQUALLY, WHETHER THE PRODUCT IS TOBACCO OR A PIECE OF PLASTIC!