Hot off the press from Melissa Fox, Assembly candidate, 70th AD:
Beach Closed: Proceed at Your Own Risk
We’ve all seen the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the offshore oil spill.
We’ve seen the sea birds drenched in oil, fisherman out of work, beaches contaminated, a way of life destroyed.
For me, the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico is personal.
I have many friends who live around the Gulf.
I’m heartbroken about what this oil spill has done to their lives and their communities.
We cannot allow this catastrophe to happen to us in California.
My opponent, Donald Wagner, vehemently disagrees.
When asked by the Orange County Register how he would deal with our state’s budget crisis, his number one answer was “opening up off shore oil fields to drilling.”
I strongly oppose the expansion of offshore oil drilling in California, and I need your help to make sure that our community does not cast a vote to drill off our coast.
As a coastal community, we cannot allow the ecological devastation in the Gulf of Mexico to happen here or anywhere in California.
Nor can we risk the catastrophic economic consequences of an offshore oil spill. Tens of thousands of people are employed and billions of dollars are invested in local businesses that depend on our beautiful beaches and coastline.
Our way of life, quite literally, could be destroyed.
In fact, the danger of disaster is even greater here than in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP rig was 50 miles from the coast, but our oil rigs are much closer to shore – in the range of three to 12 miles. The impact on our coast and beaches of an offshore spill would be catastrophic and nearly immediate.
We cannot allow our district to be represented in Sacramento by someone who would risk our way of life to drill for oil off our coast.
Donald Wagner is counting on the big oil companies to support his campaign.
I’m counting on you.
Please contribute whatever you can now to make sure that an offshore oil spill disaster never destroys our beaches and coastline.
And please tell your family and friends that you support the candidate who will fight for our community, not the big oil companies.
Melissa
July 28, 2010
A couple things:
Wagner gave that statement to the Register before the Deepwater Horizon Spill happened. But when asked later if that spill had changed his mind at all, he said no, he is just as strongly supportive of unlimited drilling all along California’s coast as he ever was.
And interestingly, as this was in the context of dealing with the state’s budget crisis, you’d think that at least he would back the “oil extraction tax” so that this unlimited offshore drilling he advocates would at least help with our budget. Does he? Ha. Are you joking?
I’m still trying to figure out how his belief in unlimited corporate profits at the expense of humanity and the Earth co-exists with his no doubt sincere religiosity. I’m sure he must make that work, somehow, in his head.
Melissa, I see that you only addressed Don in this letter, but as the other candidate in this race, I feel obliged to directly respond to your message:
Don’t be shortsighted Melissa. The LAST thing we need is to further shut down our economy while increasing dependence on foreign oil. Do you know why the spill in the Gulf was such a catastrophe? Because our Democratic and Republican lawmakers sucked up to BP and protected them from the consequences of their actions! BP has not been held financially accountable for the environmental and economic disaster they have caused. Had our law makers said “you want to drill, fine, but if you cause environmental problems you are responsible for 100% of the cleanup!” this never would have gotten out of hand in the first place because BP wants to protect their bottom line.
Let’s face it Melissa, over regulation has never solved anything. I don’t care one way or the other about an extraction tax right now. What bothers me is that we keep missing the point in these discussions. It’s time to hold our Democratic and Republican representatives responsible for the damage that they allowed to happen.
Furthermore, I didn’t hear you offer any credible alternatives to our dependence on foreign oil which lead to more oils spills in our water than any thing else (tanker accidents at sea). If you want to help us get on an alternative fuel economy over night with minimal job loss and no increase in taxes, well, heck, I’ll vote for you. In the mean while, lets try to be a bit more practical and a bit less opportunistic. Anyone can complain about a problem, but it takes a true thinker to offer a solution. The solutions to our economy are these:
Reasonable environmental legislation that doesn’t chase away business. Our current laws are mere moneymakers for the state. Any reasonable environmental law would see that corporations are held 100% for the damage that they cause and that those damages paid go directly to the victims and cleanup. Corporations will self regulate to protect their bottom line or go out of business.
Lets really get going on alternative energy projects, because it will create jobs and help our environment at the same time. We can encourage this with further tax benefits for clean energy and by taking away some of the red tape and taxes that are currently keeping manufacturing away. It will eventually result in greater income for the state though an improvement in the economy. A hands off approach works so much better than the heavy handed tax and spend.
Cut the fat. The state is in way over it’s head trying to regulate every aspect of it’s citizen’s lives. It has no business in any of our business, and we are all paying the price for this liberal, over involved agenda. Our government must be as simple and unobtrusive as possible in order to facilitate our economy, not hinder it. Our state has nearly a quarter of a million employees in this “industry of overregulation” with yearly salaries totaling to $1,484,138,267, not including pensions and health care. Is this really necessary? The state has never created one job that didn’t destroy at least 10 in the private sector.
This is why Libertarianism will save our state. It’s time to work on real solutions everyone, not emotionalism, opportunism, and rhetoric.
Best,
Debbie Tharp
Libertarian candidate for 70th Assembly district
Debbie, I’ve heard that from you before, this idea that we’d prevent catastrophes like Deepwater Horizon if we just made sure that oil companies KNEW they’d have to pay for all the damage afterwards. Dude, that just doesn’t work for me.
The Deepwater spill is a fine example. No matter WHAT BP pays, until they are totally bankrupt, it’ll never come close to covering what’s been destroyed out there. The environment number one, and the lost livelihoods. What kinda philosophy rules out preventing this shit from the outset? Not a good one, not a workable one in the real world.
I hope Melissa gets on and engages you here. Come into the pool, Melissa, it’s warm, tepid, and not yet covered with petroleum.
I hope she engages me too. And Vern, I’m not a Dude. Anyway, the environment is number two, not number one. You know what number one is? MY FELLOW CITIZENS…including you. Here’s the thing, Vern, (and thank you for your well thought reply as I always enjoy engaging you here), corporations act in their own self interest. This includes survival. This means that a corporation will take the safeguards necessary to insure that they don’t go bankrupt, i.e. not drill in the gulf if it is out of their technical league. I’m not saying we should be trusting corporations over the government, Vern. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t trust either of them any farther than we can throw them. Fact is, BP was assured that they would not be held responsible for damages even before they started drilling in the first place, BY OUR GOVERNMENT… the same government that you now want to entrust our precious environment to.
Go Debbie!
Thanks Art 😀
A few of my thoughts:
1) Over regulation is never the solution…it adds to big, unnecessary government not to mention the millions of tax payer dollars that would be required to set up all the appropriate regulations.
2) I didn’t see a solution in Melissa’s response. Please Melissa…you complain but what are you planning to do about it (other than oppose Don Wagner)?
3) I live in California too, and I don’t want to see our coast destroyed with oil (or unsightly drilling platforms), however I also recognize that I am rather dependent on the oil that gets me through rush hour every day and I’m all for reducing our dependence on Foreign oil. I’m sure with all the negative press BP is getting, and the damage to the Gulf Coast, the new wells being put in will be very very well built so this sort of thing never happens again.
4) I believe we already have a multi billion dollar State deficit…and I’m not really for adding to that (as it results in a loss of jobs for the positions I think are more meaningful (then Regulation jobs: Teachers, policemen and firefighters).
Bottom line…I’m not a big Don Wagner fan (there is something fishy (excuse the pun) about him receiving $$$ from Oil Companies, but I don’t necessarily agree with Melissa that more and more regulation is needed.
Debbie…you got my vote!
2) I didn’t see a solution in Melissa’s response. Please Melissa…you complain but what are you planning to do about it (other than oppose Don Wagner)?
Well, really that’s pretty simple, Odette. Melissa would join the other Democrats in the assembly to continue to prevent drilling off California’s shores. Got it?
Continuing to oppose is like “planning to make a plan”….passive, not specific and lame. With all the press this is getting I am yet to see a concrete plan of action from Melissa. So what would be important would be: 1) How 2) Whose $$$ are you using, 3) When and 4) How are you going to enforce? I’m just saying her taking a stand on something and complaining without any specifics on how she is going to fix it is hilarious…let’s hope her campaign in total doesn’t have so many vague, unsupported stances.
What?? You’re really enjoying yourself Odette, and good on you, but lame? Hilarious? Don’t throw stones from your glass house.
It’s very simple. Don would change California laws to enable and encourage drilling of all California’s shores; Melissa if elected would continue current policies which prevent that. Sometimes things really are simple.
Okay… I’m trying to figure out what you’re not getting. This is California we’re talking about, you know, and Melissa, Don and Debbie are running for California assembly. Admittedly, it’s not about stopping problems in the Gulf of Mexico. Is that what’s throwing you?
I guess this relates to my pet peeve about people who complain but don’t propose anything to solve the problem….or they do propose solutions, but those solutions are vague (examples: support me, tell people about the message, etc.). If you look at what Melissa wrote…the format is as follows:
1.Problems with the gulf (due to oil spill)
2.Don Wagner is bad because he supports the companies responsible for the problems
3. I (Melissa) am against Don Wagner and the companies that are responsible for the problems
4.Insert Unity message here complete with plenty of “We”s and “our”s
5.We should take action: Insert vague action statements here (support me, etc.)
I would say in Step 5, I like my candidates (for every election) to have something Specific. This was my issue with the presidential candidates when they talked about how they were going to fix the economy and it taking weeks to get some vague plan out. I think it’s too easy for people to be against many of the problems we face today: economy, oil spill, government spending & taxes, etc. It’s easy to say “I’m against high taxes.” Well that’s great, but what are you going to do about it…what is your timetable, who are you going to contact and what is your strategy?
Specifics allow us the voters and taxpayers to hold our representatives more accountable. A great example is with President Obama. I think we all remember when he said (and I quote): “if we don’t pass the stimulus bill, unemployment will rise above 8%.” This was also detailed in a January 9, 2009 report called The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. Well guess what…the bill did pass and unemployment last time I checked was at 9.5%.
Circling back around to the point I want to make…so what does that mean if I have specific examples of plans/solutions? It means you will never hear “I’m working on it…it’s in progress, etc.” and that you will have a measurable way to keep track of the issues yourselves and hold your representatives to the promises they make. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request for people to back up the claims they are making with Specific, Measurable, Attainable and Timely goals.Do you?
So in general I agree with you. Candidates & politicians do that, they do it too much, speak in generalities so as not to offend anyone. And to cover up the fact that they DON’T have any great ideas. It’s just I think this Melissa article about offshore drilling isn’t an instance of that.
I’d like to hear her – and all candidates – get more specific about their solutions. I’d like to hear all our Democratic candidates talk a lot more about the oil extraction fee for one thing, which I’m sure they’re all for. But with the offshore drilling, it really is very simple: it’s very hard to get that approved in California, Don would try to change that and Melissa would not.
Odette, Wagner didn’t get any oil company money. Look it up. Nothing “fishy” there. Vern, Wagner hasn’t said he’d “encourage drilling of [off?] all California shores.” Fox has nothing to offer but opposition — Wagner’s a Republican so he’s bad — and will join lock step (as Vern recognizes) with the Democrats who have mismanged the state on this and all other issues.
mike,
True. Amante took money from BP, in the primary. Wagner will, I am sure, get a check from them for the general. That is how it works.
I do think that some drilling offshore would be OK. We lose a lot of oil off the Santa Barbara coast due to natural seepage. And it is less dangerous to drill at those depths than in the deep sea.
However, that said, I do think we all need to continue to develop renewable resources too.
I don’t think I ever said Don got oil company money. I think he’s a true believer in unlimited corporate profits. The stupid oil companies bet on Amante instead, they probably figured he looked more oily. But Don is their boy now.
Mike, when you say he doesn’t encourage drilling off all California shores, where are you getting that from? Is his position seriously more nuanced than I thought? That’s not the impression I’ve got. And I disagree with Art; I don’t want any drilling off our shores. A lot of people lied to me, and lied to President Obama and everyone in between, that new technology ensured spills were a thing of the past. But studying what happened with Deepwater Horizon, we’ve found that we’ve just been lucky as hell that it hasn’t happened many times. And the economic benefits from any new offshore drilling are so far off in the future and minimal, that, really, ALL our efforts should be going to alternatives.
Mike-
I looked it up maybe you should too. Wagner DID accept some $ from what appears to be Oil Company/affiliation (the description was:Oil Exploration and Gas). Go go the California Secretary of State website and look up campaign finances…type in Don Wagner’s name and do a search on “Oil”.
P.S. The statement I used originated from Melissa Fox (in the article above) she said (and I quote): “Donald Wagner is counting on the big oil companies to support his campaign.”
I was curious too about her statement (which is why I looked it up).
Odette,
Actually, YOU have MY vote! Well said, well said. Would you like to join my campaign team? I could use the help of a well spoken blogger such as yourself. Give me an email if you would like to. We meet once or twice a week. votedebbie@yahoo.com
🙂
Odette,
I looked it up. You’re kidding, right? According to the report, the money you’re talking about came from Robert Ferguson, an individual. He’s a long time GOP player; he’s not an oil company and he gave Wagner the staggeringly large and corrupting sum of $100.
With a description of “Oil Exploration…” as an occupation…wow that doesn’t sound like Big Oil at all! (sarcasm). Whatever the amount…it’s an obvious contribution to support a specific interest. Better check your facts better next time Mike!
Vern,
Odette said Wagner got oil company money, not you. That’s why my prior post started off, “ODETTE, Wagner didn’t get any oil company money….” As to drilling off ALL California shores, which you claim, the only thing I’ve “heard” him say on the issue was in the Register after a debate during the primary election and it wasn’t ALL of California. (The Register might not have gotten it right, I don’t know.) I would think that there are environmentally sensitive areas or low yield areas or other areas where even an evil, rapacious Republican environmental scourge would not advocate drilling. If you know Wagner has a different position, report it. Otherwise, it seems this is just another cheap Fox shot.
To All: Please Read the article! It was Melissa Fox’s own claim: “Donald Wagner is counting on the big oil companies to support his campaign.”
Just for fun I did some research and it appears as though Don Wagner has received 1 contribution from what appears to be an Oil Company/affiliation (the description was:Oil Exploration and Gas). Look it up…maybe Melissa’s was right!
What do you guys think…do you think more Oil campaign contributions are on their way?
Odette,
Of course. Now that Wagner is the consensus GOP candidate the money will be headed his way.
Well, this discussion really heated up! Glad to see it. I have a bit more insight here in how both Republicrats and Demicans are incentivising risky drilling. I received this article from my campaign team last night. Please take a moment to read it as it is increadibly enlightening. And yes, I think Don will be getting plenty of contributions from big oil throughout his political career, but I know Democrats have sucked up to the oil companies as well. Everyone has a price. If you doubt me, just check out the video of Boxer questioning BP execs on the senate floor. She was trying to look tough, but the truth is, she let them get away with murder… literally. Here’s the article about how our legislators have incentivised risky drilling: http://mises.org/daily/4488
And to Vern, just blocking progress is not a solution to our environmental and economic problems, and it is solutions to our economic and environmental problems that I am offering and Melissa isn’t. This isn’t just about our environment, it’s about our economy as well, and protecting the prosperity of our state. Believe me when I tell you Vern, economic prosperity is the greatest protector of our state’s environment. Without overflowing coffers, we will become prey to opportunistic, environmentally damaging predation by global corporations who wish only to profit from our rich natural resources without consequence. The more economically desperate we become, the more risk there is to our natural environment. If you don’t believe me, just look south of the border for proof.
What so many don’t get is that any oil drilled off shore after a certain distance isn’t even going to go back to us, it’s Federal waters, so that doesn’t help us. And that oil goes on the open market, for everyone to buy, drilling more does NOTHING for our dependence on foreign oil.
On top of it, off shore drilling will not putt off the inevitable issue we face. Just actually cutting down on our use, higher mileage cars, etc with have a much bigger impact on that “dependence on foreign oil”.
The drill baby drill bs is just that, bull shit. It’s the ignorance of the general public that thinks we can solve this issue by drilling more.
And I’m as liberal as they come, we do have too many regulations, so complicated so that corporations, who have the money to hire as many lawyers as possible to get through the loop holes, is part of the problem.
But I have to disagree with you Debbie. BP gambled that by foregoing safety issues, cutting corners etc. to save a pittance to how much it’s costing them to cleaning things up. The argument that corporations will avoid things to save themselves is also BS, because it hasn’t worked.
They weight whether fixing a small part in a defective product will cost much or the probability of a claims against them and if the claims will cost less, they gamble. Unfortunately, this could be someone’s kid. It happened with drain covers for kids pools and children had their intestines sucked out of their bodies because the company didn’t want to fix the problem with a 25 cent part.
Too much regulation is stupid, stupid laws make me angry. But the idea that corporations will do things to protect themselves makes me laugh. It just isn’t the case. People have died.
“Dear Oil Is Not The Answer”
Good psychological ploy there, using such vivid imagery as children getting their poor little guts sucked out of their bodies, but since I’m a psychology major… I’m completely immune to such ploys. The trick you are using here is an aspect of classical conditioning. It works like this: Pavlov’s dogs’ mouths would water every time a bell was rung because every time food was served, they heard a bell; or Little Albert, who was trained to become terrified of fuzzy little bunny rabbits through the association of a loud noise every time a bunny was present. The same ploy is often used to politically manipulate people. In this case, you mentioned the terrors of the oil company and in the same breath created the graphic image of a child having his or her guts sucked out at the bottom of a pool because of a heartless corporation. Bravo!
Fortunately, I don’t need to use such ploys to get my point across, because I trust in the intelligence of my constituency, including yourself.
To your point, I think you missed mine. I said, quite frankly that I don’t trust the oil companies one tiny little bit. Nor do I trust our government. Not one tiny little bit. Both corporations and the government need to be kept on a tight choke collar like a vicious dog on a leash, because when they get too much power, we pay the price. That’s why Libertarianism works my friend, because it takes the power away from these two vicious forces and puts it back in the hands of the people where it belongs. If you missed my previous point, it’s understandable because there are a lot of posts here now, but please take the time to read this article as it points illustrates the fact that both Republicrats and Demicans have been not only letting the oil companies get away with this, but incentivising the risk with your own tax dollars. Furthermore, BP was specifically given a cap on possible liability for damages before they ever started drilling. So your point that “BP gambled that by foregoing safety issues, cutting corners etc. to save a pittance to how much it’s costing them to cleaning things up” is entirely moot…they never gambled a dime.
I look forward to future correspondence with you and yours.
By the way, to elaborate my point that both corporations and the government need to be kept on a tight choke collar… In the case of governments, that means keeping it as small as possible, and in the case of corporations, that means keeping government out of business and holding business completely responsible for its actions. Didn’t want you to mistake me for a Greenie or something there 😀
A cheap ploy, Debbie? Just psychological manipulation, the drain-pulling-out-the-kid’s-guts tale? Not germane to the topic at hand? Then try this:
You’re right that the government has been doing a half-assed job protecting us from irresponsible corporate behavior – because there’s so much incest going on between our government and corporations. But your libertarian prescription of addressing the problem with even less regulation (but severe penalties after the fact) is pure fantasy and theory.
Vern,
You said: “You’re right that the government has been doing a half-assed job protecting us from irresponsible corporate behavior – because there’s so much incest going on between our government and corporations”
Well… at least we can agree on something. Actually, I think we agree on a lot most of the time. You’re still missing my point that corporations will regulate them selves in the interest of their own survival. You don’t believe me because you haven’t seen it in action. All of this over regulation from our government has resulted in over involvement with the corporations, and ultimately the incest of which you speak.
For the last time… and this is the last time I am going to waste my time typing this…BP was told ahead of time that they would not be held fully responsible for the damages they caused BY OUR GOVERNMENT, they were encouraged to drill in risky areas BY OUR GOVERNMENT, and they were relieved of a great deal of the responsibility for the damage after the fact BY OUR GOVERNMENT! The same fox that you want to put in charge of the hen house right now. It… does… not … work. The only thing that does work is getting government out of big business and ending this incestuous relationship that we both agree must cease.
Nice try with the oily duck, but but you missed my point about the way psychological manipulation is used. Is your mind so set, Vern, that you will simply refuse to see reason here? If it is, well, then I guess I will just have to quit wasting my time. I have conceded many points before, but all I hear from you is repeating the same argument, and no real viable solutions, over and over again. We cannot keep the status quo, Vern. It isn’t working. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Actually, I think I will keep trying to convince you, because I love a challenge 😀