STAKES HIGH FOR CALIFORNIA IN TRUMP V. HARRIS RACE

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

     “STAKES HIGH FOR CALIFORNIA IN TRUMP V. HARRIS RACE”

 

        Ever since California gave Hillary Clinton a vote margin of almost 3 million in 2016 – thus assuring Trump would lose the overall popular vote and become a minority president installed by the Electoral College and not the majority of voters – he’s had it in for the Golden State.

 

As President, Trump delayed aid for wildfire victims in California until forced to act. He tried mightily to eliminate the state’s strict smog control rules. He attempted to overrule state laws that restrict offshore oil drilling. And much more, enough that many observers saw it as a consistent Trump “War on California.”

 

Now it’s Californian Kamala Harris standing between Trump and a second term in the White House, one that would make him only the second U.S. president to recover from a reelection defeat and later retake the office.

 

The first was Grover Cleveland, who won a second term in 1888 after losing an 1884 reelection bid.

 

It’s pretty plain from statements by Trump and some of his family members that Californians can expect a resumption of Trump’s war on California policies and practices if he wins this fall.

 

The alternative is Harris, a former San Francisco district attorney, state attorney general and successor to longtime California Democrat Barbara Boxer in the Senate.

 

A win for her would likely mean much more for California than merely increased traffic around her presumed Western White House in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles, where she lives with husband Doug Emhoff, a longtime entertainment industry lawyer.

 

Start with the fact that California electric taxpayers right now are “lending” more than $1 billion to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in order to keep the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station open at least five years past its prior closure date of 2030, set by state officials in 2018. The money is supposed to be repaid by the federal government.

 

That almost certainly would happen under a President Harris, but likely not under a reinstated President Trump.

 

Under Trump, federal authorities would probably reassert their effort to limit or end California’s unique authority over automotive smog, while Harris would let it stand. A Harris administration might include Gov. Gavin Newsom in a cabinet role if he wants it, elevating Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis to governor almost two years before she’s planning to run for the office anyhow. Big boost for Kounalakis.

 

Trump and former officials of his administration indicate in various ways they will try for a national ban on abortions, which would negate the abortion rights clause California voters inserted in the state Constitution via a successful ballot proposition. Under Harris, California’s law might serve as a national model for states to adopt if they choose.

 

Trump also has said he would not oppose state governments tracking pregnant women to prevent their seeking abortions. Harris would try to ban that proposed practice.

 

As state attorney general, Harris fostered a strong environmental unit in her office, working to head off both air and water pollution at its sources. A Harris-appointed national attorney general might set up a similar office within the Justice Department, offering strong backing to California’s toughest-in-the-nation conservation policies.

 

As President, Trump sought often to cut welfare and other benefits to poor Americans, including millions of Californians. A President Harris would likely try the reverse.

 

Trump promises to extend the wall that already covers many parts of California’s border with Mexico. It’s unclear whether Harris might expand that wall. Republicans often claim she was President Biden’s “border czar,” when in fact he placed her in charge of trying to better conditions in Latin America that foster illegal immigration. Harris might continue some of her efforts in that direction, which have not yet accomplished very much. 

 

One thing for sure: As both senator and vice president, Harris frequently spent weekends and holidays in California. Trump never did. If Harris continued that practice, it would mark the first time since Ronald Reagan’s era that a President was intimately familiar with California’s problems and policies.

 

All of which makes the California stake in this fall’s election more direct that it has been since the time of Ronald Reagan.

 

   -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

REFINERS WIN LATEST ROUND; ACCOUNTABILITY COULD BE COMING

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “REFINERS WIN LATEST ROUND; ACCOUNTABILITY COULD BE COMING”

 

        The cheating, price-gouging refiners who produce most California gasoline have won another round. Average prices per gallon have fallen below $5.50 and there’s less anger at the pumps now than a few months ago, when the tab leaped almost $2 per gallon overnight. Now if you hear any talk while parked at the pump, it’s mostly grousing, not outright fury.

 

        This is the same tactic the oil companies have used repeatedly since the first gasoline crunch hit America in the 1970s, when Arab and other oil producing countries embargoed oil coming here, supplies were rationed and prices soared above $2 for the first time.

 

        They fell back a bit when the embargo was lifted, and consumers eventually accepted the new, higher levels as normal.

 

        Pleased with that outcome, oil companies used the tactic over and over in the ensuing decades, claiming supply shortages or refinery outages or natural disasters forced them to lift prices. After each rise, pump prices fell back a bit and drivers came to accept the new levels.

 

        That’s been the sequence this time, too, with the cartel-like oil companies followed their script to new extremes, using America’s boycott of Russian oil (less than 3 percent of U.S. supplies) as an excuse.

 

        How can we tell we are being gouged? Just look at the record profit increase of $14 billion piled up by this state’s five major refiners – Chevron, Marathon, Valero, PBF Energy and Phillips 66 – in the first and second quarters of this year. Their overall profits are at all-time highs, so they must also be setting records in per-gallon profits even though refiners never willingly reveal those margins.

 

        That’s why it’s vital now for state legislators to pass and Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a pending bill from Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen of Santa Monica that forces refiners to report monthly to the state Energy Commission how much profit they make on each gallon of gas.

 

        “To protect consumers, more information about California refinery operations needs to be made public so that (we can) monitor and hold the market accountable,” said Jamie Court, president of the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group.

 

        In short, if this bill (SB 1322) passes, consumers could tell when they’re being gouged and cheated, rather than being mere victims of circumstance.

 

        The logic of this is clear: Each time a wildfire or other natural disaster strikes in this state, the attorney general warns merchants in affected areas it is illegal to gouge by raising prices much over normal levels even when supplies of various goods might be hard to find or deliver.

 

        If that’s sound public policy in fire zones, why wouldn’t it be just as solid California-wide in other unusual circumstances like the current war in Ukraine?

 

        If and when refiners begin reporting their profits per gallon regularly, the Legislature should next define what is an excess profit on gasoline and then tax the difference between excess profits and acceptable levels.

 

        Anything less would amount to sanctioning price gouging and favoritism of oil companies over their customers, and far more visibly than, for example, utility companies are now favored over their customers.

 

        In both cases, consumers must pay the going rate, however high, or suffer extreme consequences. That’s really no different from a tax.

 

        Many Californians habitually blame gasoline taxes for the fact that pump prices here are nearly the highest in the nation. But the oil companies’ hugely increased profits as the price of gasoline rose this year suggest it’s a lot more than that. In fact, California taxes differ from the national norm by about 60 cents per gallon, while prices here are usually about $1.30 higher than elsewhere. So taxes account for less than half the difference between California costs and those in other states.

 

        This has all persisted far longer than a generation and it’s high time someone did something to curtail it. The Allen bill is a small step in the right direction, but one that must be taken before Californians stand any chance of getting price relief.

       

        -30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net