My TURN: Tax Increase Is No Solution

By Richard Luehrs

The Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors announced its strong opposition to the Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to extend the increased rates for sales, personal income and vehicle license taxes for an additional five years to help balance the state’s $25 billion budget shortfall.

In its position announcement, the Chamber identified a general lack of fiscal restraint on the part of lawmakers as the chief reason for their opposition.

The level of spending is simply out of control. Two years ago the Legislature and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger asked taxpayers for a Chamber-opposed “one-time temporary tax increase” to solve the state’s chronic structural deficit. Here we are before the most recent tax increases expire, being asked as taxpayers for yet another extension to solve the state’s growing budgetary problem – and we are told if we don’t agree, the state will have no alternative but to drastically cut state funded services such as higher education, public safety and health and welfare spending.   

The Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce has consistently maintained that only a strong economy will generate the level of tax revenues needed to sustain the state’s necessary programs. The state needs continued investment in economic activity and jobs in the private sector to enhance state revenues. The Chamber is all about investment. Investment in our businesses will encourage employers to stay and expand in California.

In order to achieve and warrant investment in our state, business needs a stable, predictable tax environment in which to operate. There must be a restoration of the public’s trust in the stewardship of taxpayer dollars through transparency, spending restraint and accountability.

Taxes matter to business. Business taxes affect business decisions, job creation and retention, plant location, competitiveness, and the long-term health of a state's economy. Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers (through higher prices), workers (through lower wages or fewer jobs), or shareholders (through lower dividends or share value). Thus a state with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment, and more likely to experience economic growth.

The Chamber recognizes the severity of the problem and encourages the Legislature and the governor to avoid the popular temptation to want to inflate revenue projections or borrow money from the future. The state’s Legislative Analysts office has a solid track record of predicting revenues. The Legislature and governor should work with the realistic projections and, once and for all, solve the problem.

The Chamber suggests that in the near term the state should use an across-the-board reduction in spending levels rather than targeting education or public safety specifically. The state should look to payments to those citizens who are here illegally as a source of more drastic reductions in spending. Additionally, the state needs to begin to address the issue of pension reform as it looks to balance future budgets. 

The bottom line is that the proposal simply does not dramatically and fundamentally address remedying the problem itself. It merely seeks to apply yet another band-aid to the illness.

Richard Luehrs is the CEO of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce.

INBOX: 'Greater Good' Is Not a Statue

Dear Editor,

Tim Brown's article titled, "Reagan Country, Where Is the Greater Good?" (NBI, 2/18), started by quoting an attendee at his breakfast meeting stating, "if we did not want a minority group to rule the majority, we should attend the City Council Meeting on February 22nd and speak in support of the Ronald Reagan Statue."

This response assumes that because citizens spoke out against the project that they are against Reagan. Mr. Brown and the attendee have missed the point of the Arts Commission's meeting: the citizens that showed up were not first and foremost against the 40th President, they were against a curio being placed at our new City Hall without public comment.

If Mr. Brown had been present at the meeting he would have heard for himself the broad spectrum of support for President Reagan, but opposition to the project.  Many people spoke passionately about the president but felt that the city deserves something much more appropriate. It is very clear that a majority of the residents of Newport support Ronald Reagan, but at the same time do not support this pet project of Curry and Hill.

The citizens that spoke at the meeting happen to be sensitive about the quality of public art placed on public land. Mr. Brown seems to blind to this fact. As an eight-year Commissioner, I hope he is aware of Stan Watts, the artist, or con artist contracted to build the statue. Stan Watts has been conning cities into buying overblown statues of famous men for years - it looks like Curry & Hill fell for it. A majority of our citizens have not.

I was a "raucous" meeting because the Arts Commission held it to receive PUBLIC comment, not a endless dissertation by Mr.Curry. Things fell apart after 20 minutes of Curry rattling on. The Arts Council should have stopped him. We all have great respect for Mr. Curry, but the man loves to hear himself talk, especially about Reagan: we all just ran out of patience.

Please! Let the public speak. Mr. Curry was way out of line. Others, like Mr. Hill, stood in line and shared their feelings. Thank you Mr. Hill.

The real question is why a Ronald Reagan statue in the first place? Curry and Hill convinced the Council that this is a great idea, but is it? Maybe a sculpture by a great artist, or a statue of Donald Bren, a man who has greatly effected the community - these would be more appropriate.

What does Ronald Reagan, turning 100 years old, have to do with the new City Hall of Newport Beach? I know the members of the City Council would love look out of their new City Hall office windows and see Reagan smiling back at them, but lets look at the "Greater Good."

This fast track agenda of Curry & Hill has made a big assumption: most people love Reagan and a Reagan statue. This is only half right: they love the man, reject the statue. The City is served when there is an open public debate and the Arts Commission asks professionals to make recommendations - then the City Council can make an unbiased decision on the merits of the project.

Curry and Hill need to recuse them selves, they have only one vision for this City and it's a Reagan statue. I hope the City Council can see past Curry and Hill's monolithic view and start doing the people’s business, openly and without bias. That is the Greater Good!

Terry Clark 

MY TURN: Where is the “Greater Good”?

By Tim Brown

I was at a breakfast meeting this morning. When we arrived at that place on our agenda for announcements, one of the attendees reminded all of us that if we did not want a minority group to rule the majority, we should attend the City Council Meeting on February 22nd and speak in support of the Ronald Reagan Statue.

The person with the reminder is someone who I have great respect for and when he speaks, I generally listen carefully. He explained that he had attended the Arts Commission meeting this past Thursday and was very disturbed at the conduct of many of those in attendance who do not support the Ronald Reagan Statue. By his description of the events, and what I read later in the Daily Pilot, it was a “raucous” meeting. Any time crowd behavior becomes unruly at a public hearing; it is unfortunate and should remind us all, that no matter the extent of our passion for or against an issue, restraint and mutual respect for other’s views should be paramount.

However, that is not the focus of this piece. Nor, am I going to voice my support for the Ronald Reagan Statue. Although I am not sure it should be located in the new Civic Center, I would not be troubled if it were located somewhere in the city of Newport Beach or in one of our parks. There was a quote in the column I read that does trouble me. It was an unusual quote attributed to the person who said it and yet it was overheard by the columnist. The quote was this, "They may be the only 100 people in Newport Beach who don't want it." The person who said it was referring to the attendees at the Arts Commission meeting.

Most of you know that I sit on the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission. You also know, if you follow civic affairs in Newport Beach, residents are generally quite content with local government and the way the city is run. I am in my eighth year as a Commissioner and I can count the number of times a 100 people or more have attended one of our hearings and I can recall all of the issues involved. It is naïve to think that 100 people in Newport Beach would show up at an Arts Commission meeting to voice their disapproval of the statue if this were not a divisive issue.

As all of us know, every once in awhile a divisive issue arises and our City Council must reach consensus on, often negotiate compromise for, and sometimes reject one side or the other’s position for the “greater good.” After all, that is why we elect leaders. At the end of the day, hopefully all involved, when passions are set aside, can be confident that “greater good” was the driving force behind the decision whichever way it went.

A couple of years ago, there were over 100 people at a PB&R meeting who live near the site for Sunset Ridge Park. They were passionate about their desire not to have that site become an active sports park. In the end, our Commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend to the Council that the site in include a baseball diamond and overlaying soccer field. We did so because we know that the youth in our city is better served if we have adequate sports facilities for them to compete on. Although disappointed in the outcome, most, if not all of those residents, knew in their hearts that there was a “greater good” to be served by the recommendation.

Can we say that there is truly a “greater good” being served here by approving the Ronald Reagan Statue over the objections of so many when we compare it to the Sunset Ridge Park issue? And, that is only one of several that I could have used to make the point. My message here to the Council is to simply move on to more important issues we are facing and we know those are many. It is not about a minority ruling the majority, but rather the importance of the scale of the “greater good” when faced with an issue that can divide residents in our great city.

MY TURN: The Loud Minority

By Jack Wu

Out of the 62,471 voters in Newport Beach, 56% are registered Republicans, while 22% are registered Democrats. 

In Anaheim, out of 145,188 voters, 39% are Republican, 38% Democrat. 

Our City Council is 85% Republican and Anaheim’s is 80% Republican.

Why am I comparing Newport Beach to Anaheim?

Because on Feb. 8, the Anaheim City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to rename Toyon Park in Anaheim Hills to Ronald Reagan Park.

And not one Anaheim resident stood up to speak against it.  No one asked for committee discussion, no one asked for private donations.

Not only did not one Anaheim resident speak up against it, but the Anaheim City Council actually nixed the original park to be renamed in favor of a LARGER park.

In speaking with Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait about it, he was actually surprised at how easily it went through.

And in a City where there is a 1% spread between Republicans and Democrats, a “Divisive and Extremely Partisan” former President was given the fitting tribute that he deserves.

But here in Newport Beach, where the Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber the Democrats, where we have a newly elected Councilman Rush Hill touted his personal friendship with President Reagan, we get Councilman Keith Curry booed and shouted down for having the audacity to have Reagan honored with a privately funded statue. 

Shame on you who did that.

But before I further incense you, let me ask you something.

Why are you Republican?  Why does Newport Beach have 34% more, 21498 more Republicans than Democrats here in this City?

Are you all, like our former Governor Arnold, Nixon Republicans? 

No, most, if not all, are Republicans BECAUSE of Ronald Reagan. 

I am a Republican because of Ronald Reagan.

Now, in doing my research for this little column, I found the comments to be the most interesting.

Revisionist, destructive, lacking of morals, embarrassing are some of the responses to honoring President Reagan.

And I’m sure that I’ll get my share of angry responses.

But I don’t care.

I know Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until his mid-50s. 

I know Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term of Governor.

I know Ronald Reagan was the head of a major Labor Union.

These “offenses” would have ironically precluded him from receiving the Republican Party of Orange County endorsement in any election.

However, as President, Reagan faced up against Unions and squashed them.

Reagan faced up against terrorists and squashed them.

But most importantly, Reagan faced up against the Communist Soviet Union and squashed them, and made them tear down a wall.

Heck, they even made a “Star Trek” movie using that Cold War victory as a theme.

And according to Gallup, President Reagan left office with a 63% approval rating, with only Clinton and his 66% approval rating being higher in the 20^th century.

President Obama’s approval ratings during this past midterm election?  44%

So what is wrong with having a Park named after President Reagan?  I’m sure there are plenty of parks in Newport Beach, which could have used that honor, with the “Weed Park” being the first one that comes to mind.

But our republicans (note the small “r”) were too … um … apprehensive (read: SCARED) to do that.

So a privately funded statue was suggested, and that has received tons of heat.  Why?

Because Reagan was, as one anonymous commenter wrote, “Divisive and Extremely Partisan.”

But Councilman Curry said, “Reagan is a historical figure; he is no longer a political figure.” 

And he is absolutely right.

California, with its overwhelming Democrat majority, recognized February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day.  An airport in Washington D.C. is now named after him; hospitals, tollways, stamps, an Aircraft Carrier and generations of children are now being named Reagan.

All these people honored Ronald Reagan, not because of his politics, but because he made history.

Perhaps the loud minority in Newport Beach should get off their political high horses and honor President Ronald Reagan as the historical figure that he was.

And our Republican City Council need to quit being such populists and support Councilman Curry in honoring the man who made us all proud to be Republicans.

Made us all proud to be Americans.

MY TURN: Health Reform Is Job-Killing

By Dr. Michael A. Glueck

Up front I should note that I am a retired physician and have no monetary reasons or other incentives to write this comment. I mean, other than I am now a patient (with increasing frequency) and have some incentives to stay alive.

Physicians warn that the ill effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will be irreversible, and it needs to be repealed and not funded before implementation proceeds any further.

One serious consequence is that the bill is deemed to be job killing. Newport Beach, as well as the rest of California, can’t afford to lose any more jobs.

On Jan. 19, the House voted 245-189 to repeal the law. But that is not expected to make it out of Senate, and if it does it faces a certain presidential veto.

In fairness, some experts say that the bill will “not necessarily” kill jobs.

“What if your doctor told you that a radical, unprecedented operation would ‘not necessarily’ kill you?” asked Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Some politicians have presented many ways in which PPACA could damage the economy. Is “not knowing” whether they are right a reason to steam ahead with implementing a law that will undoubtedly have an enormous impact on one-sixth of the economy?

One reason it is impossible to know all the consequences is that all the rules have not yet been written. Much of the bill does not even take effect until 2014.

Businesses cannot prudently plan to expand without knowing what rules they will be required to follow. Moreover, the rules so far have been so onerous that hundreds are lining up to request waivers—which are likely to be granted, or not, based on political influences.

Surveys have shown that close to half of physicians may respond by restricting or closing their practices entirely. Would they really do this? Before the National Health Service was enacted, England had 44,000 doctors. By 1971, it had only 17,000. One-third of Texas physicians have already opted out of Medicare.

Organized medicine is telling doctors that small practices probably won’t be able to afford the vastly increased compliance requirements. Thus, they are urged to form “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) in order to survive. Their “incentives” are designed to restrict access to expensive care. They don’t have bureaucratic death panels; they just reward doctors who save money for the Plan.

We should continue to fight this onerous bill and then we need to discuss how to solve our problems in medicine instead of making them worse.