Dan Walters' Capitol Q&A

Question: Why was the CDFA allowed to get AB-1735 passed as a concent item and not required to discuss or debate the raw milk issue? Its bill is applied to an industry it regulates. Isn't that also a conflict of interest and defies written administration policy. AB-1735 affects all raw milk from cows, goats and even raw human breast milk.
-- Scott Robinson, Vista

Answer: The measure you cite, signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, imposes new standards on raw milk and is seen by some suppliers and consumers as virtually barring raw, unpasteurized milk from sale. State agencies often sponsor bills in their areas, so this is really standard practice. The bill, moreover, was not a sneaky one. It went through the normal process, taking seven months from introduction to enactment, and was only amended once. It never had a single "no" vote in any committee or on either floor and no one ever expressed any opposition to it. I would say that the raw milk community fell down on the job. If it opposed the bill, it had ample opportunity to say so, but never did.
--Dan Walters

Question: With the projected state deficit now up to $14 billion, what will the effect of that be on next year's revenue for local cities in California?
-- Jon Kaufman, Berkeley

Answer: Cities, unlike counties, have relatively little stake in the state budget but it's possible that they will see some impact if there are severe state spending cuts. For instance, the state could reduce or eliminate its COPS program that provides money to law enforcement agencies. Counties, on the other hand, are heavily involved in state-financed health and welfare programs and could see a fairly large impact.
--Dan Walters

Question: On page A9 of the Dec. 10 edition of The Bee is an ad saying "Don't Kill California Jobs" with a payroll tax on health care. Who is the party that is paying for this ad?
-- Kevin Hullquist, Fort Jones

Answer: The National Federatin of Independent Business, which is a nationwide lobbying group for small employers.
--Dan Walters

Question: Florida 2000. Is it possible that California could become the "Florida" of 2008? Suppose the Republicans get their electoral initiative on ballot. They say it applies immediately. Democrats say it doesn't. The presidential election could come down to the lawsuit?
-- Gary Miller, Roseville

Answer: If the measure qualifies for the November ballot (it's already missed the June election) and if voters approve it, the scenario you suggest could come to pass. The measure would allocate California's electoral votes by congressional district, rather than on a winner-take-all basis, and that means the Republican candidate could get about 20 of the 55. The question would be whether the ballot measure allocating the electoral votes would, if approved, apply to the electoral votes this year or take effect in a subsequent presidential election. It's uncharted legal territory and were the allocation be critical to deciding who wins the White House, it could, indeed, emulate what happened in Florida in 2000 with multiple court cases perhaps going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
-- Dan Walters