The difference between golf and government is that in golf you can't improve your lie.
The Supreme Court, or any court, when they make a decision, if that's a published decision, it becomes virtually like a statute. Everybody is suppose to follow that law. Whether I decide to allow a law to become a law without my signature is simply in effect expressing a view that while I don't particularly care for this, the Legislature passed it, it was an overwhelming. vote, or maybe there were other reasons. But my decision not to sign doesn't have to be followed by everybody from that point on
Every lie has 2 parts - the lie we tell others and the one we tell ourselves to justify it.
My understanding has always been that if there is any indication that pesticides are harmful, that they would not be allowed to be used.
Whether I sign a bill or not, is generally an expression of my personal view on the subject. It's not an interpretation of an existing law.
I don't see any need to unduly burden the taxpayer.
I would hope that people would feel that they achieved a greater opportunity in life living here in California than they had prior to when we came in. That they had a better opportunity of getting better education.That they had a better opportunity of getting a job once they had an education or training. And that overall, that their quality of life had improved.
I don't think there's any evidence to support that kind of criticism. I think that what we have attempted to do is to say that environmental concerns should certainly be addressed. We're not suggesting that any kind of development trample upon the existing laws that are there to insure that we maintain as high a quality of environment as possible.
There have been various pesticides that have been properly tested, that have been registered and then have been used and later on they've been discoveredthat they can create harm, like in the case of this Oftanol that was being used here (in Sacramento, against the Japanese beetle). Now they find that it can cause problems at least to animals. So we stopped using it.
One of the biggest problems that we have right now is that in some areas of the State we cannot get additional jobs created because they say the housing costs are too high.
There does need to be a speed-up of the process.It takes entirely too long to addres5 some of those concerns and, in the process, it becomes so extremely expensive and cumbersome that it tends to turn away those people and companies that want to provide much needed housing.
One of course is to insure greater supply of energy for California's needs now and in the future in the sense that we are in discussions with representatives of Oregon and Washington, where they do have a surplus supply of energy available, and at what we hope will be a very reasonable price.
It seems to me that it's better to allow people to have more spendable income.That helps 'LO stimulate the economy and create more jobs.
We're looking at available sources, all sources, in the area of additional energy.
I'm not an expert in it, but it seems to me that you have to let the market forces go their course.
I don't think that it's appropriate for the government to say, in effect, we're going to slow down the growth of housing or that we're going to slow down the extension of the highway and the freeway system.
There are several ways in order to reduce the housing problem.One way is to allow a developer to buy land more cheaply if it's in an outlying area.
