Assemblyman Niello represents the 5th district in the California State Assembly.
What is going on with the focus of the Republican Party over the past several years?
"I think the challenge is a little bit different in California verses
the rest of the country. In the rest of the country, we were in the
majority for a while and we lost it (the majority), whereas of course
in California, we have been pretty consistently in the minority for a
few decades, with just a few shining moments back in the mid 90's. And
so, at the national level, when we (the Republicans) took over the
government, and started to govern, we maybe gotten a little too close
to the government, and a little bit to comfortable with the role of
government. As a ruling party in Washington D.C. we sort of accepted a
little bit too much spending, and a little bit too much government,
that is, I think, comfortable for Republican principles. The voters
noticed that and there was a change unfortunately, and unfortunately
that change is taking us exactly in the wrong direction, but none the
less, it did happen. In California we of course have been in the
minority for quite some time, sometimes I wonder if we have a firm
grasp of our strategic principles, I guess I can say that both at the
national and the California level, but particularly in California
because the Republican principles that should unite us, I believe, are
such things as, limited government, personal freedoms and
responsibilities (that is allowed by a more limited govt), policies
that foster a strong, free enterprise capitalist system, as well as
traditional family values. These are the large issues, that in my
opinion that should unite us".
http://www.placergop.org/principles
"The one thing that's been instructive to me since we adopted the
budget in February, is we tend to maybe focus a little bit too much on
the tools we use to achieve those principles, and to the point, that
maybe those tools become principles in and of themselves. Maybe not
entirely, but specifically in this case, (the case of) tax policy. The
reasons we do believe, as Republicans, that taxes should be as low as
possible, and taxes should be fair, hopefully flat, as opposed to
graduated, and certainly comprehensible. I think we all can agree on
those principles. That provides us for the ability to have a more
limited govt, more personal freedom, a free and healthy enterprise,
while high taxation does exactly the opposite, with regards to all
those guiding principles. The reason that I accepted the completely,
distasteful option of some broad based and temporary tax increases, is
because the alternative of the state running out of cash, in my
opinion, would have done far more damage to the economy of California
then would have, the temporary tax increases. And I am focused on that
strong economy, and the taxes will go away, we will continue to try to
get reforms to pursue those broad principles of limited government,
personal responsibility and a healthy economy.
Do you think there is one thing that the Republican Party can do to
attract new members? People seem to think that as the Republican party
gets smaller, it becomes less vocal.
"Two things. First of all, we get smaller, but we do not get less
vocal. We've become more vocal, more vocal in a way that we end up
getting so mad at our own members, for daring to interpret our
principles a little bit differently that we want to take our own
members out of office. We seem to get more upset with our own members
more than we do with members of the other party, who don't just violate
individual tools to reach our principles, but just trample all over our
principles. I think two things happened this last election. First of
all, we had an opponent on the other side, Barrack Obama, who really
sparked their base, who also happened to spark a lot of people in the
middle, who I believe, just don't know what they bought, but I think
they'll figure it out".
"He (Obama) had an outstanding grassroots organization, and all of that
allowed the Barrack Obama campaign to tremendously increase Democratic
registrations, and that happened in California, as well as lots of
other states. That's a short term phenomenon that I think, we can
overcome. The way we're going to overcome it, is by understanding what
our broader principles are. We can debate things on how to get there,
but debate does not mean censoring, shouting down and attempting to
remove from office, people that we disagree with on individual
policies. It's been my experience, based upon things that I've heard
from friends, and constituents, and other people around the state, that
people dropped out of the Republican party, to at least, a certain
extent because they're kind of nonplussed by the nature of that
discourse".
You are in a unique position to answer my next few questions. You have
a 25 year history in the automotive history by working at your family's
automobile dealerships.
http://www.niello.com/map.php
Do you agree with Obama's new government plan that was recently signed to limit the emissions in automobiles?
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE53R68U20090428?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
"The only thing that I would tip my hat to (with the new plan) is that
at least we have a national standard, and it's easier for manufacturers
to meet a national standard, as opposed to a dozen different standards
throughout 50 different states (that's impossible), but I totally
disagree with the premise of that policy. The premise being, not just
the issue of trying to drive a better fuel efficient vehicle and trying
to limit our dependence on foreign oil, (actually they even say
eliminate our dependence of foreign oil, I don't think we can do that
realistically) but none the less, to the extent that those policies can
make sense, but the greater premise of that policy is global warming
and the reduction of CO2 emissions. Because of it (the policy) being
driven by the reduction CO2 emissions, as opposed to fuel efficiency,
and lowering the dependence on foreign oil, it drives us to a
tremendous disadvantage of our fossil fuels in particular there's a
tremendous advantage of diesel that we are not achieving and these
policies tend to disadvantage that, and potentially advantage
approaches that are far less efficient and much more expensive like
electricity and the like. One national standard frankly makes imminent
sense, and I think that most manufacturers would agree with that. I
think you would also find that if you had private discussion with the
manufacturers (that were at that press conference) agreeing with Obama,
it was out of a defensive posture, as opposed to embracing the details
(of this emissions policy)".
Do you think that these new standards are going to put another nail in the coffin of the auto industry?
"Well, it is difficult to understand how a company, that's headed into
bankruptcy is going to be able to afford the investments in power
plants and vehicles, that may or may not be in true demand by the
buyers. I'm not gonna say that (the policy) is going to threaten the
demise of the domestic automotive manufacturers, because that demise
may already be determined. The viability of the domestic auto
manufacturers is already seriously in question, and a good deal of that
is because frankly a lot of their own mistakes over the last several
decades".
How could auto companies fairly compete against each other, now that
some have an endless supply of "our" tax dollars, while being taken
over by the govt?
"That's an interesting question. I believe the Ford motor company is in
a uniquely strong position right now if they can continue to hold on
through this downturn without turning to govt money, because they will
have control over their product development. There is no amount of
resources, unlimited from a printing press or otherwise, that can
overcome decisions to develop products that politicians might view as
being desirable, but the buying public does not necessarily. If I was
Ford motor company, I would encourage and hope, in every way I could
that congress and the President (Obama) would become involved in the
design of products for Chrysler and General Motors, and I would
continue to research the market and develop the products that people
are actually gonna buy".
Basically, a privately owned company would have to compete against the govt in the auto industry.
Do you think the govt should be giving "bailout" money to the private industries? like the auto industry?
"No. I think that much of which that's been done at the federal level,
is fundamentally flawed from a philosophic standpoint, and in the
longer term, potentially terrible inflationary".
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/14/no-joke-obama-setting-advertising-policy-for-chrysler/
http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN1943363120090519
The state budget deficit is expected to hit upwards of $20-$22 billion dollars in July.
What are your thoughts on the California State Budget not passing?
"We just concluded our first Budget Conference Committee meeting just
before I called you, and we are looking at something upwards of over
$20 billion, but keep in mind, that is a number that we can depend upon
now, in all accuracy, only if you believe the economy has hit bottom
and we can't recover, which of course, we're not (at bottom). So the
problem will probably deteriorate further, we'll have to plug the gap
that we know we have now, and move on. We're probably gonna have to
reopen things during the year as things do deteriorate (further), or
until we begin to recover. We have a very serious challenge,that has
many difficult levels of cuts to make. Especially if we're gonna do it
without being able to change any mandates that have been imposed upon
us, by initiatives that had been passed by the voters in the past".
"I do think that basically the voters said, we passed these things in
the past, don't ask us to change them, and to work with what you got. I
do think that message was part of what we got. Just to discuss that
point for a moment, the spin in the wake of that election points out to
me, that especially with this election, because of the the very unique
coalitions that developed on both sides of those issues, there were
conservatives and liberals in favor, and there were conservatives and
liberals opposed, for that reason people can draw up conclusions about
that election in any way that they want to, to kind of serve their
agenda. In my opinion, I think what happened was, we brought the voters
into what is just classic, by the nature of the process, a somewhat
messy compromise. The budget, every year, is the ultimate compromise of
anything that we do in the legislature, or congress. It's a big bill,
dealing in a series of bills with a whole bunch of things, and there's
just no way that in a budget, anybody is going to be satisfied with
every single ingredient in a budget."
"I once had somebody say to me that if they didn't agree with every
line item in a budget, they could never support the budget, well that
ain't ever gonna happen, that just isn't. So you vote on a budget and
you compromise on the budget, you learn to swallow what you don't like.
That is a classic political compromise that goes on within every
deliberative democracy in the world and every deliberative jurisdiction
within the representative democracy that is the United States.
Deliberative bodies do that all the time, but what we did was of
necessity because we were changing things that voters had imposed in
the first place. We took that rather complex compromise and put it
before the voters. That kind of compromise, and political maneuvering
if you will, works under the Capitol dome (State Capitol) but it
doesn't work so well on Main Street and in my opinion I think that's
fundamentally why it was rejected. I don't know if voters would
articulate it that way, but everything I heard pointed to that. 'Don't
make me make your decisions', 'these are too complicated', etc etc. And
I think that's basically why it (the bill) failed. The point is we have
a huge gap to fill, we are somewhat restricted in the way we're gonna
be able to do it, but we're gonna have to do it, plain and simple".
To save money, if illegal immigration in California alone, costs almost
$11 billion dollars a year, why isn't more being done to stop illegal
immigration?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
"Well, I've read some articles about what illegal immigration costs us,
and it is a lot of money. I don't know if it's (the number I quoted) is
that high, it's easily $5 to $6 billion. The problem is, the vast
majority of that, all but maybe a few hundred million is because of
federal mandates, and we can't change that. I wish we could, and we
should be able to, but we can't because of the illegals that are in
prisons, and they (the federal govt) are supposed to reimburse us, but
they don't. It is also against federal law to restrict undocumented
children in schools. They (illegals) have to be treated in hospital
emergency rooms by federal mandate, those are the bulks of the cost.
And of course, the control of the borders is a federal responsibility
too. The borders are not adequately controlled. I think that the
process makes it so difficult for people to come in (to the United
States) legally, that it forces them to come in illegally and they do
it easily, because the borders aren't controlled. We have a horrible
problem of enabling this situation we have to deal with, by the lack of
action on the part of the federal govt".
I like the word that you used, "enabling", because why does this
country do so much to assist the illegal immigrants? Instead of illegal
immigrants being deported, they get health care assistance, public
schooling, food discounts. The chance to come here illegally, and then
possibly be deported is worth it to them.
"That's right, and I hear from people a lot about that to. (They ask)
How can you vote against providing certain assistance to people,
whether they are legal or illegal? And my point is, I just don't want
to encourage more. And that's what happens when you have those
allowances, you encourage more. The fact of the matter is, there is a
heck of a lot more attraction to living in the United States, then
there is to living in about 80% of the rest of the world".
Do you think the Democrats don't want to stop illegal immigration?
Possibly because they are waiting for an Immigration Reform Bill to
come, and use that Immigration Bill to register a whole new wave of
Democrats? Or is it a Washington issue once again?
"That's an interesting question. Certainly, a popular, sort of theory
is that all these folks would naturally be voters for the Democrats,
and that's why Democrats want that (Immigration Reform Bill). From a
philosophy completely separate aside from illegal immigration, what
concerns me about that particular presumption is that it sounds like
Republicans are giving up any voting base from new legal immigrants.
How different would illegal immigrants be from legal immigrants, when
they're just new to the country? obviously the fact that they are
breaking the law and all that is different, but the point is, if we
assume that's the case, then we're basically saying that any new person
to this country is automatically gonna be a Democrat, not a Republican
and that's a dangerous assumption to make because we have the
opportunity to register new Republicans at every single Naturalism
ceremony 9and there's a bunch of them). That's kind of a sidebar point,
but I think it's important for us to keep in line because we did start
off about the challenge of Republican registrations, and many ethnic
minorities are naturally conservative folks, certainly socially. It
wasn't until 1930 that almost all African Americans were Republicans.
I'm just not willing to give up on those ethnic groups as potential
Republicans. But with that point aside, the immigration issue is
emotionally charged, both on the pro, as well as the con. It seems as
though when they discuss doing something at the national level, every
side of the argument erupts and it sort of scares everybody into
inaction back in Washington D.C. and I don't know what the answer to
that is".
Are the PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) payments still safe in this economy?
Are there going to be changes in the way public employees receive their retirement payments in the future?
"Well, I'd be concerned about that and when I talk to public employees,
especially about pension issues, I tell them they ought to be concerned
about that for a couple of reasons. First of all, yes, the current
economic dynamics are creating challenges that will cause great stress
to retirement systems which are forced to pay out benefits on a defined
benefit basis, whether they have the resources to do it or not. That's
the challenge of the economy in the near term. The other problem is the
longer term, the near term economic challenges, not withstanding.The
pressures of the under-funding of the Public Retiree Systems, plus the
really unrecognized obligation of retiree health care benefits is
causing, and will increasingly cause huge stress on our (state) budget.
And that's not even part of our discussions right now, but it sure as
heck will be in the future".
"The third thing that's sort of impacting that is, in my opinion, I
don't think that a defined benefit plan is anymore a viable, long term,
and sustainable plan. It requires that all risks of retirement funding
be on the employer, and none of it (the risks) on the employee, besides
making certain contributions. I just don't know that's really a
sustainable model. The private sector has recognized it as such because
the private sector almost entirely has 401k plans. Any of the defined
benefit plans have ceased to exist either by companies abandoning them,
or the companies that had them, going broke, at least partially because
of the obligation to those defined benefit plans".
"Eventually, you got to think that the rest of the people in our
society, in the private sector, in 401k plans, who by the way, pay all
the bills for the public sector, are eventually gonna get a little bit
concerned about the fact that the pensions they are paying with their
tax dollars, are more generous seemingly than those that they have
privately. There could be a voter revolt over that, just as there was
for Proposition 13 (a proposition that appeared on the May 19th, 2009
special election ballot. It was also known as Property tax: new
construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting)" and things like that. On
all different levels, I would be concerned about public pensions, and I
think that we should be working to reform what I think is a long term,
and not viable system in the first place. I think we should be working
to try and reform that on a controlled basis as opposed to it happening
because of a revolt ".
Marijuana if legalized, is estimated to possibly bring in $1 billion
dollars per year in profit to the state of California, any possibility
that California would implement the legalization of Marijuana?
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/02/11/audacity-dope
"I don't want to say there is not a possibility of it, but I would say,
on that basis (just for the state to make a profit), I would
categorically be opposed to it. I don't think we should consider doing
that (legalizing Marijuana) because of increased revenue. That is a
corrupt motivation, that would be driving a decision that ought to made
for entirely different reasons. If you want to debate the legalization
of Marijuana, fine, but you debate it on the merits. I don't agree with
it on the merits. I don't think that we need to legalize another drug
that is potentially habit forming, 'potentially' damaging, and also I a
believe, at least to an extent, is a gateway drug. I've been really
attacked for saying that, but I believe, at least to a limited extent,
that it is. These are the sorts of things that should be addressed in
the debate of whether you legalize Marijuana, or not. You shouldn't
minimize those legitimate human effects, just by the allure of a whole
bunch of increased tax revenue".
It should be noted that Niello advised that he used the word
"potentially" because he knows there are different studies conducted on
Marijuana that have produced different results.
What about medicinal purposes?
"That's already been approved by the state and I always suggest that
perhaps that it can be done through synthetic or alternative
administration forms as opposed to the weed itself, because of the fact
that for medicinal purposes, it's just to easy then for it to be
diverted into the casual use market. That feeds the potential problems
of the debate of legalizing more broadly anyway. But as I've said, in
California, that's already been approved."
The legalization for medicinal purposes has been approved in California, but it is still shunned on the federal level?
"Yes they do, because the federal law is still what the federal law is.
But again, the debate ought to be on the merits or demerits of the
effects of the drug. That particular argument ought not to be diluted
or slanted in any way because of the ability to increase tax revenues.
That's a perversion of greed of the private sector."
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuana.html
Visit Assemblyman Roger Niello's website. He is truly a politician for
the people and an all around stand up guy. View his impressive
political resume and see for yourselves.
http://www.rogerniello.com/
There is a light at the end of the tunnel.
www.conservativerule.com
