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.

My understanding has always been that if there is any indication that pesticides are harmful, that they would not be allowed to be used.

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 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.

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'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 see any need to unduly burden the taxpayer.