Mountain Views News          Saturday, July 18, 2015

Mountain Views News Saturday, July 18, 2015 OPINION16 
164,000 square miles of farmland, coastal 
regions, and cities. Desert cities like Palm 
Springs have been ordered to cut water 
usage by 50 percent. Forty million is 
more than double the 15.7 million people 
who lived here in 1960, and the state’s 
labor force exploded to 18.9 million in 
2013 from 6.4 million people in 1960. 
Governor Brown agrees with Professor 
Starr but isn’t as worried. Brown says that 
if Californians live “more elegantly,” the 
state can easily house 10 million more 
people. The metaphor Brown likes to use 
is “Spaceship Earth,” where everything 
is reused. Brown, however, said little 
about the billions in the dollar costs of 
planning, engineering and implementing 
systems that would recycle water. 
Californians have taken tiny steps in 
the right direction. Public utilities pay 
their customers to replace their lawns 
with drought-tolerant landscaping. As 
a result, consumption is down in major 
cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco 
compared to the 1980s, a major triumph 
given that during the elapsed 30 years, 
California’s population has soared, 
home construction has exploded, and 
thousands of new businesses have opened. 
Optimists like Professor Starr predict that 
California will, over time, change itself 
into a state that can cope with the drought 
and whatever other natural disasters may 
come its way. After all, Starr reminded 
Californians, in previous eras the state 
has run out of electricity, and even money, 
but always rallied back from the brink. 
Pessimists, however, can’t envision 
any practical solution to coping with 
an additional 10 million people who 
will put pressure on California’s water 
supply, and its roads, highways, schools, 
and hospitals. When looking ahead, 
Californians comfort themselves 
with the “one day at a time” mantra. 
— — -
Joe Guzzardi is a Californians for Population 
Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow whose 
columns have been syndicated since 1987. 
Contact him at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org. 
Mountain Views News Saturday, July 18, 2015 OPINION16 
164,000 square miles of farmland, coastal 
regions, and cities. Desert cities like Palm 
Springs have been ordered to cut water 
usage by 50 percent. Forty million is 
more than double the 15.7 million people 
who lived here in 1960, and the state’s 
labor force exploded to 18.9 million in 
2013 from 6.4 million people in 1960. 
Governor Brown agrees with Professor 
Starr but isn’t as worried. Brown says that 
if Californians live “more elegantly,” the 
state can easily house 10 million more 
people. The metaphor Brown likes to use 
is “Spaceship Earth,” where everything 
is reused. Brown, however, said little 
about the billions in the dollar costs of 
planning, engineering and implementing 
systems that would recycle water. 
Californians have taken tiny steps in 
the right direction. Public utilities pay 
their customers to replace their lawns 
with drought-tolerant landscaping. As 
a result, consumption is down in major 
cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco 
compared to the 1980s, a major triumph 
given that during the elapsed 30 years, 
California’s population has soared, 
home construction has exploded, and 
thousands of new businesses have opened. 
Optimists like Professor Starr predict that 
California will, over time, change itself 
into a state that can cope with the drought 
and whatever other natural disasters may 
come its way. After all, Starr reminded 
Californians, in previous eras the state 
has run out of electricity, and even money, 
but always rallied back from the brink. 
Pessimists, however, can’t envision 
any practical solution to coping with 
an additional 10 million people who 
will put pressure on California’s water 
supply, and its roads, highways, schools, 
and hospitals. When looking ahead, 
Californians comfort themselves 
with the “one day at a time” mantra. 
— — -
Joe Guzzardi is a Californians for Population 
Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow whose 
columns have been syndicated since 1987. 
Contact him at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org. 
Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 
Mountain 
Views 
News 
PUBLISHER/ EDITOR 
Susan Henderson 
CITY EDITOR 
Dean Lee 
EAST VALLEY EDITOR 
Joan Schmidt 
BUSINESS EDITOR 
LaQuetta Shamblee 
PRODUCTION 
Richard Garcia 
SALES 
Patricia Colonello 
626-355-2737 
626-818-2698 
WEBMASTER 
John Aveny 
CONTRIBUTORS 
Chris Leclerc 
Bob Eklund 
Howard HaysPaul CarpenterKim Clymer-KelleyChristopher NyergesPeter Dills 
Dr. Tina Paul 
Rich Johnson 
Merri Jill Finstrom 
Lori KoopRev. James SnyderTina Paul 
Mary CarneyKatie HopkinsDeanne Davis 
Despina ArouzmanGreg WelbornRenee Quenell 
Ben Show 
Sean KaydenMarc Garlett 
Pat Birdsall (retired) 
Mountain Views News 
Mission Statement 
The traditions of 
community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperouscommunity of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in highregard the values 
of the exceptionalquality of life in our 
community, includingthe magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide. 
Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated asa newspaper of GeneralCirculation for the County 
of Los Angeles in CourtCase number GS004724: 
for the City of SierraMadre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in CourtCase No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra MadreBlvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not bereproduced without the 
express written consent ofthe publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper becomethe property of the Mountain 
Views News and maybe published in part or 
whole. 
Opinions and viewsexpressed by the writersprinted in this paper donot necessarily expressthe views and opinionsof the publisher or staffof the Mountain Views 
News. 
Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by GraceLorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the rightto refuse publication ofadvertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 
Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 
Mountain Views News 
80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327 
Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024 
Phone: 626-355-2737 
Fax: 626-609-3285 
email: 
mtnviewsnews@aol.com 
HOWARD Hays As I See It 
“A few months ago I toldthe American peopleI did not trade arms 
for hostages. My heartand my best intentionsstill tell me that’s true, 
but the facts and the 
evidence tell me it is 
not . . . what began asa strategic opening toIran deteriorated, in 
its implementation,
into trading arms forhostages.” 
- President Ronald 
Reagan on Iran-Contra, March 1987 
Reagan wasn’t referring to the 52 hostagestaken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, but to sevenAmericans held years later by alleged Iranianproxies in Lebanon.
As for those hostages held earlier in Iran,
candidate Reagan made clear what his approachwould have been in securing their freedom. Asreported by the Washington Post in September1980, “Republican presidential nominee RonaldReagan said last night that the United Statesshould agree to virtually all the new demands ofIran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in returnfor the prompt release of the American hostages.”
Reagan dealt with his own hostage crises afterthe retreat following the 1983 bombing of ourMarine barracks in Beirut, with 241 Americans 
lives lost. Perhaps he sensed some “strategicopening” in shipping HAWK and TOW missilesto Iran. 
President Clinton declared Iran a “state 
sponsor of terrorism”, tightening oil and traderestrictions. But with the election of reformist 
Mohammad Khatami as Iran’s president, heacknowledged CIA involvement in the 1953assassination of their President Mossadeghand the harm caused by our support of theShah. Ayatollah Khamenei insisted we lift traderestrictions, withdraw support for Israel and stopaccusing his country of seeking nuclear weapons.
While considering the trade restrictions, Clintonwouldn’t budge on the latter two. Still, it lookedlike relations were improving.
An indication of this improvement came ninemonths into the presidency of George W.
Bush when, after 9/11, Iranians gathered for acandlelight vigil in Tehran’s Mohseni Square ina moving expression of condolence. PresidentKhatami released a statement “On behalf of 
the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic” to“express my deep sorrow and sympathy with theAmerican people.” Bush then lumped Iran inwith Iraq and North Korea in his “Axis of Evil”.
Iranians turned to the mullahs, and the mullahs 
turned to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As later with President Obama, Bush’s policyfocused on preventing Iran from acquiringnuclear weapons. Talks began, but Bush heededthe advice that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, 
and to “walk away from the table” if demandsaren’t met. Bush demanded “zero-enrichment” 
of uranium. Iran refused, and the Bush team 
walked away. As a result, the number of Iran’suranium-enriching centrifuges grew from 164 atthe time talks began under Bush to some 19,000today.
With the release of this latest agreement with 
Iran, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said althoughhe had “concerns”, he hesitated saying morebecause he hadn’t yet gotten through the entiredocument. In wanting to first make sure heknew what he was talking about, Rep. Schiffstood in marked contrast to those contenders 
for the GOP presidential nomination with nohesitancy in rushing to the media to expose theircluelessness. 
The deal extends Iran’s break-out time for nuclear 
weapons from a couple of months today to overa decade. Sanctions would be lifted and assets 
unfrozen, but with provisions to re-impose themwithin 65 days of a violation. Iran’s uraniumwould be limited to 3.67% enrichment (okay fora light water reactor; the standard for weapons-
grade is at least 80% enrichment.) Inspectionprovisions extend for 25 years, encompassingboth nuclear and military facilities, as well asthe supply-chain of materials into and out ofthe country. Iran’s barred from conventionalweapons markets for five years; ballistic missilesfor eight.
With new technology developed over the pastyears, arms control experts assess the deal’sverification safeguards as better-than-expected.
Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state in theBush Administration who helped put togetherthe original sanctions, pointed out how the dealwould also “diminish” the likelihood of Sunni 
states like Saudi Arabia developing nuclear armsprograms of their own.
But - no matter. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
didn’t just comment without taking time to readthe agreement, he already had a TV spot set toair showing the ultimate outcome of the deal asa mushroom cloud. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)
promised to “revoke” the agreement on “day 1”
of his presidency, and implement “crippling”
sanctions. Left unexplained was how the otherparties (China, Russia, France, Germany, theU.K.), who themselves spent years workingtowards this agreement, might regard such anaction – or how sanctions would be “crippling”
when those other parties go ahead and lift them 
anyway.
An answer was suggested by Sen. LindseyGraham (R-SC) in an NPR interview. Hisalternative was to impose sanctions forcing Iranto give up all nuclear activity – and if they didn’t,
we’d take care of it militarily. He was asked whatif allies like France and Germany decided to liftsanctions on their own. The senator’s responsewas that we would then cease all trade with 
France and Germany. When reminded we’dneed these allies in any military action againstIran, the answer was that we’d take on Iran 
by ourselves. (Among GOP candidates, Sen.
Graham is regarded as the most astute in foreignaffairs.)
In his press conference Wednesday, PresidentObama said, “My hope is that everyone inCongress also evaluates this agreement based onthe facts -- not on politics, not on posturing, noton the fact that this is a deal I bring to Congressas opposed to a Republican president, not basedon lobbying, but based on what’s in the nationalinterest of the United States of America.” 
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) responded thatthe president was “very naïve”. I’ll take issuewith that characterization of the president as“naïve”. After all, he said it was his “hope” – notnecessarily his expectation. 
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 
MORE HOURS FOR MORE 
INCOME? 
All of a sudden both political parties are interested in the issue of raisingthe incomes of the lower and middle income earners. 
Last week Jeb Bush was reported to have suggested that part of the solutionwas that part time employees be able to find full time employment. The 
media and some politicians got all excited that he might be seen as sayingthat some other workers may need to work more hours.
I’ll grab the third rail and suggest that to increase the incomes of themembers of, say, the lower 60 % of earners of wages, salaries, andcommissions some may need to work longer, some may need to worksmarter, and some both, and that we, the taxpayers and our legislatorshave some responsibilities as well.
It is no longer enough to say that a mere willingness to work hard issufficient in today’s economy to earn a living wage or better. If we are 
going to talk about minimum wages at $15 we should also talk aboutexpecting everyone to have a high school diploma or equivalent and aworkable command of English in order to earn such a minimum ratherthan it simply be charity from employers who will soon find ways to weedthe least qualified out.
No longer are there enough jobs for people with minimal qualifications,
no matter how willing, which means that everyone is going to need to getadded education or training and keep them current.
Finally, I can’t think of anyone earning in the top 40% that I think is onlyworking a 40 hour week.
Thus, having played the role of the little boy who revealed that theEmperor was wearing no clothes and mentioned the implication for thoseworkers are going to have to upgrade their skills and/or work more ifthey expect to find themselves closer to the top 40%, the taxpayers andlegislature also have to face some truths:
First we need to put more money into our community colleges, CSU andUniversity of California and technical schools so that students can get theclasses and come out without a mountain of student debt (which is just away of dumping on the younger generation burdens that we did not haveto bear a generation or two earlier), and we should also find ways to easethe burdens of student debt on those who are already carrying it.
Second, we need to re-look the way we look at wage and hour laws.
Presently they are predicated on the ideas that 8 hours per day and 40 hoursper week are holy writ, that the nature of work is no more complex than afactory of low skilled workers screwing nuts on bolts for 8 hours and goinghome, that workers are not very intelligent and need to be “protected”
from working beyond those limits or making other arrangements andemployers should be treated like Simon Legree if they offer a 9th houror any flexibility. The penalties against any employer who doesn’t knowthe last idea or makes a good faith mistake in calculation or forms are sodraconian that the conservative thing to do is err on the side of minimizingany chance of an hourly worker for added income or accommodationand this weighs most heavily against the lowest paid hourly workers andsmall businesses that do not have the resources to hire attorneys andconsultants to outguess the latest ideas of Plaintiffs’ lawyers and keep theirpaperwork perfect. The reality that workers have a stake in more complexcompensation situations including flexibility to take advantage of theopportunity to receive tips (such as wait persons) or complete work wherethe employee shares in the fee from the customer (such as mechanics) oranyone who uses a cell phone or email outside hours.
If everyone is honest about it, we should be able to seriously improveprosperity for those who work for a living as well as everyone else. 
--Eric Olson, Sierra Madre 
THE FUTURE OF 
CALIFORNIA’S 50 
MILLION RESIDENTS 
By Joe Guzzardi 
As California 
heads into 
high summer 
in the midst of 
its fourth year 
of a punishing 
drought, the 
question most residents ask is whether 
the state has hit the limits of growth. 
If the answer is yes, then radical 
lifestyle adjustments must be made. 
University of Southern California historian 
Kevin Starr, who has exhaustively chronicled 
the fluctuations of the state’s fortunes in 
his multi-volume series “California and 
the American Dream,” is candid in his 
evaluation. Starr told the Los Angeles Times 
that Mother Nature didn’t intend for 40 
million people, today’s population, to live 
in California, and that the culture which 
has since 1880 continuously invented and 
reinvented itself is on the brink. California 
is not, said Starr, about to cease functioning 
but will have to make major changes in the 
coming years. Those modifications will 
have to start soon, and should begin with 
dramatically reduced water consumption. 
Some experts predict that the drought 
could last for decades if not indefinitely. 
At jeopardy during the sustained drought 
is California’s economy. California’s $2.2 
trillion economy is the world’s seventh 
largest and is, as reported by the Times, 
more than quadruple 1963’s $520 billion 
economy, adjusted for inflation. The 
median household income jumped to an 
estimated $61,094 in 2013 from $44,772 
in 1960, also adjusted for inflation. 
In what may be California’s most 
daunting challenge, the largest 
contributor to the state’s economy—
agriculture—also uses the most water. 
Approximately 80 percent of California’s 
surface water is allocated to agriculture. 
According to the California Department 
of Finance, California will have 50 million 
residents by 2050. Today’s 40 million 
Californians struggle to comply with 
a mandatory and first-ever 25 percent 
water reduction usage to accommodate its 
LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN 
MICHAEL Reagan Making Sense 
DONALD TRUMP, 
FAKE CONSERVATIVE 
Donald Trump has jumped to the top of thenational polls for the Republican Party’s presidentialnomination. 
It’s an embarrassing moment for the GOP, thecountry and the planet.
But everyone knows America’s richest celebrity 
businessman will never become the Republican 
candidate, much less president of the U.S.
Unfortunately for the GOP’s future, however, the billionaire blowhard is notgoing to fade away in a week or two like Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann didin 2012. 
Whether he’s really worth $10 billion, as Trump claims, or just a few billion, hehas more than enough money, ego and media pull to keep him in the race all theway until Election Day.
With an ego bigger than America, Trump could pull another Ross Perot andput another Clinton in the White House.
Meantime, Candidate Trump has been a running political joke for weeks.
Underneath his criticism of America’s weak and stupid leaders and his boastingabout his being able to make better trade deals with foreign countries than anyoneelse, he really has just one issue – immigration.
An issue which he blew badly.
In trying to explain his crude position on that politically complex subject,
he managed to offend every Latino in the hemisphere by implying that illegalimmigrants from Mexico are mostly murderers and rapists.
As for Trump’s positions on other issues important to conservatives and thefuture of America, they remain a total mystery.
The media won’t ask, and he won’t tell. 
Is he pro life or pro choice?
Is he for national health care or against it?
How exactly does he plan to create all those new good jobs for Americans?
Is he going to raise taxes on the rich? Flatter taxes or fairer taxes?
What would he do to fix the education problem?
If indeed immigration is his signature issue, how is he going to stop or controlit? And what’s he going to do about the 12 million illegals already here?
Maybe Candidate Trump filled in Ted Cruz on where he stood on these issuesthe other day when Cruz made a friendly visit to Trump in his Tower.
But other conservatives need to find out if Trump is really a Republican.
He sure doesn’t act like one. He’s already broken Ronald Reagan’s 11thCommandment – never speak ill of another Republican – dozens of times.
(Trump’s 12th Commandment is “Speak ill of everybody.”)
So before any more conservatives jump on the Trump bandwagon, wouldn’t itbe better to find out where he stands? 
We only get sound bites from Trump’s events. But no one in the liberal media isin a big hurry to go deeper on him and his views.
They aren’t going to dig deep into his “colorful” personal or business historyin an attempt to discredit him or prove, as some people say, that he’s not even asconservative as Bill Clinton. 
If the media did some excavating, they might be surprised by Trump’s answers.
They might find that he doesn’t say the same thing to conservatives in privateas he when he bloviates in front of crowds and cameras. 
What, for instance, did Candidate Trump say in private when he talked to theFriends of Abe, the support and networking group actor Gary Sinise started forabout 2,000 political conservatives working in Hollywood?
Were the FOA’s elite members put off by him? Did they embrace him? Whoknows? 
No one in the mainstream news media seems too eager to expose Trump forthe conservative fake he really is.
They treasure him for his celebrity and his entertainment value and don’t wantto spoil the show.
But the liberal media treasure Trump even more because he spends so muchtime helping them discredit the Republican Party and conservatism. 
——Michael 
Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, andthe author of ”The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press). He is the founder ofthe email service reagan.com and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visithis websites at www.reagan.com and www.michaelereagan.com. Send comments toReagan@caglecartoons.com. Follow @reaganworld on Twitter.