XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
   From: nospam@comcast.net   
      
   Sociologist Robert Merton coined the term “unintended consequences” in a   
   1936 essay, exploring how people take actions they believe will have   
   positive outcomes, but later learn they have negative impacts. Someone   
   could — and should — write a book about the seemingly countless   
   incidents of adverse consequences from the decrees issued by California   
   legislators and governors.   
      
   Perhaps the most spectacular example is the ill-named “deregulation” of   
   California’s electrical power system 29 years ago, embraced by   
   legislators of both parties and then-Gov. Pete Wilson. Advocates hailed   
   the overhaul as a bold act that would assure ample power supplies while   
   reducing consumers’ utility bills.   
      
   However, it was an unmitigated disaster that invited manipulation of the   
   electricity market and drove up costs. It plunged Pacific Gas and   
   Electric Co. into bankruptcy and pushed Southern California Edison to   
   the brink of insolvency.   
      
   Oddly, it did not curb the urge of California politicians to tamper with   
   how their constituents obtain and pay for electricity. This year’s   
   example is Senate Bill 540, a controversial measure which would, if   
   enacted, have California join a regional power consortium with   
   unpredictable consequences.   
      
   There are other major examples of legislation that backfired and is   
   worth noting.   
      
   One is Assembly Bill 218, a 2019 bill that temporarily suspended the   
   statute of limitations on sexual abuse lawsuits. Proponents said it   
   would allow victims to finally receive justice, brushing aside criticism   
   that it would be a bonanza for lawyers. Hundreds of suits against local   
   governments and school systems have been filed, resulting in   
   multibillion-dollar settlements, including a $4 billion payout by Los   
   Angeles County to settle 6,800 claims from former foster children and   
   formerly incarcerated minors.   
      
   The spate of abuse suits has also distorted the ability of public   
   entities to acquire liability insurance. The bill’s author, former   
   Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, has called for changes.   
      
   “When I authored AB 218 my priority was to protect kids from sex abuse &   
   ensure victims could have some justice,” Gonzalez, now head of the   
   California Federation of Labor Unions, said in social media post. “Now,   
   some unscrupulous attorneys are treating it like feeding frenzy. I   
   support reforms to cap attorneys’ fees or other measures to reel the   
   costs in for public entities.”   
      
   There also are many other current examples of potentially harmful   
   consequences, including the late-blooming effort by Gov. Gavin Newsom   
   and Democratic legislators to alter — temporarily, they say —   
   California’s 52 congressional districts to produce more Democratic   
   members and offset a Republican-sponsored gerrymander in Texas.   
      
   The electric power and gerrymandering measures are not the only pieces   
   of pending litigation with potentially negative consequences. Two of   
   them involve school operations.   
      
   One is Assembly Bill 1264, aimed at removing ultra-processed foods from   
   the millions of meals public schools serve to their students.   
      
   Advocates say such foods adversely affect children’s health, which is   
   certainly a legitimate issue if proven. However, critics say that the   
   legislation, which tasks defining such foods to a state agency, could   
   ban foods that Californians commonly consume and result in a flood of   
   lawsuits, not unlike what happened after Gonzalez’s child abuse law was   
   enacted.   
      
   The other is Assembly Bill 495, which would expand the list of people   
   who could take charge of public school students in the absence of their   
   parents or designated caregivers. It’s aimed at protecting children of   
   parents who have been swept up in the federal government’s crackdown on   
   undocumented immigrants. However, critics say just about anyone could   
   claim to be a substitute caregiver under the legislation’s loose   
   definition, thereby potentially endangering children rather than   
   protecting them.   
      
   As Merton pointed out in his essay, advocates of new policies or   
   programs always stress their positive intentions, while downplaying or   
   ignoring downside risks. It’s a dangerous syndrome, as California   
   politicians should have learned by now.   
      
   By Dan Walters. This article was originally published by CalMatters.   
      
   https://smdp.com/opinion/californias-politicians-overlook-potent   
   al-pitfalls-in-their-zeal-for-new-laws/   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)