crossposted at CalWatchdog

Katy Grimes: Regardless of cost, the Obama Administration is behind California’s plan to build a High-Speed Rail system, according to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

“Despite a series of a cautionary reports by outside agencies and groups, the Obama administration is reaffirming its commitment to California’s $98.5-billion bullet train project,” the Los Angeles Times reported on LaHood’s visit to California this week. “Over the past week, I have traveled all over the Golden State and have found a strong base of support for the California High-Speed Rail project, from workers who will build it, manufacturers that will supply the trains to run on it and businesses that will benefit from using it,” LaHood said.

Despite being to stop “wasting” federal high-speed rail money on California by members of Congress in December, LaHood stands firm on his blind support of the project. Members told LaHood about California’s high-speed rail’s skyrocketing costs, delayed construction issues, and flawed passenger estimates.

Of course the union employees who will build a High-Speed Rail system, and the manufacturers that will supply the trains support it. Duh.

As is typical with government officials in this era of big government, they are deaf to taxpayer concerns and interests, as well as the “series of cautionary reports” warning that the $98.6 billion cost will bankrupt the state, and the HSR business plan is bogus.

Instead, a beefed-up radio campaign has hit the airways, paid for by the California Alliance for Jobs, which claims to be a non-profit organization “that promotes responsible investment in public infrastructure to help build a secure future for all Californians.” Take a look at their IRS 990 forms. They admit that they exist for the “enhancement and development of unionized construction work in the Northern California area.”

This non-profit group employs a lobbyist or two, a lobbying firm, spent $525,000 on lobbying in 2009, and contributes to political campaigns.

Comedian Will Durst narrates the radio ads. The ads are obnoxious and offensive. “There will always be skeptics,” Durst states in the ad, referring to High-Speed Rail “naysayers.” “Heck, some people would vote against sunshine and hugs.” Read the transcript of the ad.

“It’s time to do the right thing. Put people to work now and build something momentous for our future,” Durst says.

If High-Speed rail had merit, was needed, or supported by voters, we could accomplish this with non-union labor, and save a tremendous amount of money in the meantime. But it has no merit, is not needed, and voters would shut it down if a vote was taken today, a Field Poll reported.

As I constantly remind people, there are still more non-union voters in California.

FEB. 10, 2012

Crossposted at CalWatchdog

FEB. 6, 2012

Any time there is a chick-fest at the Capitol, eyes roll. Last week a legislative hearing about women wasn’t the usual love fest of everything woman. This whining group was lobbying to save a state commission from budget cuts, hardly the picture of  classic suffragettes.

The governor announced last year that he wanted to dramatically reduce the budget of the California Commission on the Status of Women, which began under his father, Gov. Pat Brown. Many say that the commission has been operating for years more as a spending lobby, than a support group for women and girls.

The women I saw represented every hackneyed feminist movement issue.

Cuts To Women 

In his budget proposal, Gov. Jerry Brown said the commission’s administration, legislation, research and information budgets would be reduced from $465,000 to $265,000. While compared to the multi-million-dollar budgets of other agencies, this seems like peanuts. But a great deal of legislator and staff time has been spent on the subject of women. And the state sends its female employees to the commission’s convention every year, slighting the state’s male employees.

Come to think of, why don’t men have a commission?

The joint legislative hearing was held to promote a new report from the California Budget Project titled, “Falling Behind: The Impact of the Great Recession and the Budget Crisis on California’s Women and Their Families.”

Injustices and inequities to women were a focus of the hearing, made up of members of the Assembly Subcommittee No. 1 on Health And Human Services, Budget Committee, and the Senate Human Services Committee at the ”Joint Info-Hearing on The Recession and Impact on Women/Families.

Members from the legislative women’s caucus, and representatives from the California Budget Project and the women’s commission, addressed women’s entitlements and “women’s rightful inheritance to realize potential.”

The report concluded that women have been hit harder during this recession, and are not enjoying the fruits of economic recovery the way men are, because of cuts to services that women use: Healthy Families, welfare, CalWorks, CalFresh, Medi-Cal and subsidized child care. The report stated that single mothers and older women “were more likely to live in poverty.”

But if poverty in California is a problem, is it a bigger problem for girls and women? Don’t men and boys suffer from poverty? And why does California have an entire agency dedicated to just women and girls? What about two-parent families living in poverty, undocumented immigrants living in poverty, or single father families?

A Commission Of Women Only

According to its mission statement, “The Commission on the Status of Women, a nonpartisan state agency, works in a culturally inclusive manner to promote equality and justice for all women and girls by advocating on their behalf with the Governor, the Legislature and other public policymakers, and by educating the public in the areas of economic equity including educational equity, access to health care including reproductive choice, violence against women and other key issue areas identified by the Commission as significantly affecting women and girls.”

The interim director’s bio page has a little more detail about what the commission does and the agenda it upholds: “The Commission works to promote equality and justice for all women by advocating on a wide array issues including educational equity, access to health care, LGBT rights, employment discrimination, welfare, reproductive freedom, violence against women, child care, and women in prison.”

I am not clear how the lawmakers can claim with a straight face that women don’t receive equality and justice in California, when it’s the law. In fact, women receive some extra equalities: Title IX, harassment and discrimination protections, paid and unpaid family leave, affirmative action practices, gender non-discrimination protection, gender ratios, gender equity laws and regulations, gender codes and more.

Based on all of the gender protections, the commission has apparently done a great deal of work during the past 40 years, and should be about done by now, unless equality is not the actual goal.

The California Budget Project Report

Jean Ross, responsible for the report and CEO of the California Budget Project, thanked legislators and staff members for the countless hours they devoted to the report.  “It truly is an honor to talk about the findings of the report,” Ross said about the bad news she was about to deliver to legislators.

“The California Budget Project engages in independent fiscal and policy analysis and public education with the goal of improving public policies affecting the economic and social well-being of low- and middle-income Californians,” the website states.

At the hearing, Ross said that women have suffered more during this recession, and consequently have found diminished access to state funded higher education, and subsidized health care, childcare and-higher paying jobs.

“Women have not shared equally in job recovery, making only modest employment gains, while men increased,” Ross said. “Men are getting jobs back.” Ross identified the typical jobs held by women as primarily in the public sector: School employees, local government jobs and employees at community colleges.

One common gripe at the hearing was that women still are not paid as much as men. However, if women in the workplace are not paid the same as their male counterparts, is it because of gender discrimination, or because women take more time off from work than men, as many studies have concluded?

Ross’s report claims that California’s budget cuts have diminished women’s access to higher education. However, most education advocates say that African-American males suffer the most from lack of access to higher education, and that women greatly outnumber men in colleges and universities.

The Reality Disconnect

“If you were given the same fiscal constraints as the governor, what would you do?” Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, asked Ross during the hearing.

“Budgets are about choices,” Ross answered.

“Budgets are about how much money you’ve got,” Wright said. “What would you do?”

Ross replied that if lawmakers hadn’t made some of the choices they had, things might be different.

“Ifs and buts with cherries and nuts,” said Wright to a laughing audience. “We have the money and revenue that we have. The people are not likely to vote for increased taxes. Where do we get the money from?”

Rather than answering, Ross quickly said that her closing statement was done, and encouraged the panel to go on to other witnesses. Ross was clearly among friends on the committee and at the hearing.

The Commission of Women

Made up of legislators and social change policy agitators, the California Commission on the Status of Women’s commissioners include Kafi Blumenfield, wife of Democratic Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield; Asssemblywoman Assemblymember Julia Brownley, D-Woodland Hills; Lupita Cortez Alcala, representing Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson; state Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Napa; Senator Carol Liu, D-Glendale; Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach; Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles; state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino; and Julie Su, a civil rights lawyer and state labor commissioner.

There is not one Republican on the commission, nor is anyone from the private sector represented.

Describing herself as “an advocate of 19 million women and girls,” Sandy Gleysteen, chairwoman of the Commission on the Status of Women since 2007, lauded the legislative women’s caucus and committee. “We are relieved that you walk these halls,” Gleysteen said. She primarily testified about poor women and women of color, who are facing more cuts to services.

But interestingly, Gleysteen, a former television producer and friend of former California First Lady Maria Shriver, spent more time defending her agency, which is facing closure in June.

Women-Only Agency

The women who were the subject of the report are women who rely on government services. It became apparent during the hearing that the legislators and social activists want to expand social services, not cut them. The prevailing attitude appeared to be that most California women should be using state services, or surely we are not properly caring for our children.

What kind of mother would send a kid to school with a sack lunch instead of opting for a free school lunch? Who would degrade a kid so much by making him wear discount athletic shoes? What kind of mother would require her child to ride a bicycle to school instead of taking public transportation? Oh, the shame. With this group of lawmakers and activists, it’s all about the entitlements.

Several women that I respect and spoke with after the hearing said the report is insulting, and the legislators and commission members who support it are disconnected from reality.

One example of the disconnect can be found in the report – rather, it’s missing from the report. The California Budget Project report did not reveal that the majority of adults onCalWORKS do not meet the program’s work requirements. Adult participants are required to actively look for work, and/or actually work – it’s a welfare-to-work program. Instead, Ross’s report only focused on those cut from the program.

The devil is in the details.

The Department of Social Services has reported that more than 40 percent of adults in child-only welfare cases in theCalWorks program are undocumented immigrants – roughly 133,000 cases out of 300,000 child-only cases.  CalWORKS ha approximately 585,000 cases total. These are not my statistics. It’s an issue that needs remedy, not denial.

California has 12 percent of the country’s population, but more than 30 percent of all welfare recipients. Assistance programs and welfare should be designed to promote self-sufficiency among adults who are able to work, and should discourage long-term dependence on government.

These are the issues that should be addressed by women’s groups and female legislators. Empowerment, not entitlement is always the better answer.

Long-term Government Dependence Agenda

“It is difficult to believe that Gov. Jerry Brown wishes to silence the voice of women in his administration while threatening the ability of women to survive and succeed. Yet, in his latest budget proposal, Brown will be eliminating the state commission in June,” the Glendale newspress said.

Discussions addressing the real welfare inequity are difficult to have when media statements such as this one are being made. Welfare has morphed from a legitimate safety net to a way of living. And the majority of California’s legislators are promoting this dependence.

Feminists and women’s special interest groups like the Commission on the Status of Women only serve to set all women back by decades. If indentured servitude and reliance on government is the goal, instead of self-reliance, this commission and the women who support it have succeeded.

“All this does is convince employers not to hire women when they have a choice,” said one Capitol staffer who asked to remain anonymous. “I think the women’s movement has hurt women more than they will ever know.”

Brown needs to cut this commission off at the head.

– Katy Grimes

FEB. 8, 2012

By KATY GRIMES

Crossposted at CalWatchdog

Ready for more electricity blackouts?

With California’s renewable energy mandates, cap and trade requirements, and implementation of AB 32, it is becoming increasingly clear that California is at a precarious energy crossroads, and one that lawmakers don’t yet appear willing to address.

They are still busy patting themselves on the back for passage of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. But lawmakers will soon be forced to address the upcoming lawmaker-made energy crisis because their renewable energy mandates won’t be able to power the state.

An new study released by the California Independent System Operator, CalISO, warns that as California tries to meet the stringent requirements of the Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33 percent renewable energy production, “so does the need for flexible capacity resources.”

“Integrating a 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard creates several new challenges for the ISO,” the study states. “Among these challenges is ensuring that the ISO has sufficient flexible capacity to address the added variability and unpredictability created by intermittent resources.”

The 33 percent figure is no coincidence, as the Legislature pushed through and passed the environmentally restrictive Renewable Portfolio Standard, which mandates that California obtain 33 percent of all electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

CalISO is a quasi-governmental agency, which exists to regulate the reliability of the state electrical grid. It appears that CalISO doesn’t believe that meeting the RPS of 33 percent renewable energy is possible, even though “CalISO also is partnering with California’s energy and environmental agencies to implement a new vision for California’s Clean Energy Future….

“California is making plans to link the cap-and-trade system with that of Quebec in 2012, under the auspices of the Western Climate Initiative, but challenges remain as allowances trade at record lows.” So far, no other countries are interested in participating in trading carbon credits.

What’s In Store

Before anyone gets too excited about our relationship with Quebec, California is not trading apples-to-apples: Quebec gets 97 percent of its energy from hydroelectric sources. While California is trying to reduce traditional electricity production, including hydro, and instead replace it with as much “renewable” energy as possible from wind and solar, algae, and ethanol, energy experts have been saying for months that California’s energy demand is too much for the alternative energy.

“This will create the largest carbon market in North America and provide a model that can guide future efforts to establish a creative road map for future national approaches in Canada and the US to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions,” saidWCI co-chairmen James Goldstene, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, and Jim Whitestone of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment.

But Cal EPA and CARB officials all seem to have a “If you build it, they will come” attitude.

Hetch Hetchy or Klamath Dam

Under fire at this very moment is the Klamath Dam, which provides hydroelectric power and serves 70,000 mostly rural households, annually. In many cases, the dam removal is simply to save fish, and kayaking waters. ”While the dam removal would result in the loss of hydroelectric power generation, which will have to be made up from other sources, and the loss of around 50 jobs from managing those facilities, it would also create a substantial number of jobs — varying in nature, duration, and location — estimated at approximately 1,400 during the short-term,” stated Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

But a May 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling sided with fish and kayakers over hydroelectric plants, stating, “state regulators may require a steady flow of water over power dams,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Contrast the Klamath Dam with the revered Hetch Hetchy dam, which provides water for San Francisco. In 1906, after the big San Francisco earthquake, San Francisco applied to the United States Department of the Interior to gain water rights to Hetch Hetchy. It’s been the darling dam of the state ever since, and the only one environmentalists will tolerate.

Salazar is going to make a decision on demolition of the Klamath Dam in March. But the reasons appear to be purely political and supportive of the environmentalist agenda. A recent story arguing for the demolition of the dam could be flipped on its head. “A draft report released Tuesday by the U.S. Interior Department says removing four hydroelectric dams in the Klamath Basin will restore salmon and sustain irrigation for farmers in Southern Oregon and Northern California,” the storystated.

Replace “Hetch Hetchy” with “Klamath” in this story – think of all the “jobs” we could create or save by tearing down Hetch Hetchy’s O’Shaughnessy Dam.

Ironically, the Renewable Portfolio Standard pushers have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that hydroelectric power substantially contributes to the 33 percent renewable goal, as it does in Quebec. Unlike solar and wind power, hydroelectric power is affordable, renewable and abundant.

In June, the Legislature killed part of a bill that would have added all hydroelectric power to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, authored SB 1247, a bill that would have added large hydroelectric power to the list of California’s eligible renewable energy resources, and broaden the definition of “eligible renewable energy resources.”

This proved that the RPS was just another mandate supporting the unreliable solar and wind agenda.

However, while California has rejected hydroelectric power as a renewable energy source, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency still considers hydropower “a renewable energy resource because it uses the Earth’s water cycle to generate electricity.”

High-Speed Energy Crash

As the 33 percent renewable portfolio gets underway, AB 32 implementation begins, the conveyance issues over water increase and state officials continue to steam ahead with High-Speed Rail,  it appears that California is headed for an energy crash.

High-Speed Rail plans show that the system will be a massive drain on the state’s electricity grid, and solar and wind are not going to be able to fulfill the draw.

A Berkeley study found, ”under current conditions—with the model of HSR trains proposed and its energy source, as well as the types of automobiles and airplanes now in existence, that high-speed rail has the potential to be the lowest energy consumer and greenhouse gas emitter only if it consistently travels at high occupancy or uses a low-emission electricity source such as wind, both of which will require appropriate planning and continued investment.”

But High-Speed Rail ridership already looks bleak, according to another U.C. Berkeley study, which found ridership numbers “not reliable.”

Others say that the system is going to take massive amounts of electricity, raising questions about the power grid’s ability to meet the demand. The environmental-impact reports for the High-Speed Rail system could use more than 3 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year by the time it’s fully operational statewide.

The average California home uses about 6,960 kilowatt-hours in a year. At that rate, it would take more than 430,000 households to use what the train system would consume, the Fresno Bee reported.

California Conundrum

The Klamath Dam provides hydroelectric power to an entire region of the state, as well as 70,000 households.  The High-Speed Rail will drain enough electricity from an already tapped electricity grid, equal to 430,000 households. Where will the additional power come from? Solar rooftops? Wind farms? Where will the electric cars plug in?

Solar, wind, algae, ethanol and other renewable energy sources are intermittent, unreliable, and not always environmentally-friendly. Wind farm construction is on hold  because of an endangered tortoise. The environmentalists are now fighting each other.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that California cannot keep up with the renewable energy mandates.

JAN. 11, 2012

By KATY GRIMES

Each year, thousands of California state employees do the right thing by exposing government waste and fraud. But not in the state Capitol in Sacramento, according to Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena.

At an Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Portantino explained that when state employees do the right thing, they are protected from retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act.  However, there are no whistleblower protections for California’s Capitol staff should they decide to blow the whistle on fraud. That’s because California’s whistleblower law exempts employees of the Legislature.

As part of Portantino’s broader efforts to ensure openness, transparency and accountability in state government, he has authored AB 1378. It would provide Legislative staffers with the same protections from retaliation as other state employees. Surprisingly, the bill passed its first committee on Tuesday.

The bill marks the first time legislative employees will have legal protection from reprisals for reporting government wrongdoing.

Open Records, Transparency, Retaliation

Portantino knows a thing or two about retaliation after blowing a whistle. Last August, he blasted the Assembly for not complying with the state-required performance audit of Assembly administrative offices. The Standing Rules of the Assembly call for an annual performance audit of the Assembly. But according to Portantino, the Assembly has never actually complied with this rule.

Portantino then introduced legislation to force the Assembly and Senate to comply with the California Public Records Act, which makes access to records much easier. But that was shot down.

In a retaliatory move, the Assembly Rules Committee one-upped Portantino when it released member-by-member spendingrecords. The records purportedly showed Portantino as the top spender. However, he subsequently proved that the records were not accurate and that his office was actually 37th on the list of Assembly spending, close to the middle of 80 Assembly members.

It’s been ugly. It finally took an order from Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley before the Assembly released its spending records.

Whistleblower Act

The California Whistleblower Protection Act currently states that employees of the state may report retaliation by contacting the State Personnel Board. And employees of the University of California and California State University systems may report retaliation by contacting their human resources department.

Portantino’s AB 1378 would require the provisions of the Whistleblower act to apply to the Legislature as well. “Legislative staff need some protections from retaliation,” Portantino told the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

Philip Ung of California Common Cause testified in support of Portantino’s bill. “This is the sole measure to hold power accountable,” Ung said. “We want public officials to look over their shoulders. The Whistleblower Act is key to that.” Ung said that, unless legislative staff are included, they are subjected to threats and reprisals.

Ung reminded committee members that the mission of Common Cause is to “make public officials and public institutions accountable and responsive to citizens.”

While AB 1378 was approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a unanimous vote, it wasn’t without some challenges.

The Judiciary Committee chairman, Assemblyman Mike Feurer, D-Los Angeles, challenged Portantino for including legislators. “The power dynamic is different for legislators and staff,” Feurer said. “Legislators don’t need the added avenue to complain.”

Feurer said that legislators are already protected because of their power and positions, as well as the access they have to media and district attorneys, and have the added layer of accountability to the voting public.

Portantino disagreed. “There should be a way to do this anonymously,” he said.

However, Portantino agreed to amend the bill to exclude legislators in order to keep the bill alive and moving through the committee process.

The bill is headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee later this month. However, I am not expecting the bill to receive the same level of support there.

Katy Grimes

CalWatchdog

Katy Grimes: Apparently tired of all of the talk and stories around the capitol and throughout the state about the need to end the money-sucking High-Speed Rail system,  Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, plans on driving a wooden stake through the heart of the High-Speed Rail plan herself, once and for all.

Almost like the diligent vampire hunter who kills the eery bloodsucker at the end of the scary movie, Harkey has authoredAssembly Bill 1455, to halt state debt funding for the high-speed rail project.

Vampire Hunter

Harkey says that so far, HSR has been in the works for three years and the cost keeps climbing. But there is nothing to show for the $800 million already spent – expect perhaps in the bank accounts of the many consultants tied to the High-Speed Rail Authority.

And at this moment, high speed rail is projected to cost California taxpayers more than $98 billion. Many say that is just the financial launching point for only one leg of the system from Bakersfield to Fresno, and costs can and will escalate.

Harkey said that a recent statewide Field Poll revealed that nearly two-thirds of the voters surveyed would like to re-vote on the issue. By nearly two to one, voters would reject the $9.95 billion bond to fund start-up costs for HSR.  The reality is that even those that originally supported the concept know they were deceived; Californians do not support high-speed rail at any cost.

That sounds like affirmative approval from the state’s voters that the plan should be put down, permanently.

But it’s more about having sour grapes – or lemons – now, once we discovered all of the escalating costs for the rail system that won’t seem to die. Californians were totally duped into voting from Proposition 1A by some really crafty campaign people, and have we paid for it.

Harkey’s office provided information about the controversial process to even get the High Speed Rail ballot initiative onto the ballot. The courts ruled that the analysis of the bond measure, Proposition 1A, was misleading, written in promotional language.

Who allowed the language on the ballot? Attorney General Jerry Brown, who clearly provided a title loaded with positives:

Ballotpedia reported that the ballot title was:

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 1A said:

• Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
• Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
• Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
• Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
• Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system.
• Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state’s major population centers.
• Provides for California’s growing population.
• Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.
• Requires that use of all bond funds is subject to independent audits.
• Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay bond principal and interest.

It sounded as if the perfect rail system couldn’t fail.

In addition, the original price tag of $33 billion has now escalated to $98.5 – $117 billion for Phase I construction. That’s more than inflation at work on those numbers.

We are talking about BILLIONS to build, and then billions to operate every year.

Cha-ching. Only the cash register is empty.

“Phase II promised from Anaheim to San Diego is not even being discussed, and neither is the cost to operate whatever is actually built. The voters were assured there would be “no state operating subsidy” and that the riders would pay for the system.  However, the analysis failed to mention hefty “construction costs” would be excluded, require financing, and repayment from the state’s General Fund (or tax-payer subsidy),” Harkey’s analysis showed.

Two More Blows Into The Heart

The CHSRA Peer Review Group is now advising the authority not to fund.

A December hearing in Washington, DC confirmed that Congress will not rescue California HSR plan if we are determined to become the Greece of the nation.

Constantly searching for strategies to improve our state’s dire financial situation that fall within the Legislature’s purview, Harkey wrote that she discovered:

 Article XVI of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the people, to reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted.

“To recap, the voters were deceived; the project lacks sufficient private, public or debt funding to complete even a requisite operating segment, as required under Proposition 1A; the Environmental Impact Report is incomplete; California is struggling with long term deficits and debt; the Governor claims to need more taxes; our existing infrastructure is in dire need of extension and repair; and voters are suffering from buyer’s remorse,” Harkey reported.

What’s unclear? It’s time to drive the final stake through the heart of the boondoggle High-Speed Rail plan. If not, it could bankrupt California.

If Gov. Jerry Brown is already talking about automatic trigger cuts which will go into effect and cut K-12 school spending by $4.8 billion, state university spending by $400 million, and the state’s courts by $125 million, if he doesn’t get his ballot tax increase passed, how dire is the state spending? Why Brown keeps talking about his support of HSR is a mystery, but one mystery we may seen resolved is during the campaign for his ballot tax increase plan when it becomes clear to voters that as long as the High-Speed Rail is in existence, tax opponents will point to it as the Poster Boondoggle for government waste.

It is. In fact, it’s a gross example for boondoggle government waste, and will undoubtedly  now cast a pallor on even some of the more clever government waste plans. We can hope.

Katy Grimes

CalWatchdog

JAN. 10, 2012

By KATY GRIMES

Anyone who tries to change the sacred texts of the California Environmental Equality Act will find out just how sacred they are and lose.  Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, found that out Monday.

CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of building, construction or development projects by private businesses or public agencies.

But according to the Public Policy Institute of California, one lawsuit is filed for every 354 projects reviewed under CEQA. Grove is pushing for the judicial review by the California Attorney General of these lawsuits in order to assure that CEQA’s requirements are followed appropriately, and that private sector, non-union businesses are not a constant target.

CEQA was enacted in 1970, and signed into law by then Gov. Ronald Reagan. It requires elected officials to analyze and consider environmental impacts of proposed development and construction projects, and limit those impacts before approval could be given.

But the reports can take months to prepare, and often are thousands of pages long. Many say that CEQA was created to protect the environment, but has instead become an instrument to stop all development.

CEQA As a Tool

Grove presented AB 598 to the Natural Resources Committee Monday. “Many people exploit CEQA,” Grove explained, “and with labor union intents behind many.”

Grove’s bill reads, “This bill would prohibit any person, other than the Attorney General, from commencing or maintaining an action or lawsuit alleging that an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration does not comply with CEQA.”

Grove told the committee that a form of “greenmail” has been taking place in California using CEQA’s environmental laws, and is stifling and stopping business, renovation projects and new construction attempts.

According to Grove, after a building or development project has received approval from a local government, labor unions file a lawsuit against the business, questioning the environmental impact the building or construction project will have, and demanding a full environmental impact report.  But once the builder or contractor waffles, and eventually agrees to sign aProject Labor Agreement and hire union workers, the lawsuit is dropped and all concerns about environmental issues are dropped.

Another wrinkle has come about recently: CEQA exemptions. Kevin Dayton, government affairs director for the Associated Builders and Contractors, said that very large projects are receiving exemptions if the principals are well-connected.

The proposed downtown Los Angeles football stadium and convention center project received an exemption when SB 292 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. SB 292 greatly modified the usual CEQA requirements in order to get the stadium project moving.

The lawsuits are not brought about because of concerns about the environment. Many are brought by competitors who lost a bid, and by labor unions against non-union companies. “It’s a slap in the face to anyone wanting to help California’s environment,” Grove said. She said that California needed to find a way to provide business protections against unwarranted attacks under the guise of CEQA as quickly as possible, so construction projects can begin again.

Opposition to AB 598

In opposition to AB 598, the Attorney General’s office states it “is not, nor could it feasibly be, budgeted and staffed to monitor every project with potential environmental impacts undertaken throughout California…. AB 598 would effectively eliminate, rather than reform, CEQA as substantive state policy.”

“All of us can share concern when law is abused — there are safeguards in the system to deal with that,” said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. “There is a right way to do this. This bill is a whole different thing. We are really talking about gutting CEQA.… it’s a very unfortunate bill, but fortunately it’s about to take a long nap.”

Huffman even said that he doubted that Grove would be willing to approve an increased budget for the Attorney General, which would be needed to review all of the additional CEQA lawsuits.

“Is that the only reason you oppose the bill — that the AG’s office doesn’t have the staff?” Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Antelope Valley, asked the Deputy Attorney General. “Is there nothing else to preclude you from doing this?”

The representative from the Attorney General’s office said that there were “other complications,” and it would create conflict with other state agencies if the Attorney General was the sole enforcer of CEQA.

“I wonder if the AG’s office will weigh in if we pass a bill that will never have a way of policing by the Attorney General,” Knight suggested.

“I am not approved to answer that,” replied the Deputy Attorney General.

Jobs versus Union Jobs

Grove shared several stories about businesses and developers effectively shut down, even after adhering to the rules and laws for development or renovation projects.

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, told committee members about a solar panel project at the Fresno Airport in her district that was halted by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The IBEW claimed that a proper environmental impact report was not done. However, Fresno City Council members questioned whether the union’s real concern was the environment, or union jobs.

California is one of only three states that require private projects to comply with its own environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act. While CEQA is credited with helping preserve waterways for fish, mountainous regions, desert and coastline, CEQA has also been described as allowing a single bird watcher to protect an endangered animal.

Grove said that her sole objection is that CEQA is being used by labor unions to either kill the competition, or force a non-union business into labor agreements; and that the way CEQA laws are being abused, entire regions are stuck in the recession without the ability to move forward with building projects.

Grove met with expected opposition from the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League, the Consumer Attorneys of California and California League of Conservation Voters.

CalWatchdog

Katy Grimes: The late Friday news reported that Castro Valley Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi  has a benign brain tumor, and that is what caused her to shoplift $2,500 in clothing from Neiman Marcus in San Francisco.

Interestingly, the judge assigned to her case reduced her felony grand theft charge to a misdemeanor. Hayashi’s husband is Alameda County Judge Dennis Hayashi.

But the tumor defense was not used in court yesterday, when Hayashi pleaded no contest to the reduced charges. The  court was given nothing indicating that Hayashi had or has a brain tumor.

The tunor defense, similar to the Twinkie defense,  only came up after she plead guilty to the charges. And it was after leaving the court room that her attorney mentioned it for the first time- late on Friday.

Prior to yesterday’s court appearance, Hayashi had been saying that she was innocent and her attorney  told everyone in the media that this was a “silly case.” Hayashi spokesman Sam Singer has called the incident “a mistake and a misunderstanding.”

Her attorney and spokesman have stated that she had intended to pay for the items but became distracted by a cellphone call and a snack at the cafe and inadvertently left the store without paying. “According to sources close to the case, a week before the Neiman bust, a store saleswoman noticed that a dress was missing after a woman matching Hayashi’s description tried it on. The saleswoman did not know who Hayashi was, but when Hayashi showed up Oct. 25, the clerk alerted store security and they began tracking her with surveillance cameras,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Drudging up the Carole Migden defense, Hayashi’s attorney, now says that a “brain tumor” is the real culprit. In 2007, Migden smashed her state-issued SUV off a concrete median on Interstate 80 and nearly ran other motorists off the freeway before slamming into the back of another vehicle. Former State Sen. Carol Migden, D-San Francisco, said she was reaching for her official cell phone when the wreck occurred. But many of the other motorists said that she had been driving erratically for miles. And 9-1-1 tapes proved it. Migden claimed she was under medical treatment for leukemia, and the medication she was on caused her to crash.

But amazingly, she was cured of the dreaded disease and back at work in no time. Midgen subsequently lost her reelection attempt.

A medical excuse is actually brilliant because no doctor will release medical records to prove or disprove it. It’s the same as running into a church for refuge.

However, Hayashi’s case of forgetfulness doesn’t remotely ring true. She doesn’t just casually stop by Union Square on her way somewhere. Hayashi had to make the 30 miles drive from her home in Castro Valley, cross a bridge, and find parking in Union Square, in order to shop at Neiman Marcus. She brought her own shopping bag with her into the store.  And it was reported that store employees said they were already on the look out for Hayashi because they suspected she had shoplifted from that store only weeks before.

Now, the “brain tumor” PR campaign is in full swing. But her attorney said she’s out of the woods and has a clean bill of health.

Several years ago, Hollywood actress Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting at Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills. Ryder was ordered to pay restitution, and had to serve hundreds of hours of community service. The judge told her that if she was ever in his courtroom again, he’d send her to jail.

Many are questioning why Hayashi has not been asked to take a leave of absence from the Assembly.

But Hayashi’s charge was miraculously reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. She now only has to pay a $200 fine, and did not receive any community service time as a punishment. But the biggest gift to Hayashi with the misdemeanor charge is that she does not have to give up her Assembly seat. A felony would have required her resignation.

That’s too bad – if she had resigned, Gov. Jerry Brown could have provided her a soft landing and appointed her to the new state department he created to manage California’s mental hospitals – the Department of State Hospitals.

JAN. 7, 2012 

CalWatchdog 

Part ll of Hayashi Tumor Defense

Hayashi Hired ‘The Fixer’

DEC. 29, 2011

We live in a state where neighbors rat-out neighbors at the behest of the government. California has turned into such a totalitarian state that friends, neighbors and family are encouraged to turn “violators” over to the cops.

People have been conditioned by the government to think they are doing the right thing.

California lawmakers and unelected bureaucrats seem to recognize no limit to their authority. Every aspect of public and private life is becoming regulated. Single-party rule came to power in California and remains, thanks to a compliant media, labor unions and liberal activism. Democrats have control over the state’s economy, as well as businesses in the state, through increasing strict regulations.

How Are We Regulated?

Think of the many areas of your home that you no longer have control of.  There are mandatory smoke alarms and fire sprinklers in homes and businesses, burning ordinances, building and remodeling restrictions, parking restrictions, watering regulations, mandatory pet licensing, dog-leash laws.

Residents who water the lawn on the wrong day, use the fireplace without approval from the county, have fat children, drive a gas guzzler, ride a bicycle without a helmet, eat shark fin soup, or violate the new Babysitter’s Bill of Rights, are all subjected to steep fines, or even arrest.

California lawmakers have not only become stark raving crazy, but the power they have granted unelected state officials has turned the Golden State into a state of Democratic Centralism, where all people have a duty to obey the government.

Ratting-Out Neighbors

Over the recent Christmas weekend, 400 people in the San Francisco Bay Area called the county and tattled on neighbors for the heinous crime of enjoying wood-burning fires on Christmas Day.

“But the Bay Area Air Quality Management District isn’t worried about coming off like a grinch — and doesn’t plan on showing any leniency just because it’s Christmas time. ‘People don’t get to take a break from breathing because it’s a holiday,’ said Lisa Fasano, an air district spokeswoman,” reported the San Jose Mercury News.

The Prius-driving air-quality police collected overtime pay driving around responding to complaints, and looking for chimney smoke on Christmas. Law-breakers could be fined $400 per offense for building a fire because bureaucrats and special interests have decided that California’s air is unhealthy, and can no longer enjoy the warmth from a wood-burning fire.

Were the Bay Area air-quality police issuing fines to the homeless on Christmas for building illegal fires, or to vagrants hovered over trash can fires in dark city alleys to keep warm? No. The only people subjected to the enforcement of air-quality laws are the employed, middle-class, taxpaying residents of the state.

Since Nov. 1, the air-quality police have received 2,200 complaints from neighbors in the San Francisco Bay Area about wood fires.

Watering the Lawn, And Other Punishable Offenses

*After putting in a new front yard two summers ago, my husband and I had to make sure that the new lawn received plenty of water for the first few weeks.  We did all of the work ourselves and didn’t want to see the new lawn shrivel up in the Sacramento heat. However, this meant that we had to sometimes water (gasp) on unauthorized watering days. And yes, we received a written violation from the city warning us that a neighbor had complained.

*A few years ago when my son was riding his bicycle home from the neighborhood school, he was stopped and ticketed by a city police officer for riding without a helmet.

*The city of Sacramento will not allow me to remove a 100-foot tall, 80-year-old tree from my property because they have designated it “historic.” It’s ugly, very large, and old. But it is leaning dangerously toward my home. Every winter during storms, branches the size of trees have broken off and fallen onto my house, my neighbor’s house, and one branch crushed a neighbor’s car.

*Not long ago, I caught a neighbor digging through my recycling and garbage cans, documenting whether I had properly sorted the recycling from the trash. It seems that I am not alone – Santa Cruz County is red-tagging residents’ garbage and recycling cans if the refuse is intermingled. “County and Waste Management have stepped up the monitoring, advertising the red tagging policy that results from garbage collectors inspections of personal waste for banned items,” the Aptos Times reported.

*A few years ago after I took in some goslings that had been abandoned by their goosey parents on my front porch, the city of Sacramento claimed that a neighbor had phoned in a complaint about the young waterfowl swimming in my side yard pond. It was apparently a violation of some city ordinance to have waterfowl residing at a residence within the city. Fortunately, I contacted a friendly animal control officer and explained that the birds were only staying until they were old enough to be moved back into the nearby park, where they had undoubtedly been hatched.

*The city of Sacramento now issues parking tickets to auto owners for parking over one hour in front of homes located within the city. At a recent neighborhood block-party wine and food tasting, the city parking enforcement ticketed more than 50 cars parked on nearby streets, even though the city had been properly notified prior to the event about the parking.

New Nanny Legislation

In California, tanning beds are now the forbidden fruit, but only for minors – apparently because parents are too stupid to notice that their daughters are unnaturally tan in the winter.

The California Legislature also recently passed an anti-bullying law requiring every school in California to implement anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and programs “that include actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, as well as race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability, and religion.”

Lawmakers created more firearms restriction laws, making it illegal to openly carry an unloaded handgun. While Californians can still obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, it’s probably not for long. Interestingly, the city of Sacramento requires photo identification and a fingerprint to purchase ammunition for personal, legally-owned firearms. But Sacramento County does not.

Legislators passed a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages at self-service checkout stands.

Even drivers are encouraged to “Report Drunk Drivers” and call 9-1-1 while driving on freeways. What qualifies the average driver to determine who is drunk and driving? Reckless driving may be an issue, but isn’t that in the the job-description of the California Highway Patrol?

California Law Books Are Growing

Gov. Jerry Brown signed 865 of these ridiculous bills into law in 2011. What could possibly be left unlegislated in this state besides our few remaining rights, civil liberties and even fewer economic freedoms?

For eight years in a row, a major survey of U.S. CEOs has ranked California as the worst state in America to do business. Businesses are fleeing the state but lawmakers don’t seem to care.

California unemployment remains at a hefty 12 percent. The state government is broke and drowning in debt, the state’s economy is in shambles, home prices continue to decline, traffic is worse than ever, roads are crumbling, schools are not focused on education, and crime is rising. But lawmakers continue to spend billions of dollars of other people’s money on frivolity and excessive remuneration, and on laws that violate basic rights and liberties.

And neighbors are tattling on neighbors over lawn watering and fireplaces. Aren’t the priorities in California just a little askew?

–Katy Grimes

CalWatchdog.com

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/12/29/beware-thy-nosy-neighbor/

DEC. 23, 2011

With California in political turmoil, and one-party rule inching closer to perpetuity, as 2011 comes to an end, this column has more meaning than ever. First published in October, I hope Republicans are now listening.

Throughout the country, but especially in California, the media have been telling Republicans that in order get elected or even keep their elected offices, they must be more moderate, and willing to compromise.

Since when has being a moderate ever worked in California?

A political analysis in the Los Angeles Times in June said that California Republicans must reinvent themselves, and “recruit more moderate candidates and find common ground with more Californians if they are to be at all relevant in Golden State politics.“

Since when is the media the arbiter of what is Republican enough for California? The media already have too much at stake in the game, dictating issues, putting forth policies, and propping up favored candidates, instead of just reporting the news.

Moderates

Moderate Republicans are a fat-free cookie … weak tea… fake butter … light beer … a Tootsie Pop without the Tootsie Roll center. There is no there there.

Moderates stand for nothing and everything at the same time.

However, only a moderate or Republican-light would listen to the media proselytize about how California Republicans can only win if they are more moderate. And this mantra is being pushed by many inside and outside of California.

What California needs is more adults, not more pantywaist, fence-walking professional compromisers who can’t make tough decisions. The state already has enough politicians and political appointees who distance themselves from decision-making.

People who get involved with party politics are expected to be leaders, not just along for the ride, or taking up a seat at the table. But the self-proclaimed moderate Republicans I know stand for nothing and fall for everything. They are weaklings and would sell out their own mothers as long they still had a seat at the Republican Party trough.

Adults and Children

In the real world, conservatives are the adults. Liberals are spoiled trust-fund babies and actually stand for very little of anything of substance. Moderates fall somewhere in the middle, and behave like parents who are desperate for their kids to like them.

The more spoiled and disrespectful a child is allowed to become, the further from reality he is, and the worse his decisions are. Trust-fund children are often the epitome of this. They don’t live in the same reality as those whose money comes from working for a living. Trust-fund children usually have very little respect for anyone. The one thing they are good at is spending someone else’s money. And then they hate the person who provides the income.

Conservatives typically are responsible for earning their own incomes, must live within their means, and make tough decisions about what to do without, in order to meet their debts and obligations.

Moderates are compromisers — the weak-kneed parents who cannot discipline their dreadful children. The children become reprehensible brats who spend recklessly and offend people wherever they go. They dish out entitlements to favored friends with money that is not theirs, while refusing to cut their own frivolous spending.

Does this sound familiar?

Time To Buck Up

Has the media told Democrats that they need to buck up and start acting more like their responsible counterparts? Has any media outlet told Democrats to compromise with Republicans?

California Democrats have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are only capable of reckless spending on endless government programs, while at the same time propping up the unemployable.

Moderates have allowed this to happen.

California’s politicians have nearly lost California, giving it away one bill at a time to labor unions, big corporate special interests, and the mega utility and energy industry. Too many politicians have demonstrated that they are insidious, unreliable and untrustworthy, seeking only to retain office, prominence and status.

But there are more of us than there are of them.

Run To Win

Since when do winners compromise with losers? The very idea of running for an elected office is based in competition. Why would Republicans fight to win elected office, then compromise with those they ran against?

Republicans are told to compromise with the liberal ruling party in the state. It makes no sense when liberals are largely responsible for the economic mess we are in. But they had help.

Are Republicans supposed to compromise on continuing tax increases, the expanding social agenda into public policy, or the desecrated public school system? Are Republicans supposed to compromise on creating government healthcare or the expanding welfare system?

Republicans are supposed to stand for small government. But it is the moderates that hide behind big government and big taxes.

What are the Democrats in the state compromising on? How far across the aisle do their arms reach?

California’s Last Chance

California was once the economic engine of the country. But as liberalism encroached, our public schools dropped into the bottom half of national rankings. The state’s roads and highways, once famed for car travel, have become a pitted and pock marked disaster, and see infrequent repairs.

Regulations have strangled businesses. Manufacturing is nearly gone, moved to other states or bankrupt. Large employers are expanding into other states. Unemployment is the second highest in the country.

As liberalism encroached, the strangeness common in San Francisco stretched beyond that city’s borders into classrooms, places of employment and into California’s permanent laws.

As liberalism encroached, a lazy haze of fog took over union government jobs, and performance declined dramatically.

As liberalism encroached, California became the second highest state in the country for overall taxation, the second highest for sales taxation, and the third-highest state income tax. Added up, it’s very expensive to be a resident of California, and the rewards are dwindling.

Republicans in this state need to show some gravitas and prove that there is substance and depth within the party, or get out of the way for those who will. Contrary to media reports, voters have had enough.

There is no replacement for integrity — not even in California.

- Katy Grimes

DEC. 19, 2011

By, KATY GRIMES

If it is built, California’s High-Speed Rail would be the largest public works project in state history. That fact alone appears be intoxicating to state officials, in a perpetual quest to have California be the first state to do anything.

Despite the warnings of a nearly $100 billion ballooning price tag, no track laid, no trains running, decreasing legislative support and even opposition from diehard rail advocates, the High-Speed Rail Authority is steaming ahead full throttle with plans to build the most expensive high-speed rail system in history.

But there is pushback coming from so many places that it must be difficult to keep up the cheerleading. Even the latest Field poll found that two thirds of Californians want a new referendum on the project. And by a two-to-one margin, they say they’d vote to derail it.

Many say that the plans will only unveil a state-subsidized train system, wrought with malfeasance, payola and unscrupulousness.

And even more question the need for another rail service, with Amtrack already operating throughout California. Others say that California already has high-speed travel — airplanes.

Kangaroo Court

The state legislative hearings with the High-Speed Rail Authority have become something of a bad joke. Legislators ask most of the right questions. They even ask the tough questions. However, High-Speed Rail Authority board members never answer the questions.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has been asking where the money to build the rail system is going to come from. However, Harkey’s questions have also been ignored, by rail authority members who appear accountable to no one, particularly if they are not answering legislators’ questions.

Federal, State and Local Politics

Last week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood practically insisted that California take and use the $3.9 billion in federal money to build the Central Valley segment of High-Speed Rail. A hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was held to look at “mistakes and lessons learned” from President Barack Obama’s rail initiative. House Republicans were critical that the Obama administration mistakenly tried to push high-speed rail in the West, instead of the Northeast, where rail travel is already popular.

But the $3.9 billion offered to California was American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, federal stimulus money, and came with a requirement of use in the economically depressed Central Valley.

While the Central Valley is desperate for jobs of any kind, many in the region are welcoming High-Speed Rail with open arms.

“The fear is that they are going to use the federal funds anyway,” said Harkey. “But the High-Speed Rail Authority is not answering questions.”

Harkey recently attended the High-Speed Rail draft business plan presentation to the Orange County Transportation Authority board.

The OCTA addressed concerns with the rail authority, and called the funding plan “largely speculative,” and cost comparisons “theoretical.”

They were being kind.

Harkey said that she reiterated to the OCTA board that if a rail system is going to be built, High-Speed Rail needs to start in a more realistic location, such as Los Angeles to Anaheim, or San Jose to San Francisco. And she urged the OCTA board to “demand a new and independent ridership study.”

But Harkey also warned the OCTA that if they agreed to support the High-Speed Rail deal, there wouldn’t be any money for local transportation.  One of the funding sources the rail authority is counting on in the future is “cost sharing with local agencies.”

The other worry Harkey has is that the Legislature is not making any moves to take money away from the rail authority. “It’s the governor who wants this,” said Harkey. “I hope he will eventually realize that it’s got to stop.”

Many suspect that Gov. Jerry Brown is looking ahead with an eye toward Central Valley votes if he brings jobs to the region. But the untold story about High-Speed Rail jobs creation is that any construction jobs created by the rail project will be paid with borrowed money. The net effect will be financially negative.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

The state has no extra money for a brand new infrastructure project costing more than $100 billion before completion. California is facing a structural deficit of $35 billion.

The state ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. And by next month, California will be facing an estimated $12 billion cash-flow deficit.

Long-term borrowing is even worse, and has grown from $60 billion to $90 billion over just the past four years. Harkey said that California is nearly maxed out of borrowing capacity and facing a credit downgrade.

A recent report by the Legislative Analyst found that future High-Speed Rail funding sources are “highly speculative,” and the economic impact analysis included in the rail authority’s plan “may be incomplete and imbalanced, and therefore portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted.”

And, congressional Republicans have refused to appropriate rail funds. Private investors, wherever they may be, are said to be demanding a revenue guarantee, which is yet another violation of the 2008 ballot measure.

Stating that its plan for the Central Valley portion of the rail line violates sections of Proposition 1A, a lawsuit filed against the High-Speed Rail plan contends that an operating subsidy will be needed for construction of the Central Valley segment. But an operating subsidy is outlawed under Prop. 1A. Complicating matters, the first segment of the rail system won’t even run high-speed trains until the entire system is build. The initiative required the train to be only high-speed.

Fact Versus Fantasy

At the hearing before Congress last week, LaHood said that California’s High-Speed Rail is “not a cheap project” but “the people in California want this.” But that’s not accurate given the recent Field poll results that found that 37 percent of voters who supported the High-Speed Rail bond measure in 2008 would vote against it today.

Calling the plan a “high-speed spending path,” Harkey said, “We can’t afford to accept the match funding from the federal government… match funds that will be repaid with tax bond dollars by our children. We don’t have a plan, we don’t have a route, and we don’t have the money to repay the costs.”

DEC. 19, 2011

“Race to the Top” federal education funding California just “won” is more like “Race to Control.” Students won’t be helped. Instead, schools will just become more like the DMV.

The grant is just another way to continue expanding the monstrosity that has become of the California education bureaucracy.

“The state was one of nine winners named Friday in theEducation Department’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant program,” the Sacramento Bee reported this week. “But don’t count on the funds to relieve California of K-12 cuts. The state will receive $52.6 million, largely to build a new child-care rating system that measures learning environment, teachers and parent involvement, according to theCalifornia Department of Education.”

A new rating system is just what California’s failing schools need. It’ll be like offering a candy cane to calm a tantrum-throwing toddler.

The obvious goal of the U.S. Department of Education’s competition was to nab early control of younger children, to get them “prepared” for kindergarten. This effort goes back at least to the Nixon administration 40 years ago. When the Democratic-controlled Congress of 1972 passed funding for early childhood education, President Nixon vetoed it, saying, “[F]or the federal government to plunge headlong financially into supporting child development would commit the vast moral authority of the National Government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing and against the family-centered approach.”

In California, one 2006 ballot initiative already failed to do this.Proposition 82 attempted to fund state-run preschools, but voters did not support the measure.

Deaf to voters, but typical of government, instead government elites just do an end-run around the people.

An ‘A’ for Effort

Teachers will be handing out even more “A’s” for effort, instead of achievement.

The real goal behind the grant was to expand the public education system to include pre-kindergarten education. Any school expansion means more teachers, and more teachers means more union members.

Just as with the phony push to lower class size, the real goal was to create jobs for more teachers. The California education system expanded so quickly that student achievement dropped because so many unqualified teachers were hired.

Self-titled “education reformers” have always believed that people needed to be educated enough to be useful, but not too educated, which might result in individual, independent thinking.

While those in government education say that they only want to create “more access” and “equality” in public education, the result is an overall dumbing-down of the students. As the focus becomes providing more quantity, quality becomes secondary.

More Is Never Enough

There are two schools of thought on education: One is the free market approach, where parents are free to choose how and where to educate their children. The other approach believes education should be provided and operated by the government, from birth through graduate school.

If today’s Occupy Wall Street protests are any indicator, there are a couple of generations of kids who believe that they are entitled to a free, state-provided education.

With these same protesters, more is never enough. Free education, free rent, free car, free food, free health care — where does it stop?

While many agree with the protesters’ anger, their solutions are all wrong. They are demanding more daddy government, and more support. But more government is not the answer. Less government is the only solution in a free society, especially in education. Is it out of laziness, or convenience, or have people been brainwashed into believing that government schools are the best choice for education?

Education in America

Americans did not start out in the New World with government-run schools. For 70 years after America’s founding, most American communities had privately run schools and families home-schooled. They brought in tutors, or they created small community schools.  And before the creation of government-run schools, American literacy was as high as 97 percent, depending on the region.

There are always those who think they know better than everyone else, as with most societies. This becomes a problem when these know-it-alls, who call themselves “reformers,” gain power and control, and force their rules and views on the rest of society.

Unfortunately, this happened in America with education reformers. A government system of education was created, and was mightily enforced by local governments. “Policies shifted toward redistribution over localities through imposing more tax burdens on the rich, who were minority in the elections,” explained a 2008 study from UC Davis, Department of Economics.

The biggest problem with government-run education is that the state gets to control what is taught to children.

I witnessed this as a parent when my son was in public high school. I was forced to challenge some of his teachers for four years, as they tried to teach socially rewritten history, instill pro-socialist and anti-family ideology, and punish him with lower grades for questioning them, and for daring to think differently and for himself.

The social engineering that crept into education only advanced the pro-government agenda. Students were the sacrificial lambs.

Now, far too many teachers are focused on the pay, benefits and employment contract, and not on the results in the classroom. They no longer speak about children as clients, and instead treat them as byproducts.

Only with competition will education thrive again in America. Competition provides choices.

Parents should be making the education choices among public and private schools, online and virtual education, charter schools and home schooling.

With schools run by the government, expecting reform for education is not realistic. It’s the ultimate socialistic operation. Run by local politicians, funded by mandatory taxes, government requires parents to send children to school.

And now governments are whittling away at any remaining choice for parents.

California is the home to the computer chip and Silicon Valley computer industry. Yet under California law, the state doesn’t even allow online education to use programs outside of one’s home county, or a contiguous county. What’s the purpose of Internet education if you are limited to taking classes in your county or one next door — classes you could easily drive to?

State-Imposed Education Restrictions

The California Education Code requires a 25-to-one student-teacher ratio for virtual charter schools. This requirement is strictly adhered to under online education guidelines, even though one teacher could be available to teach five or 10 times the usual number of students.

“This ratio was imposed even though a University of California study pointedly observed that, ‘no studies have been done to look into whether teachers can or should have more or fewer students online than teachers in physical classrooms.’ In other words, there’s no evidentiary basis for such a requirement,” said Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at the Pacific Research Institute, CalWatchDog.com’s parent think tank.

And state rules bar teachers with out-of-state licenses from teaching online courses to California students, requiring that all teachers can only have California teaching credentials.

According to Izumi, author of Short Circuted: The Challenges Facing the Online Learning Revolution in California, the National Education Association, the parent organization of the California Teachers Association, says there should be “an absolute prohibition against the granting of charters for the purpose of home-schooling, including online charter schools that seek home-schooling over the Internet.” The California Federation of Teachers, in model contract language, says: “No employee shall be displaced because of distance learning or other educational technology.”

Free market choices and competition are the only ways to save falling further down the education rabbit hole.

One clever reform choice is the plan Florida Gov. Rick Scott proposed, where parents would be allotted 85 percent of state per-pupil education funding to use in private schools, private tutoring or online virtual schooling.

Whether schools are for-profit, non-profit, government-run, private or classes at home, parents and students should be allowed to make the education decision best suited for individual learning. Sticking kids in a classroom with 25 to 30 other students may not be the best model. But with politicians and the government dominating the discussion, education is looking more like the DMV than an exciting place of learning.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/12/19/california-runs-schools-like-dmv/