About Me

Name: Katy Grimes
Email: fetchingjen@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Ballot-Box Budgeting Scheme

Katy Grimes: The latest proposed state budget demonstrates exactly why California doesn’t need the new spending scheme that will appear on the ballot this June.

The budget released by the Governor last week projects that despite billions in cuts to programs over the last several years, California will still be $9.2 billion in the hole next fiscal year.  This deficit is forcing $4.2 billion in additional cuts to education and other critical public services, with the possibility of up to about $5 billion more cuts. However, these cuts are also prompting calls for tax increases.

Despite this dire fiscal condition and California’s inability to pay for many programs, notorious politician and former state Senator Don Perata is still pushing a ballot measure that would create a brand new state spending program.  The measure called the California Cancer Research Act would add nearly $1 billion worth of new spending annually, and pay for it with tax hikes on already burdened Californians.

If the initiative is approved by California’s voters, the tax on cigarettes in the state will increase by $1.00 per pack. The additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement.

This spending includes $16 million on the new bureaucracy to run the program, along with all the salary and pension costs that go with it.

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office reports:

“Increase in new cigarette tax revenues of about $855 million annually by 2011- 12, declining slightly annually thereafter, for various health research and tobacco-related programs. Increase of about $45 million annually to existing health, natural resources, and research programs funded by existing tobacco taxes. Increase in state and local sales taxes of about $32 million annually.”

Even worse, the measure allows the vast majority of the revenue – and all the research and facilities money – to be spent outside California. Revenue from the California Cancer Research Act is expected to help groups such as the National Cancer Institute, which has a dwindling budget.

Support for the measure comes from the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association in California, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, all of which report decreasing revenue, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Tom Torlakson, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Interestingly, Inside Bay Area reported that Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente received a $25,000 consulting fee in August 2009 from “Hope 2010″, a ballot measure committee controlled by the Cancer Act campaign’s chairman, Don Perata. He was tasked with “contacting 10 labor groups for petition signatures and 10 business groups for campaign contributions in the Sacramento and Oakland areas.”

While education, public safety and services for the poorest in the state are being cut, this measure would send Californians’ precious tax dollars to other states.

According to Ballotpedia, 60 percent of the revenue (approximately $468 million annually) would to go research of cancer and tobacco-related disease “for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into cancer prevention.”

The initiative would create a 9-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee will be made up of public employees.

Most people support cancer research, but there could not be a worse time for California to be creating a new spending program.  We need to fix the many problems in Sacramento, and not create huge new bureaucracies and spending programs that taxpayers have to support.

Not surprisingly, opposition to the measure comes from Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending, funded by Altria Group Inc., the parent company of tobacco manufacturers Philip Morris USA.

The Cancer Research Act is an example of the wasteful and bogus programs voters are tricked into voting for under the guise of health and research. Ballot measurers like this that have helped  put California in the horrific budget predicaments, year after year.

The bottom line: California taxpayers should not be funding private non-profit organizations, which already get tax breaks from the government.

Joel Fox of Fox and Hounds addressed his concerns with the measure last March: “Unfortunately, it is another example of ballot-box budgeting in which revenues are limited for specific purposes with little oversight from outside agencies.”

JAN. 12, 2012

CalWatchdog


http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/12/ballot-box-budgeting-scheme/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whistleblower Bill Advances in Leg


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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Driving A Stake Through the Heart Of Calif's High-Speed Rail

A Stake Through the Heart of Rail

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:

Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blackmail Goes 'Green'

Blackmail Goes Green

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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gov. Jerry Brown's Budget Doesn't Add Up

Katy Grimes: After Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal was released last week, I started doing some math. Brown ‘s estimate of a $92.6 billion annual state budget just wasn’t adding up for me.

Since I went to school before new math was taught, I got out my calculator and using old, traditional math, I started adding up education costs, health care, welfare, all social services, K-12 education, higher education, transportation and corrections.

The governor’s finance people published some summaries of the budget, including the Health and Human Services budget. “Budget includes $100.1 billion ($26.4 billion General Fund and $73.7 billion other funds) for these programs,” the summary states. 

I contacted several state Capitol insiders confidentially, and received some interesting responses. One said that the difference is state General Funds versus all others, including transfers in from the Federal government and other state/other funds or reimbursements. Our total budget is probably double what is being reported – or maybe more.

In a list of state department costs, the “Proposed Budget Detail shows budget year personnel years and expenditures for each agency area. These totals are comprised of State funds which include General Fund, special funds, and selected bond funds. These totals do not include federal funds, other non-governmental cost funds, or reimbursements,” the summary states.

Look at these departmental totals:

K thru 12 Education  $39,214,791

Higher Education  $9,803,278

Health and Human Services $ 42,892,420

Corrections and Rehabilitation $10,718,529

Business, Transportation & Housing  $11,276,814

Natural Resources $4,643,208

Environmental Protection $1,306,741

State and Consumer Services $1,426,790

Labor and Workforce Development $834,349

General Government  $9,549,748

Legislative, Judicial, and Executive $5,661,159

TOTALS $137,327,827  (Link to the list)

 

However, $137.3 billion includes all state funds (General funds, special funds and bond funds). If federal funds are included, the total is $210.1 billion.

 

The following list reflects the break downs within the Department of Heath and Human Services – welfare and all it covers.

Health & Human Services Agency, Secretary – $200,996

*and within that one classification are the Secretary for HHS, The California Office of Health Information Integrity, and Office of Systems Integration
Emergency Medical Services Authority – $27,573 4100

State Council-Developmental Disabilities – $11,558

Statewide Health Planning & Development – $116,502

Department of Aging – $195,290

Commission on Aging  - $440

California Senior Legislature – $480

Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs – - -

Children & Families Commission –  $442,886

*notice the Medi-Cal Health Care Services: Department of Health Care Services – $60,953,112

Department of Public Health – $3,427,669

California Medical Assistance Commission – - -

Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board – $965,569

Department of Developmental Services – $4,682,613

Department of State Hospitals – $1,530,363

Mental Hlth Svcs Ovrst and Acntblty Comm – $6,671

Dept of Community Services & Development -$ 260,183

California Health Benefit Exchange – $39,421

Department of Rehabilitation – $421,287

State Independent Living Council  - $717

Department of Child Support Services – $998,798

Department of Social Services – $17,501,678

State-Local Realignment –  $4,347,047

State-Local Realignment, 2011 – $3,873,680

General Obligation Bonds-H&HS –  $66,531

Totals, Personnel Years and Expenditures — $100,071,064

The $92.6 billion fairy tale estimate put out by Brown’s office is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at the breakdowns for yourself HERE and HERE.

This is just a teaser. I will follow up with more…

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/09/browns-budget-doesnt-add-up/


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gov.’s Groundhog Day In California


JAN. 7, 2011

It felt like “Groundhog Day” on Thursday during Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal press conference. I had a flashback to January 2011. Listening to him make the same claims about the budget that he made all year proved that Brown has only one trick in his bag.

After attending all of Brown’s press conferences since he was elected, I have come to the conclusion that he is inept. He’s a tool. He’s a front man — the public face for those really controlling state government. He’s bought and paid for. And his staff is inept. The Department of Finance is inept. They’re all inept.

Or they are all corrupt.

Either way, these people should all be fired. They are highly paid impostors, pretending at playing “budget.” I’ve seen more sincere budgeting from circus carnies and grifters who have to live within their “budgets.”

One year of  watching Brown say the same things, and use the same expressions he has used at every news conference since his election, struck me the most, and angered me greatly.

The Old Familiar Budget Proposal

Brown said that his fiscal 2012-13 budget proposal is “straightforward and fair.”

We’ve heard that before.

So I started digging back into stories I wrote in 2011 while covering the governor.

On January 31, 2011, I wrote, “Earlier in the month, Brown proposed an ambitious budget plan to eliminate the state’s deficit and budget shortfall using spending cuts, borrowing, tax increases, and somehow locating $1.9 billion in ‘other unspecified solutions,’ in order to provide for a $1 billion reserve. The 2009 tax increases are estimated to net $12 billion, and they include a 1 cent increase in the state’s sales tax, a 0.25 percentage point increase in the state income tax and an increase in the vehicle license fee rate.”

It’s déjà vu all over again.

And on that date last year I wrote, “According to Brown’s budget proposal, in addition to the substantial cuts to Medi-Cal, CalWORKs, and the state’s universities, state employees pay will be cut by 10 percent — but only state employees not currently covered under collective bargaining agreements.”

Brown said on Thursday that he would be cutting the state workforce again, this time by 15,000. But when pressed, state Finance Director Ana Matosantos said that 15,000 have already been eliminated. Matosantos said that it was actually another 3,000 that would be cut, mostly Department of Corrections employees. But then she said that they weren’t actually going to be eliminated, but instead shifted to other jails and prisons.

In state government, cuts are not really cuts. Numbers are just moved to other columns. Employees are just given a different job, moved elsewhere or buried in another obscure department.

Believe What They Do — Not What They Say

Last year, Brown said that his realignment plan would return decisions and authority to cities, counties and schools, and would “allow government at all levels to focus on core functions, and become more efficient and less expensive” through reductions in duplicative services and administrative costs.

Is California government more efficient, less expensive and rid of duplicative services yet?

No. The state budget is actually increasing by $6 billion, Brown is creating a new state agency and increasing spending on nowhere projects.

In January 2011 I wrote, “During his inauguration earlier this month, Brown warned that “the year ahead will demand courage and sacrifice.”

He said that again on Thursday.

Last year, Brown spoke of the need for “tough choices” in the budget and pushed hard for a public vote on controversial tax extensions.

He used that one again on Thursday.

Last year, CalWatchdog’s editor-in-chief, Steven Greenhut, wrote about Brown’s proposed tax increases in Full Court Tax Hike Press, “He became even more direct and even shameless on Monday, as he compared this issue to what’s going in the Middle East: ‘When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia and other parts of the world, we in California can’t say now is the time to block a vote of the people from this process,’ he said in the Assembly chambers, in a prime-time speech.”

Brown made a nearly identical reference on Thursday, again comparing the California economy to troubled countries in Europe and Egypt.

But the broken record Brown has played all year is that he continues to offer voters the false choice of higher taxes or service cuts, while avoiding real, sincere, cost-saving budget reforms.

How To Save California’s Economy

It is evident by now that Brown is not a believer in free market principles, but he should be. The Department of Finance gurus should be as well.

CalWatchdog Managing Editor John Seiler wrote last year about a December 2010 Wall Street Journal article which Seilersaid, “highlighted a study by three economists who found that, over the past 37 years, nations around the globe reduced debt burdens only when spending cuts were on average 85 percent of a budget solution, with tax cuts only 15 percent.” Andrew Biggs, Kevin Hassett and Matt Jensen wrote:

“On average, the typical unsuccessful consolidation consisted of 53% tax increases and 47 percent spending cuts.

“By contrast, the typical successful fiscal consolidation consisted, on average, of 85 percent spending cuts. While tax increases play little role in successful efforts to balance budgets, there are some cases where governments reduced spending by more than was needed to lower the budget deficit, and then went on to cut taxes. Finland’s consolidation in the late 1990s consisted of 108 percent spending cuts, accompanied by modest tax cuts.”

“This is important because California’s tax increases should amount to no more than about $4 billion, with spending cuts at $22 billion,” Seiler wrote.

Their findings were practically a roadmap for California. The three economists wrote:

“Consistent with other studies, we found that successful consolidations focused on reducing social transfers, which in the American context means entitlements, and also on cuts to the size and pay of the government work force.

“A 1996 International Monetary Fund study concluded that ‘fiscal consolidation that concentrates on the expenditure side, and especially on transfers and government wages, is more likely to succeed in reducing the public debt ratio than tax-based consolidation.’ For example, in the U.K’s 1997 consolidation, cuts to transfers made up 32 percent of expenditure cuts, and cuts to government wages made up 21 percent.

Blah Blah Blah

In his 2011 inauguration speech, Brown said, “Choices have to be made and difficult decisions taken. At this stage in my life, I have not come here to embrace delay or denial.”

And last year Brown said, “The budget I present next week will be painful but it will be an honest budget.” Brown promised to spend only what is available in tax revenues while restructuring government services between state and local agencies. “The plan represents my best understanding of our real dilemmas and possibilities. It is a tough budget for tough times.”

In Brown’s recent “An Open Letter to the People of California,” he wrote:

“My proposal is straightforward and fair. It proposes a temporary tax increase on the wealthy, a modest and temporary increase in the sales tax and guarantees that the new revenues be spent only on education. … This initiative dedicates funding only to education and public safety — not on other programs that we simply cannot afford. … I ask you to join with me to get our state back on track.”

Greenhut had his own interpretation of Brown’s rhetoric:

“These increases will be gone in an instant, and I will be back asking for more money. The public safety money means protecting huge compensation packages for union workers, not for actually improving the public’s safety. The schools are substandard, but the teachers’ unions won’t let us get rid of bad teachers or improve schools with market-based reform. We will be taxing the rich more (watch how broadly we define that term!), and more of them will join the exodus out of the state. Of course, when I say millionaires, I don’t mean those many public employees who are retiring on the kind of pensions that only a millionaire could afford.”

Brown’s been great on the abolition of redevelopment agencies. But it is becoming increasingly clear that he is not making other necessary reforms, largely due to the labor unions in California who currently control the purse strings.

Like in the movie “Groundhog Day,” Californians wake up to find nothing has changed. Meet the New Brown, same as the Old Brown.

–Katy Grimes

CalWatchdog



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Assemblywoman Hayashi’s ‘Tumor’ Defense in Shoplifting Charge

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’

Katy Grimes: The strange news that a benign brain tumor is the real reason that Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi shoplifted at Neiman Marcus isn’t odd enough – today’s Sacramento Bee ran a front page, above-the-fold story again about Hayashi’s incident, but it was a kinder, gentler version.

“I accept responsibility and I offer apologies, not excuses,” the Bee reported that Hayashi said in a written statement. The title of their story, Mary Hayashi Apologizes For Unintentional Shoplifting, told the story.

The first reports after the shoplifting incident reported that Hayashi’s spokesman blamed the theft on her cell phone use at the time, which caused her to forget to pay. Now he says it might be a brain tumor.

Prosecutors said that Hayashi, who represents the 18th California Assembly District east of San Francisco, was caught on a security camera walking out of the store on Union Square with a shopping bag full of items she didn’t pay for.

Hayashi’s hired spokesman said she had been inside of Neiman Marcus in Union Square, and walked out of the store while using two cell phones. But she took three articles of clothing with her, dropped into a shopping bag that she brought with her into the store.

This is where details get a little fuzzy. I know that I’ve never unintentionally or intentionally put any articles of clothing into another shopping bag before walking out of a store, much less three pieces of clothing. And I have been known to talk on the phone while I shop.

“Hayashi was stopped by Neiman Marcus’ security detail shortly after leaving the store around 12:15 p.m. Tuesday with a shopping bag that included three items worth $2,450 that she hadn’t paid for when she checked out at the register, the district attorney’s office said,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Oct. 29. Hayashi allegedly stole leather pants, a black skirt and a white blouse worth $2,450.

Investigators say store security was tracking Hayashi after a saleswoman told security guards that she suspected the Assemblywoman of stealing a dress the week before.

The Bee reprinted Hayashi’s prepared statement:

“There were a number of personal factors that led to the situation where I made this absent-minded error,” she said. “My medical condition may have complicated the situation, however, I want to be clear that I take full personal responsibility for my actions.”

Hayashi said she is “taking steps to deal with my health” while continuing to serve as a legislator.

“After a lifetime of public service, this has been a painful experience — but one of my own making,” she said.

Who Is Sam Singer?

Hayashi’s hired spokesman, Sam Singer’s website states that he is “nationally known for handling some of most significant public affairs and crisis communications issues of the day.”

Ouch.

“Sam Singer has been dubbed ‘The Fixer’ by the San Jose Mercury News, a ‘Top Gun for Hire’ by the San Francisco Chronicle, and one of the most powerful people in San Francisco by 7X7 Magazine for his ability to turn the news around when things look dire for his clients,” his website said.

Several of the newspapers in Hayashi’s district have reported a surprising lack of sympathy from her constituents. ”My gut feeling, as a constituent, is that it’s a BS excuse in order to get out of her crime,” said Brian Morrison, who is president of the Castro Valley Chamber of Commerce but stressed that he is speaking only as an individual, the Bee reported in another story later in the day.

In Hayashi’s Brain Tumor Defense Gathers No Sympathy, reporter Steven Tavares from East Bay News, attended Hayashi’s court hearing Friday, and wrote:

If this woman who has quite assuredly ruined her political career with a deeply regrettable error one harmless day last October is now wrestling with her own mortality, don’t you think her husband would accompany her to face her fate in court? Instead, she was as alone as a public figure could possibly be. In addition, if Hayashi, whose reputation is in need of a significant overhaul, wanted to begin the healing by revealing the weight of brain tumor hovering over her life, she would have squared up to the cameras and told the world about the diagnosis herself. She didn’t. In fact, she squirreled away to pay her paltry $180 fine and later dodged the press.”

District Attorney George Gascon said his office would accept the judge’s decision, ABC news reported. ”She is a first-time offender. She has no criminal record. So while what she did is inexcusable and she needs to be held accountable for her actions, I think it’s appropriate to examine and explore all the different possibilities,” Gascon said.

I am not sure how Sam Singer is going to spin the District Attorney’s statement.

Remember that right after her arrest, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Singer called Hayashi’s arrest “a mistake,” and that “she had walked out of the store with the items unintentionally and intended to go back.”

But Singer also said Hayashi is “distraught by this misunderstanding … and she believes this will be cleared up in the near future.” He added, “She apologizes for any misunderstanding.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beware Thy Nosy Neighbor

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/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gravitas, Integrity and the GOP

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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Feds Insist On Rail Funds For CA

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.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California Runs Schools Like DMV


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/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Initiative Would Restore Citizen-Legislators

DEC. 13, 2011

By KATY GRIMES

Is California ready to return to citizen-legislators?

In 1966, voters passed Proposition 1A, creating a full-time legislature and an annual state budgeting process. Today, California is one of only a few states with a full-time legislature, and has the longest scheduled session of any state legislature in the country.

With 120 legislators working diligently to justify their full-time jobs, the full-time Legislature has created a culture of career politicians in California, and a labyrinth of heavy-handed state laws and regulations. Under the Democratic Party and organized labor control, not everyone in the state is happy with the way politics have become a profitable cottage industry.

There have been many legislative reform attempts to limit the power, size and scope of California’s Legislature. But these bills are forever assigned to stagnation on a dark shelf in the legislative Rules Committees, which refuses to assign reform bills to the committee process for hearings. This is just one of the reasons that many in California believe that the political process is broken and needs a complete facelift.

Ballot Initiative Filed

The California State Assembly, known as the lower house, has 80 members, 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. The upper house, the California State Senate, has 40 members, 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

California for two decades has had gerrymandered legislative districts. Although that might change a little next year thanks to Proposition 11, which voters passed in 2008. It created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which has devised supposedly less-gerrymandered districts.

Under the current system, and likely the new one, most of the 120 ruling state legislators are dependent for existence on labor unions and the ever-expanding public-employee tax waistline.

This has led to the filing of a constitutional amendment ballot initiative last week to make California’s Legislature part-time. The aim is to diminish the power of professional politicians and return control of the state to citizen-legislators.

Attempts to Limit the Legislature

In 1990, California voters passed term limits on the California LegislatureProposition 140 limited state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. Term limits impose a lifelong ban against seeking the same office, but that hasn’t prevented politicians from making soft landings to other appointed positions within state government.

Instead of leaving Sacramento after their terms are up, California’s legislators commonly either run for a seat in the other house, or find a way to get appointed to a well-paying state board or commission until they can run for another political office.

That’s what grates on voters. America’s government was formed using a citizen legislature, primarily with citizens who have a full-time occupation besides being a legislator. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and primary author of the Constitution, wrote that legislators should be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short period of office.”

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves by now.

States with part-time, citizen-legislatures include Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. Even Texas, with 25 million people, has a legislature that meets only every other year for 140 days.

Some states, by contrast, have a full-time, professional legislature.

However, the states with full-time legislatures — California, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania — have all suffered massive budget deficits, out-of-control public employee unions and unfunded public-employee pensions.

Initiative Filed

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, filed the constitutional amendment ballot initiative, along with People’s Advocate CEO Ted Costa, renowned for his leadership in the gubernatorial recall election of Gov. Gray Davis.

Grove ran for her Assembly seat as a private-sector businesswoman, and plans on going back to her business when her legislative terms are up.

If the ballot initiative is passed by voters, the California Legislature would meet no more than three months per year: 30 days in January, and 60 days in May and June. Governors would be permitted to convene special sessions, lasting no more than 15 days. Legislators’ pay would be scaled back from nearly $9,500 per month now to $1,500 per month, according to Grove.

But Grove has said that this is not an attack on legislators, and instead is only an attempt to take the perks and appeal out of the full-time job and bring it back to real public service, allowing anyone to run for office.

Most of the states pay lawmakers less than half of what California legislators are paid. Some pay much less than that: Nevada pays just $137.90 per day maximum for 60 days of session. New Hampshire pays $200 for a two-year term. Alabama  pays $10 per session day. Texas pays $7,200 per year. New Mexico only pays for legislators’ expenses; there’s no salary.

The larger, union-dominated states pay closer to California’s legislative wages, but not as high. Pennsylvania pays $78,314.66 per year. New York pays $79,500 per year. And Michigan pays $79,650 per year. Wisconsin only pays $49,943 per year.

The ballot initiative would require the Legislature to submit a balanced, two-year budget by June 15 in every other odd year, and would forfeit legislators’ pay for every day it’s late.

But the most significant change could put an end to the careers of the political elite: Legislators would be prohibited from accepting political appointments to state boards and commissions while in office, and for five years afterward. Many involved in the campaign say that this is probably as significant a change as making the Legislature a part-time body.

A long-time joke around the state Capitol is that the California Unemployment Appeals Board was created as a place for career legislators to land after they were termed out, to prevent them from being unemployed. There are currently four former state legislators on the board.

Critics and Supporters

There are critics of the measure in both parties. Some say that the Legislature needs to remain a full-time body in order to govern a state as large and economically diverse as California. Others say that Democrats don’t want to give up the power structure they have created, dominated by organized labor.

Last June, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-San Juan Capistrano, said she had mixed feelings about a part-time Legislature. She would rather see a limited schedule requiring lawmakers to work exclusively on the budget before any other legislation is introduced.

Assemblymen Dan Logue, R-Linda, and Martin Garrick, R-Solana Beach, have signed on as early supporters.

The Sacramento Bee reported, “John Vigna, spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Perez, said a part-time Legislature makes little sense in a state with one of the world’s largest economies. He also took a jab at Grove’s job performance.”

“This is an irresponsible proposal coming from someone who hasn’t put forward any real solutions to our long-term challenges,” Vigna said.

But that isn’t entirely accurate. Grove has proposed several government reforms, but can’t get the Democrat-controlledAssembly Rules Committee to assign the bills to other legislative committees.

Others ironically express support for a part time Legislature, saying that less damage can be done to the state with a limited, part-time body.

Some within the ballot initiative campaign are concerned that the Attorney General’s office could sit on the ballot proposal as long as possible, cutting into signature-gathering time. There are only 150 days to gather the 807,615 signatures needed to qualify the constitutional amendment initiative to the ballot.

“If the ballot initiative is passed by voters, we will see more Shannon Groves in the Legislature and fewer career politicians,” said one campaign insider. “They won’t be able to work on protecting their jobs anymore, and instead will work for the people of the state.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Assault on American Tradition

DEC. 9, 2011

A school district in Stockton has outlawed Santa and the poinsettia plant. But snowmen and snowflakes are okay.

The latest assault on Christmas is so ridiculous, it’s barely worthy mentioning. However, it makes clear that what is happening in America is not just an assault on Christmas, it is an all-out attack on American traditions, and the erosion of the American way of life.

Santa and poinsettias are not religious, but they are part of the American Christmas tradition, as is Christianity, also under assault. Yet according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, nearly 80 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. In 2009, a Gallup poll found that 78 percent of Americans identify as Christian.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that holiday shoppers, as they have for several years, would prefer to be greeted with signs reading “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” this season.

Americans’ time-honored expressions of Christmas tradition and Christian faith have become prime attack issues.  It would not be Christmastime in America without some small group of crazies being offended by it, and demanding the removal of Christmas trees, wreathes, decorations, and now Santa.

But scores of people find the generic “Holiday Trees” even more offensive. What holiday is being celebrated?

Self-Appointed Ruling Elites

Popular American culture has been terrorized for years by a self-appointed elite ruling class.  Ignoring the beliefs of most Americans, this small minority in government, academia and the mainstream media has dominated any rational discourse on American traditions, insisting that it possesses the conventional wisdom we all must follow.

Christmas As A Tradition

For most of America, Christmas is a tradition more than it is a strict religious holiday. The federal government recognizes Christmas as a federal holiday. But school districts across the county have taken it upon themselves to rid schools of Christmas, and all of the traditions that go along with the American holiday.

One teacher in California recently tried to change the words in “Deck The Halls,” replacing “gay apparel” with “bright apparel.” Fortunately, the school superintendant put an end to that absurdity.

The ACLU in Broward County, Florida told the community of Plantation that it could not put up its annual display of Christian and Jewish symbols, or the ACLU would sue, tying the community up in court for years. According to the ACLU, the display was “inappropriate.”

Political Correctness

Years ago, atheists demanded that public schools stop producing traditional Christmas pageants. Unfortunately, many Catholic schools followed suit. Instead of just answering children’s questions about the traditional holiday, teachers and school officials chose to ban all talk about Christmas.

While schools have been the hotbed of political correctness and the total destruction of Christmas, banks, and other public businesses have succumbed to the pressure of a tiny minority of radicals.

“Misinterpreting it as a freedom ‘from religion’ rather than the freedom ‘of religion’ it was intended to secure, our public squares have long since been stripped of nativity scenes, and the very word ‘Christmas’ is taboo in many of America’s school systems,” George Skaggs wrote recently in The American Thinker. “The federal government’s continual and insistent assault on the First Amendment’s establishment clause provides a perfect illustration of how the process works.”

However, America has always been an exceptional country, freer and more democratic than others, and where the individual is honored. But this is rapidly changing.

The erosion of rights and liberties in America is finally hitting home with many Americans. As children come home from school carrying official memos from district officials denying the practice of traditions, parents are outraged.

It’s not just an assault on Christmas; it’s an attack on the backbone of America.

Erosion Of Rights Through Government Expansion

The erosion of rights is exemplified by the increasing level of government spending, the bank bailouts, increasing state and federal regulations, Obama health care and cap-and-trade legislation. With every increase in spending by the government, working America must pay for it. But we are not just paying with increasing taxes; we are paying with our constitutional rights.

Americans cannot ignore that something fundamental is changing in this country. It’s not just excessive government spending, but also the attacks on American culture, the individual, and the core meaning of America.

Religious freedom and wealth creation opportunities in America inspired many immigrants to come here. People are free to worship as they choose in America. Our wealthy are wealthier than most of the rest of the world, and our poor have satellite television, cars, homes and cell phones.

But as long as the liberal elite continues to expand government entitlements, the political tension in America will only get worse. More handouts do not create more wealthy Americans. Handouts and entitlements only create a permanent class of Americans dependent on government, resentful of the private sector.

The Occupy protestors are evidence of the entitlement generation. Their demands of having a university education without having to pay for it, high-paying jobs, and higher taxes for the wealthy, are all unsustainable. We recognize their angst, but also see that it is not rooted in economic reason.  They should be protesting the enlarging government, and excessive government intrusion in their lives. They are a conundrum wrapped in an oxymoron.

The assault on Christmas is just one of many assaults on the American people. Americans need to protect our foundational identity — the very identity which has allowed the America to be a magnanimous, progressive, and tolerant country.

Merry Christmas, to you and yours.

– Katy Grimes

Tags: ,

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leg Hearing Crashes High-Speed Rail


DEC. 7, 2011

By KATY GRIMES

At a hearing on Monday held by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Select Committee on High-Speed Rail, rail authority board members continued to push legislators for approval to build the new rail system, while evading answers to legislators’ questions.

Legislators from both parties expressed skepticism in moving forward with rail construction plans. Committee Chairman Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, said that he was concerned with the role of the private sector in the project – or more accurately, the lack thereof.

Throughout the four-hour hearing, legislators repeatedly asked members from the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors where the money for the $98.5 billion project was going to come from. No answers or specifics were offered by Board Chairman Thomas Umberg, or from board members Dan Richard and Jim Hartnett.

With the lack of affirmative answers to legislators’ questions, it was surprising that the High Speed Rail board members did not say,  We have to build the rail system in order for you to find out how much it will actually cost.

They instead offered comparisons to the cost of air travel and the increase in gas prices as reasons to support the construction of a High-Speed Rail in California. When legislators pressed for information about the decision to build the Central Valley rail segment ahead of sections in higher density urban areas of the state, Umberg and Richard admitted that they were motivated by $3.5 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds — federal stimulus money.

The string attached to the ARRA funds is that the Central Valley segment must begin construction by the third quarter of 2012, and be completed in 2017.

“I am getting frustrated by getting jammed by the authority,” Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, said. “It is time for us to start planning as a state. I get a stiff back when I hear we have to start doing something. That we are getting $3 billion but spending $100 billion is a concern.”

Federal Control

Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, a vocal opponent of the operations by the High-Speed Rail Authority, said he is increasingly frustrated that the project was now in the hands of President Barack Obama and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “How much effort have you made and discussions have you had with LaHood or the Obama administration, so we are not hurrying through? What have your conversations been like?” La Malfa asked Umberg, Richard and Hartnett.

“We have to be under construction by September 2012,” Umberg said, dodging the question. “ARRA funding was created to stimulate the economy.”

Despite the elimination of federal high-speed rail funding by Congress, in September LaHood met with Gov. Jerry Brown in Oakland, where they had a “long discussion” about the high-speed rail project. “We are not gonna [sic] be dissuaded by a little bit of background noise of criticism, because there’s a loud, loud amount of support for high-speed rail in California,” LaHood famously said.

“Why do we have to accept it?” Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, asked Umberg, about taking the federal stimulus money. Gaines suggested that the authority should not accept the stimulus funds, and instead engage private-sector companies to build the most profitable segment of the rail system.

“Every year the project is delayed, we add several billion dollars to the cost,” Umberg said. “Around the world, every High-Speed Rail project is operating at a profit.”

Members of the audience at the hearing quietly gasped, and a hum of quiet comments could be heard immediately after Umberg’s comment, while others laughed.

Business Plan Inconsistencies

A recent report by the Legislative Analyst  found that future 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.”

Interestingly, the project has not completed all of the necessary environmental reports, and it is not likely that the rail authority will receive all of these approvals prior to the expected 2012 date of initiating construction, according to the LAO.

Legal Troubles

Adding to an already shaky reputation, a lawsuit filed in November in Superior Court alleges that the present High-Speed Rail business plan fails to meet crucial requirements of California law, and asks the court to prohibit California lawmakers from allocating the Proposition 1A bond money until the requirements are met.

Stating that its plan for the Central Valley portion of the rail line violates sections of Proposition 1A, the lawsuit contends that an operating subsidy will be needed for construction of the Central Valley segment. An operating subsidy is outlawed under Prop. 1A. And complicating matters, the first segment of the rail system won’t even run high-speed trains until the entire system is build.

With unrealistic cost estimates and poor management charges, even the least expensive segment of the entire system is becoming a financial and political nightmare.

Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, who represents the Central Valley, even questioned why the Central Valley segment would be the first to be constructed. Since this segment runs through California’s farming areas and less-populated Central Valley cities, Rubio suggested that bringing water back to the Central Valley would be far more advantageous to the area than a high-speed train. “Why the Central Valley? Why not build from Bakersfield to Los Angeles or San Jose to Fresno? Get to the heart of the project.”

———————————————————

Background

In the three years since voters passed Proposition 1A, the $9 billion High-Speed Rail bond measure, the High-Speed Rail Authority has spent $800 million. But no new track has been constructed, no new, super-fast trains are running and no private investors have committed.

In November, the High-Speed Rail Authority released its long-awaited business plan. However, the plan leaves many important operations and funding questions unanswered, and it does not address how the authority will acquire private investors.

Many are deeply concerned that the authority will attempt to start construction of the grossly overpriced Central Valley segment, leaving taxpayers with the bill. The $98.5 billion current estimate has many questioning the ongoing out-of-control spending in California, on this plan, and many other state agencies.

Following a scathing report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office in November about the draft High-Speed Rail business plan, a recent Field poll found that 37 percent of voters, who supported the High-Speed Rail bond measure in 2008, would vote against it today.

“The poll finds that if such a re-vote election were held, Californians would reject the $9 billion bond package by a wide margin – 59 percent to 31 percent, with 10 percent undecided,” the Field website states.

The LAO report found that the earlier High Speed Rail plans lacked critical detail, and said that the 2012 plan had “inconsistencies, deceptive numbers, and missing details.”

Glaringly absent from the plan was any acknowledgment or estimate of the cost of anticipated economic losses resulting from negative impacts to businesses because of right-of-way acquisitions and construction activities, or losses from increased traffic near rail stations.

Further damning the project, the LAO said that the rail authority’s business plan does not comply with provisions in Proposition 1A. And the LAO expressed concerns about questionable and apparently inflated cost comparisons of building a new High-Speed Rail system, to the cost of increasing highway, road and airport capacity.

“The plan includes limited information about the initial 130 mile long construction segment that would run through Fresno,” the LAO stated, critical about missing plan details.


This and other stories about High-Speed Rail can be found at CalWatchdog

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/12/07/legislators-skeptical-of-high-speed-rail/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jobless Rate Manipulations

Katy Grimes: Anyone who has taken a high school statistics class knows that it’s often just a bag of tricks. As one high school teacher told me many years ago, “Numbers are made to be manipulated.”

With the current election season ramping up, it appears that political consultants and politicians have brushed up on high school statistics, and are using the tactics to make lemonade out of a sour economy.

Jobless rate drops sharply to 8.6 percent” read headlines all across the country. Only 140,000 jobs were gained in November. Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

But left out of most of the stories is that the rate dropped because the federal government doesn’t count the 487,000 additional people who stopped looking for work in November – 347,000 more people gave up looking for work, than actually got a job.

The real unemployment rate should be upwards of 11 percent, if only the federal government actually counted people who stopped looking for work, as unemployed, and didn’t count them as “out of the labor force.”

Interestingly, the Los Angeles Times had a different spin: ”But the numbers also touched off the kind of partisan reactions that are likely to shape the debate over the 11 months remaining before the presidential election.”

Partisan reaction? The numbers don’t lie. It takes people to lie about statistics.

Here is great overview of November Jobs Report, from Mike Shedlock at Townhall.com.

  • US Payrolls +120,000
  • US Unemployment Rate Declined .4 to 8.6 percent
  • Civilian labor force fell by 315,000
  • Those Not in Labor Force rose by 487,000
  • Participation Rate fell .2 percentage points to 64.0%, nearly matching a low last seen in 1984
  • Actual number of Employed (by Household Survey) rose by 278,000
  • Unemployment fell by 594,000
  • Civilian population rose by 172,000
  • Average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.3 hours for the second consecutive month.
  • The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours in November.
  • Average hourly earnings for all employees in the private sector fell by 2 cents to $23.18
  • Government employment decreased by 20,000
  • The private sector has only recovered 33 percent of jobs lost in the peak-to-trough period of January 2008 to February 2010.
Shedlock added a couple more statistics:
  • In the last year, the civilian population rose by 1,726,000. Yet the labor force fell by 67,000.
  • In November, those “Not in Labor Force” rose by a whopping 487,000. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed.

“Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate is nothing  but a statistical mirage,” Shedlock wrote. “The official unemployment rate is 8.6 percent. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is.”

1,793,000 people have stopped looking for work in the U.S. How do you put a spin on that number?

DEC. 3, 2011

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789102829Next »